"Saturday Night Live": Obama's Bootlicker

"Saturday Night Live": Obama's Bootlicker

Question: What’s the difference between members of the Democrat National Committee and the cast of “Saturday Night Live?”




Answer: Not much, except that the people on the DNC get paid a lot less than the comedians on ”SNL.”



I used to enjoy watching ”Saturday Night Live.” I mostly liked the bride’s eye-rolling and feigned shock at some of the sketches.



When it debuted on NBC in 1975 featuring ”not ready for prime time players” such as John Belushi, Jane Curtin, Chevy Chase, Gilda Radner, et al., the show was usually funny if occasionally off-color and edgey. ”SNL” was always politically correct back then yet it poked caustic fun in almost every direction.



No more. The show has repeatedly demonstrated it has the same goals as the DNC, re-electing President Barack Hussein Obama. It simply employs one-sided, partisan humor to advance that aim as opposed to directly funding Democrats.



Times and “SNL” have radically changed, especially since the appearance on the political scene of Barack Hussein Obama.



Aside from regularly ridiculing the presumptive GOP nominee for president, Mitt Romney, just as their cadre of late night comedians like Letterman, Leno, Fallon, Stewart, et al. incessantly do, “SNL” has now apparently upped the ante by allowing Obama and Company to censor its content.



In deference to complaints by arch-racial agitator Rev. Jesse Jackson and in conformity with a concerted effort to compensate for alleged discrimination toward African-Americans in the entertainment industry, Hollywood and television producers caved and today blacks are more than well-represented on the silver and TV screens.



They bent over backwards, upside-down and every whichway to assure blacks that the entertainment industry was not only not racist but that they would slander conservatives in the process in order to prove their how liberal they were.



DailyCaller.com revealed that “SNL” has caved again, this time to advance the Obama 2012 re-election campaign.



Last Saturday, Lorne Michael scrapped the show’s planned and written opening skit mocking the president’s shameless efforts to suggest he was primarily responsible for killing mastermind 9/11 terrorist Osama bin Laden last May in Pakistan.



In Obama’s historical revisioning, SEAL Team 6, then-CIA director Leon Panetta, Admiral William McRaven, and a host of other advisors became secondary to his incredible courage in ordering the assault on bin Laden’s Abbotabad compound–after months of indecision.



Truth is usually less humorous than fantasy so “SNL” opted to . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=23331.)

Dogs in Politics

Dogs in Politics

Anyone who doubted the 2012 election has gone to the dogs should read on.

For months now, Dirty Dave Letterman has regularly featured a spoof of Mitt Romney driving a car with his dog pathetically dangling from the roof patting a side window.

In fact, there’s a grain of truth in the spoof. Almost 30 years ago, Romney had installed a carrier replete with a windshield on the roof of the family car so that they could take their irish setter, Seamus, with them on vacation rather than send him to a kennel for two weeks.

It was all in good fun for Letterman who likes to ridicule Republicans–but never maligns Democrats–for one thing or another as when he mocks Herman Cain for his alleged dalliances, Newt Gingrich for his double chins, Chris Christie for his weight, Rick Santorum for his campaign against pornography, etc.

Letterman even finds raucus humor in the names “Herman,” “Newt,” and “Mitt” though he finds nothing funny about “Barack.”

Romney’s “Dog on the Roof” story, of course, gave rise to fierce attacks on the governor for his falsely perceived insensitivity toward animals which numerous Obama mainstream media outlets extrapolated to showing evidence Romney has contempt for the human animal.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PETA, found Romney’s actions disgraceful and cruel.

Contrast that insensitivity to Michelle Obama’s confession on Letterman that the Obama clan’s portugese water dog, Bo, is her son: “I have two girls–and a boy.”

And, he doesn’t look anything like Trayvon Martin!

There has been no comment from either the FLOTUS or the White House or from most of the MSM on her hubby’s boyhood diet as revealed in his memoir, Dreams of My Father.”

That diet included “small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat . . ."(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=21912.)

Barack Hussein Obama Will Win Re-Election (Part Two)

Barack Hussein Obama Will Win Re-Election (Part Two)

Part One of this very mini series examined some reasons why Barack Hussein Obama is virtually guaranteed to win his re-election bid.

My opinion–which I pray to God is wrong– was based on the probability of Obama conducting the dirtiest campaign in over a century, his faux-populist platform setting class against class and race against race, and plans to spend a billion dollars or more to fool the American people into giving him four more years.

However, that prediction was made not as much on those factors as on the fact Obama has locked up various constituencies that will cast their ballots for more of the same no matter what the president has done to the country to date or what else he will do before November 6th.

Most African-Americans, Jews, and homosexuals will vote for Obama seven months from now, giving him some 17% of the electorate.

So, too, will a sufficient number of Latinos and those still suffering from the malady of white guilt to give him the 270 electoral votes he needs to be “flexible” in order to accomplish his goal of changing America into a land that would have caused the Founding Fathers to retch.

In addition, many Republican conservatives will choose to shoot themselves in both feet by staying home on Election Day and thereby help re-elect the president out of pique that Mitt Romney isn’t conservative enough or because he has flip-flopped on issues almost as often as Obama.

. Latinos. Due to Obama’s policies and those of his immediate predecessor, George W. Bush, with regard to illegal immigration, hispanics in America now constitute 16.3% of the population, over 50 million people, an estimated 11 million of whom entered the United States illegally.

Regardless of which president is most responsible for the illegal influx, the reality at this point is that they are here and only an unprecedented, massive, federal deportation program will change the situation, and that’s not going to happen under any administration.

Legal or illegal, with notable exceptions Latinos are an industrious, hard-working, religious, and fundamentally conservative group, characteristics that should classify them as Republicans yet 67% voted for Obama in 2008.

The reasons for that majority are multiple and complex but boil down to the successful Democrat Party effort to make hispanics, legal and illegal, feel at home in the U.S., feel that Democrats care and will take care of them, feel they should vote for Obama because Republicans don’t make them feel at home and won’t “take care of them.”

According to a recent poll from the Democrat campaign, 73% of them will vote Obama in November, adding as many as 10 points to Obama’s tally for a total of 27%.

. White Guilt. The “white guilters” are the wild card in the coming election. They consist of Caucasians who were torn in 2008 over the long-ended horrors of slavery, felt guilty that some white guys like Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and sought absolution for the sins of their long-dead forbears by voting for the son of Marxists.

White guilters rarely admit . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=21745.)

Barack Hussein Obama Will Win Re-Election (Part One)

Barack Hussein Obama Will Win Re-Election (Part One)

As difficult as it is to concede, barring a disaster or intercession by an almighty power, President Barack Hussein Obama will win re-election on November 6th. The final vote tally will be far from a landslide but a sufficient proportion of the electorate will ensure the president serves another disastrous term.

That prediction is based on a variety of factors not the least of which is the widely-held expectation that Obama and all the president’s men and women will wage the dirtiest campaign since the populist Andrew Jackson beat the Democrat-Republican John Quincy Adams in 1828.

Obama will also win on a populist platform predicated on calculated distortions and misrepresentations supplemented by his hole cards of racial and class warfare and he will be bankrolled with a billion dollar campaign treasury.

However, the principal reason he will emerge victorious is not the nefarious tactics he and his minions will employ but that he has locked up various constituencies which will cast Democrat ballots because they almost always have and despite compelling reasons to vote otherwise.

Those constituencies in order of Democrat allegiance:

. African-Americans. Understandably, blacks chose a fellow, if semi, African-American in 2008 because, well, because he was almost black. If I were a black man, I would have supported him simply because of his race and centuries of oppression and disenfranchisement. However, the second time around, I would have supported the candidate who would best serve the interests of the country.

Thirteen percent of the electorate, fully 96% of blacks, voted for Obama four years ago versus 43 percent of whites. While the 96% was anticipated, the 43% reflected the amazing number of “white guilters” who felt it was time for a minority presence in the White House regardless of his lack of qualifications and experience as belated recompense for the enslavement of Obama’s forebears.

In spite of the fact the president has done as little for blacks–aside from hiring them in record numbers and for highly visible positions–as he has for other races, the African-American community is a sure bet to go for Obama in 2012 by margins approximating 2008 particularly but not exclusively due to his politicizing the tragic death of Trayvon Martin.

Chalk up around 13% for Obama.

. Jewish Americans. Jews are by nature and history liberal since they have been discriminated against even longer than blacks. They have endured oppression and slavery for thousands of years, and have been Democrats for as long as there has been an America.

Nevertheless, there is ample cause for Jews to abandon their loyalties to the Democrat Party this year , . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=21640.)

The Decline and Fall of Barack Hussein Obama

The Decline and Fall of Barack Hussein Obama

At the risk of wishful thinking and of putting the kibosh on the wish by articulating it, signs are everywhere that President Barack Hussein Obama is on the way out.

Putting aside the facts that an obscure two-year United States senator whose administrative experience was nil, whose chief claim to fame was serving as a political hack organizing communities in Chicago, whose past was filled with unsavory associations, and no reasonable person considered him qualified to hold the most powerful position on the planet in the first place, the handwriting has been all over the White House walls indicating that come January, 2013 Obama will be viewing those walls from the outside.

In anticipation of his departure and to save face, the president expressed his feelings on joining the unemployment rolls he has done nothing to reduce and which his policies have virtually chiseled in stone, Obama has said he may very well be a one-termer.

From his mouth to God’s and Allah’s ears.

In view of Obama’s actions and inactions from the beginning of his presidency and most recently, all signs point to both his realization he had no rational expectation to have won the office in 2008 and that, since he did win, he and his family would milk it for all it was worth and that he would try to inflict as much of his leftist-socialist ideology on the nation in four years as he possibly could.

In the true beginning there was the Word. In Obama’s beginning, there was subterfuge and the only transparency has been an obvious inclination to drain every last ounce of advantage, every extravagant vacation, every party and golf outing, every campaign tour he could at taxpayer expense.

He preached transparency, and there was none. He promised to be different and he was diiferent but worse. He committed to change, and the changes he has accomplished are changes only the most devout leftists believe have been beneficial.

Obama and his Democrat Congress foisted on the American people the most unpopular health legislation in history, Obamacare, passed with no regard for the consequences to the well-being of the vast majority, as if those consequences didn’t matter, and they didn’t.

IOwntheWorld.com listed many of the ugly truths about this president that didn’t seem to matter to his worshipful mainstream media, truths and revelations which would have ended most candidates’ presumptions to lead the Free World.

Some would have ruled him out to govern Uzbekistan based on his bizarre appointments of tax cheats, left wing extremists, avowed Marxists, homosexual activists, and inept former convicts, based on his foreign policies that embittered allies, based on domestic policies that included failure to defend our borders, based on a background more suitable for a committed subversive than for a president.

Still, what this president and his administration have done lately even more strongly reinforce the view that Obama is resigned to surrendering not only the perks of his office but his ability to utilize that office to satisfy his handlers’ demands for change they believe in and desperately crave. (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=8367.)

How to Lose an Election

How to Lose an Election

Definitive results of Republican preferences for their party’s 2012 nominee for president of the United States are far from in although thousands have expressed their opinions in non-binding state straw polls. There won’t be any real results until the numbers from the January 3rd Iowa caucuses and January 1oth New Hampshire primary are tabulated.

Still, based on early polls, the debates, educated guesses, and inconsequential straw ballots, pundits and non-pundits alike have a gut feeling on who will snag the gold GOP ring and, perhaps more importantly, who should be the nominee’s choice for a running mate.

As of now, it looks like former Massachusetts governor Willard Mitt Romney for the top spot. Assuming Mitt wants to win on November 6th,2012, he will pick Florida’s Senator Marco Antonio Rubio to run with him against President Barack Hussein Obama and Person-to-be-Named-Later, after Obama tests how the fickle political winds are blowing.

Designated late night Democrat hatchetmen Leno and Letterman would have tons of idiotic fun poking ridicule at “Willard” and “Marco” while ignoring the equivalent hilarity of “Barack” and his comical gaffes and ineptitude but they won’t get the chance unless Willard and Marco share the GOP ticket.

As we all know, things can change quickly and dramatically in the world of contemporary politics. Witness New York Senator Hillary Clinton’s unexpected fade in the 2008 Democrat presidential sweepstakes and, more recently, Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s and Gov. Rick Perry’s falls from grace among Republicans.

We also know the sheer terror Rubio has struck in the liberal minds and soul-less hearts of Obama’s MSM as seen in the current campaign by the Washington Post, et al. to deconstruct Rubio based on an innocent error concerning the date of his parents’ flight from Castro’s Cuba. The lib theory seems to be, when you have nothing, go with it, the same angle they unsuccessfully used on Herman Cain.

Good man that he is, Cain can’t be elected despite his recent popularity; he’s even more inexperienced and unqualified to be president than a certain community organizer was three years ago and lacks the advantage of mainstream media backing him and concealing his flaws.

Barring some catastrophic event, a Hillary insurrection, or Obama pulling an LBJ, he will head the Democrat ticket next year and, barring a miracle, Romney will be the Republican nominee. He will then have to decide whether to beat Obama or try once again to win in 2016. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5846.)

Another Day that May Live in Infamy Part Two

Another Day that May Live in Infamy--November 6. 2012 Part Two

“Another Day that May Live in Infamy–November 6, 2012 Part One” was premised on the very reasonable idea that on the next presidential election date America would have perhaps the last best chance to reverse our current course or to sign on to the self-destructive same ol’ of the last two years. It will be America’s call to re-elect Barack Hussein Obama or not.

As stated in the previous article, “With that looming reality–a scary reality that makes Hillary look good–it is worthwhile to give consideration to what Obama Two, four more years in the White House for the man who has already wreaked general havoc with America’s economy at the same time he has undermined America’s standing in the world community, undermined Americans’ confidence in America, and undermined, perhaps irremediably, America’s future:” http://tiny.cc/ezkiv

The enormity of the challenges we as a people and a nation face today, challenges both domestic and international, unprecedented challenges, if not met head-on with committed fortitude and skilled leadership, could lead to consequences that are beyond imagining.

No where would those consequences be more profoundly felt than in a president’s constitutional right to nominate Supreme Court justices, subject to confirmation by the United States Senate. With his re-election, Obama would have four more years to perpetrate his agenda. With an obsequious Democrat Senate and a complaisant, like-minded SCOTUS on his side, he could influence national thought and policy for twenty or thirty years.

Two years into his tenure, Obama has accomplished nothing insofar as changing the complexion of SCOTUS. He has succeeded in getting new faces on the Court but the two people he nominated merely added more female hormones and no additional liberal votes since they replaced other liberal justices.

To believe this obsessive, ideologically-driven president isn’t chomping at his leftist bit in anticipation of making SCOTUS an Obama Court with far-reaching influence is to be oblivious of how deeply he craves judicial change to complement the radical societal and economic changes he has already implemented.

Four more years in office will undoubtedly afford him at least two and possibly more opportunities to alter both the face and the majority philosophy of the Court, alterations which would take generations to reverse, radical changes in which Obama deeply believes and which could be far more catastrophic than almost any terrorist attack.

America has demonstrated that it can recover from virtually any attack and Obama has already publicly, re-assuredly, professed his confidence that we can “bounce back” from even terrorist nuclear assaults. Recovery from 20 or 30 years of liberal dominance of SCOTUS isn’t nearly as assured which only reinforces the idea that November 6, 2012 represents a watershed, a critical election which will not only determine where we go from there but where we as a nation end up.

Our next general Election Day will be a day which will live in infamy or a day to which Americans may look back and say, “That’s when we saved the country.” Based on Obama’s track record to date, the former designation is much more probable than the latter. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2911)