Liberal Predictability: Celebs, Blacks, Teachers
Some things are as predictable as showers in April, heat in August, and liberals any time of the year.
HEAD FOR THE HILLS, OF OHIO: For example, for whatever reason, it took almost ten years to enter the realm of public knowledge and even then it had to be revealed by the UK press that three noted libs embarked on a hastily-arranged 500 mile road trip in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Not that there was anything wrong with that; anyone living in the City of New York would have loved to flee the city although most were unable for various reasons to escape. The late Michael Jackson, Dame Elizabeth Taylor, and Marlon Brando were able to get out, and get out they did, via a rental car when Jackson was unable to secure a private jet since American air space was shut down because of the attacks.
Reports differ as to details of the trio’s flight to safety but Brando and Jackson seemed to have done all the driving, stopping only to gas up and to fuel up Brando’s insatiable hunger for fast food. They finally ended up in Ohio where, satisfied they were finally secure, they took refuge.
Taylor’s hangers-on deny it all of course, saying she instead went to church, tended to the displaced at some armory, and visited the still-smoldering Ground Zero. Oddly, there were no reports of Liz sightings at any of those locales and no reports of collapsing churches in the days after 9/11. Jackson’s retinue say he arranged safe havens for them in New Jersey. Brando had no apologists. (http://bit.ly/m0Ke4G)
RACE TRUMPS PARTY: In a totally unrelated but equally predictable liberal exhibition, black libs in Missouri have re-defined reapportionment as darkening the political landscape by dumping a white Democrat even though the result was a Republican gain.
It all happened because Republicans controlled both houses of the Missouri legislature, Democrats held the governorship, the Reps gerrymandered the state to strengthen black districts knowing they couldn’t win them, and tossed Dem congressman Russ Carnahan into a 49.5% black district.
The Democrat governor, Jay Nixon, loyal to his party, would have none of it and vetoed the scheme whereupon four black legislators joined the Republicans to override Nixon’s veto and screw the sole white Dem, Carnahan. . .
(Read ore at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4388)
Showing posts with label missouri. Show all posts
Showing posts with label missouri. Show all posts
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Glad Tidings!
Glad Tidings!
Positive, uplifting, encouraging, i.e., good, news rarely makes the wires mainly because most of the public seems to prefer to read and hear about mayhem, upheaval, and violence.
As they used to say, it sells newspapers.
Maybe such news renders the problems and turmoils in people’s private lives less oppressive and burdensome. As Tennessee Williams wrote, “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desparation” and perhaps he was right and negative news tends to cheer them up because it makes their lives less desparate.
Nevertheless, positive news events do occur even if the MSM isn’t much interested in publicizing them and even if positive and upbeat are often in the eyes of the beholder.
The revelation that 74 year old Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy has no intention of leaving the Court any time soon may not have gladdened the hearts of Obama supporters or of people in the administration but has to be considered a very positive piece of news to most Republicans, conservatives, and those who cherish American tradition and values.
With 24 years on the job, Kennedy may be no John Roberts or Sam Alito or Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas and is often a swing vote on the Court rather than an unvarying, staunch conservative. However, more importantly, he also is no Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, or Associate Justice-to be, Elena Kagan.
As such, occasional swing voter or not, Justice Kennedy is a proven asset to conservatives on SCOTUS.
A prime reason the public won’t hear much from the mainstream media about Kennedy’s decision to hang on is Kennedy’s thinking behind that decision. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1796)
Positive, uplifting, encouraging, i.e., good, news rarely makes the wires mainly because most of the public seems to prefer to read and hear about mayhem, upheaval, and violence.
As they used to say, it sells newspapers.
Maybe such news renders the problems and turmoils in people’s private lives less oppressive and burdensome. As Tennessee Williams wrote, “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desparation” and perhaps he was right and negative news tends to cheer them up because it makes their lives less desparate.
Nevertheless, positive news events do occur even if the MSM isn’t much interested in publicizing them and even if positive and upbeat are often in the eyes of the beholder.
The revelation that 74 year old Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy has no intention of leaving the Court any time soon may not have gladdened the hearts of Obama supporters or of people in the administration but has to be considered a very positive piece of news to most Republicans, conservatives, and those who cherish American tradition and values.
With 24 years on the job, Kennedy may be no John Roberts or Sam Alito or Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas and is often a swing vote on the Court rather than an unvarying, staunch conservative. However, more importantly, he also is no Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, or Associate Justice-to be, Elena Kagan.
As such, occasional swing voter or not, Justice Kennedy is a proven asset to conservatives on SCOTUS.
A prime reason the public won’t hear much from the mainstream media about Kennedy’s decision to hang on is Kennedy’s thinking behind that decision. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1796)
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Are There Love Crimes, Too?
Are There Love Crimes, Too?
For every yin there’s a yang, no? For every plus there’s a minus, no? For every good there’s an evil, no? So, why shouldn’t there be love crimes for every hate crime?
Well, no. Love crimes are only punishable by a face slap or a firm adieu.
The whole concept of “hate crimes” is an absurdity cooked up by minorities who pretend to believe that every insult, every malocchio, every slight infraction constitutes a crime of hate and must be punished by more severe retributive justice than your run of the mill, average crime.
Thus, if one gets knocked to the ground by a mugger who punches one’s face, kicks one’s ribs, steals one’s wallet but who never says a word in process, that’s just a crime. If someone is tripped and falls and the tripper says, “Take that, you filthy honkie!” then the tripper has committed a hate crime.
Hate crimes, though, only seem to happen to black and homosexual victims.
Go figure.
It’s all silliness, politically correct silliness that has the potential of condemning people to much longer prison terms than they deserve and, when they reach prison, woe unto him when other inmates learn they committed a crime of hate!
That’s almost as horrendous as being a child molestor and they will be manhandled accordingly.
Where is the ACLU when you need them?
Chances are that someday hate crime laws will be declared unconstitutional since they are targeted laws written and passed to mollify certain segments of the population spelled out in Wikipedia as “racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.”
With all those categories, hate crime rates occurred at the rate of 47 per every 100,000 people through 2006, hardly epidemic proportions even though hate crime laws were on the books in at least 45 states. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1545)
For every yin there’s a yang, no? For every plus there’s a minus, no? For every good there’s an evil, no? So, why shouldn’t there be love crimes for every hate crime?
Well, no. Love crimes are only punishable by a face slap or a firm adieu.
The whole concept of “hate crimes” is an absurdity cooked up by minorities who pretend to believe that every insult, every malocchio, every slight infraction constitutes a crime of hate and must be punished by more severe retributive justice than your run of the mill, average crime.
Thus, if one gets knocked to the ground by a mugger who punches one’s face, kicks one’s ribs, steals one’s wallet but who never says a word in process, that’s just a crime. If someone is tripped and falls and the tripper says, “Take that, you filthy honkie!” then the tripper has committed a hate crime.
Hate crimes, though, only seem to happen to black and homosexual victims.
Go figure.
It’s all silliness, politically correct silliness that has the potential of condemning people to much longer prison terms than they deserve and, when they reach prison, woe unto him when other inmates learn they committed a crime of hate!
That’s almost as horrendous as being a child molestor and they will be manhandled accordingly.
Where is the ACLU when you need them?
Chances are that someday hate crime laws will be declared unconstitutional since they are targeted laws written and passed to mollify certain segments of the population spelled out in Wikipedia as “racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.”
With all those categories, hate crime rates occurred at the rate of 47 per every 100,000 people through 2006, hardly epidemic proportions even though hate crime laws were on the books in at least 45 states. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1545)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)