2011 Sucked, 2012 Could Be Even Worse
On a personal, family level, 2011 was one of the worst years of our lives, but that’s our problem.
On national and world levels, 2011 sucked just as much with the added downer that, unlike us, 2012 holds the prospect of being even worse for the United States and the planet.
Of course, good things happened last year; they always do.
Navy Team 6 dispatching Usama bin laden was the highlight, an economy showing meager signs of improvement was less noteworthy but nevertheless a good thing, GOP candidates having the nerve to debate incessantly and make their opinions known to the electorate was a refreshing novelty, the stock market did fairly well, the Iraq War temporarily ended, and the number of abortions declined.
As is too often the case, the bad outweighed the good both at home and throughout the world in 2011.
Domestically, MSNBC and Bill Maher are still regurgitating, the economy is still wallowing in the doldrums, poverty is increasing as planned by the administration, our borders are farcical, and the nation suffered through a series of unprecedented natural catastrophes as well as social upheaval with 1960′s precedents in the persons of the Occupiers.
However, although Mother Natures’s onslaughts are inevitable and unavoidable, we are free to pull the plug on MSNBC and Maher, the economy will recover, the poor really aren’t really all that bad off, various states are attempting to perform the federal job of stemming illegal immigration, and the Occupiers are more and more recognized for the anarchists they are.
As opposed to those 2011 negatives with silver linings, above all else in the negative category is the fact Barack Hussein Obama still reigns as America’s Chief Executive.
Overseas, cataclysmic natural, economic, and political events were far worse than our own. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11968.)
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Barack-Hillary in 2012?
Barack-Hillary in 2012?
Bill Clinton’s old Secretary of Labor, the diminutive Robert Reich with an ego the size of Monica Lewinsky, is predicting a 2012 Democrat Party ticket of Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton to oppose the yet-to-be-designated Republican nominee.
In an article appearing on BusinessInsider.com, Reich concludes, “Obama-Clinton 2012. It’s a natural.”
If that prognostication were not enough to curl conservative hairs, Reich also thinks the bumbler-in-chief, VP Joe Biden, will switch jobs with Hillary and become America’s chief diplomat, Secretary of State, in a second Obama administration.
Alice could not have experienced more bizarre scenarios in that rabbit hole.
Admitting he has no foundation except intuition for his prediction, Reich believes Hillary is needed on the national ticket “to stir the passions” of a disillusioned Democrat base and because “Clinton would help deflect attention from the bad economy and put it on foreign policy, where she and Obama have shined.”
As an added bonus, Hillary would then be on the fast track for the 2016 Dem nomination.
There are more holes in Reich’s theory and in his shining observation than there are on all the golf courses in Hawaii. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11935.)
Bill Clinton’s old Secretary of Labor, the diminutive Robert Reich with an ego the size of Monica Lewinsky, is predicting a 2012 Democrat Party ticket of Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton to oppose the yet-to-be-designated Republican nominee.
In an article appearing on BusinessInsider.com, Reich concludes, “Obama-Clinton 2012. It’s a natural.”
If that prognostication were not enough to curl conservative hairs, Reich also thinks the bumbler-in-chief, VP Joe Biden, will switch jobs with Hillary and become America’s chief diplomat, Secretary of State, in a second Obama administration.
Alice could not have experienced more bizarre scenarios in that rabbit hole.
Admitting he has no foundation except intuition for his prediction, Reich believes Hillary is needed on the national ticket “to stir the passions” of a disillusioned Democrat base and because “Clinton would help deflect attention from the bad economy and put it on foreign policy, where she and Obama have shined.”
As an added bonus, Hillary would then be on the fast track for the 2016 Dem nomination.
There are more holes in Reich’s theory and in his shining observation than there are on all the golf courses in Hawaii. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11935.)
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
2011 Hopes, 2012 Realities
2011 Hopes, 2012 Realities
I began writing an article entitled “A Christmas Retrospective” with, “The eventful year 2011 now drawing to a close may have been one filled with natural, political, and sociological disasters yet it produced unmistakable signs that all is not lost for America and the rest of humanity.”
I recounted the earthquakes, tsunamis, and tornados, the Arab Spring which portended an Arab Winter and worsening national and international tensions, the Occupy upheavals suggestive of revolution supported by Barack Hussein Obama 201 and yet I decided 2011 wasn’t as much a debacle as it was a year of hope springing eternal for our beknighted planet and nation.
Scratch any suggestions of 2012 being an improvement on 2011. On re-consideration of my Chistmas-inspired attack of optimism, 2012 promises to suck big time.
In part, events occurring over the past few days forced the revisionism.
The mayhem resulting from the sale of Air Jordans, a Santa in Grapevine Texas murdering 6 relatives, riots over rappers at the Mall of America, and Tim Tebow’s Denver Broncos losing all contributed to a change of perspective.
Iran taunting the U.S. Navy in the Strait of Hormuz and Obama’s public approval rating rising to 47.1 didn’t help, either.
Still, it was an article by Professor James Petras on GlobalResearch.ca that convinced me my rose-colored glasses had been clouded by my cataracts . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11820.)
I began writing an article entitled “A Christmas Retrospective” with, “The eventful year 2011 now drawing to a close may have been one filled with natural, political, and sociological disasters yet it produced unmistakable signs that all is not lost for America and the rest of humanity.”
I recounted the earthquakes, tsunamis, and tornados, the Arab Spring which portended an Arab Winter and worsening national and international tensions, the Occupy upheavals suggestive of revolution supported by Barack Hussein Obama 201 and yet I decided 2011 wasn’t as much a debacle as it was a year of hope springing eternal for our beknighted planet and nation.
Scratch any suggestions of 2012 being an improvement on 2011. On re-consideration of my Chistmas-inspired attack of optimism, 2012 promises to suck big time.
In part, events occurring over the past few days forced the revisionism.
The mayhem resulting from the sale of Air Jordans, a Santa in Grapevine Texas murdering 6 relatives, riots over rappers at the Mall of America, and Tim Tebow’s Denver Broncos losing all contributed to a change of perspective.
Iran taunting the U.S. Navy in the Strait of Hormuz and Obama’s public approval rating rising to 47.1 didn’t help, either.
Still, it was an article by Professor James Petras on GlobalResearch.ca that convinced me my rose-colored glasses had been clouded by my cataracts . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11820.)
Sunday, December 5, 2010
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)
“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)
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
How To Blow Elections
How To Blow Elections
For a political party or for an individual, winning elections is usually a challenging task, an uphill battle–unless you’re the incumbent. On the other hand, losing elections is as easy as pie, as simple as not putting your heart and soul into the task of winning.
Just ask John McCain.
This coming November and two years after that Republicans have a rare opportunity to reclaim the House and Senate and, should they show they’re worth it, to win back the presidency in 2012.
It would be an almost unprecedented achievement, following two successive trouncings by the Democrats after which, just as in 1964 and 1976, they were declared over and done with, dead as a political party by many in the mainstream media.
At this point in time, the off-year election and the presidential election are the Republicans’ to lose given the widespread sentiment of anti-incumbency, the continuing collapse of Obama’s favorability numbers, and of his presidency, and given the overall dissatisfaction among the electorate with the state of the economy and the union.
Americans got more change than they bargained for with Barack Hussein Obama and are more than ready for a reversal.
Nevertheless, with minimal effort, Republicans are eminently capable of losing. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1521)
Friday, May 15, 2009
A Parable for 2012
Reflections on 2012 Part One: A Political Parable for Our Times
I’m aware it’s very challenging to reflect on the future so this could more aptly be called Prognostications on 2012, which isn’t quite true either since my crystal ball is on the fritz. It could be called Hopes for 2012, although that doesn’t fit either since they are more than wild Wishin’s and a Hopin’s for 2012. So, we’ll stick with Reflections on 2012.
That’s a presidential election year, by the way, the first chance the 53% of Americans who voted for Barack Obama will have the opportunity to repent the error of their vote and the consequences it has had.
There’s a ton of reasons for their repentance already, from the president’s tax and economic policies which will put our kids and grandkids in hock up to their elbows, to his social policies pushing homosexuality, abortion, and socialized medicine, to his international policies of grovelling and apologizing to a world which should be thanking us for saving its sorry arse from tyranny and subjugation.
America will have its first shot at rectifying the grave errors of 2008 in the congressional elections of 2010 and it’s a very good shot. Obama’s approval ratings may still be high, 62% according to some polls but a CBS/New York Times poll two weeks ago gave Congress a 28%. More significantly, every poll shows that rating slipping further into the toilet.
There will be no coattails to hang onto in 2010.
Of course, there are the leftist hardliners and union people blinded by Obama’s flickering light who would vote Democratic if he wanted their daughters served up to him to provide lewinskys, as long as Dems continued Obama’s current efforts and continued to pay those unions back for their support last November. Then there are the overlapping 40%+ of the electorate that pay no income taxes and want their gravy train to keep on rolling.
That doesn’t leave an awful lot of the pie left for hungry conservatives and untainted Republicans, but it’s enough, especially considering new brides.
What?
This first reflection on 2012 isn’t claimed as original. I believe I first heard it from Rush Limbaugh and it centers on what could be called the “New Blushing Bride Theory.” Let’s call that bride Suzie, for no special reason. I offer my elaboration on said postulation in the form of a political parable:
Suzie wasn’t exactly the shiniest crayon in the box but she was essentially a good and caring person, even if she were a tad on the flighty side. She had been disillusioned by her first love, let’s call him Bubba, and had generally been unhappily in love for a number of years.
Then she met a new guy way back in 2000, a new heart throb, let’s call him George, who swept her off her feet. However, he didn’t work out and she felt neglected, if not abused.
Suzie had married George and all seemed wondrous for a number of years. A major crisis arose in 2001 and he dealt with it professionally and admirably. Even her buddies who had never cared much for George conceded that and Suze was extraordinarily proud of him.
They renewed their vows four years later and all was going along relatively swimmingly even if George had this penchant for profligacy. On top of that, it seemed that everything she heard about him was bad, that he was stupid, insensitive, and a bully. The fact he always seemed to mangle what he was talking about at first seemed cute but came to weigh on her.
When George started playing games with her bank account, spending her money as if it were his, Suzie gradually lost confidence in him. And the couple’s financial situation worsened.
By 2008, she had lost her job, their finances were in an atrocious mess, and Suzie and George were spatting constantly. As noted, she was a bit flighty, fickle, in fact, and she began dreaming of being rescued by a knight on a white horse, or something like that.
A veritable miracle then occurred: That knight in shining but tarnished armor did came along, let’s call him Barry.
She didn’t personally know much about Barry but everyone was saying how great he was and whenever she saw him her heart again went all pittypat, just as it had with George but with even more intense pittying and pattying.
Long story short: . . .(Read the rest of this parable and its meaning at http://genelalor.com/)
I’m aware it’s very challenging to reflect on the future so this could more aptly be called Prognostications on 2012, which isn’t quite true either since my crystal ball is on the fritz. It could be called Hopes for 2012, although that doesn’t fit either since they are more than wild Wishin’s and a Hopin’s for 2012. So, we’ll stick with Reflections on 2012.
That’s a presidential election year, by the way, the first chance the 53% of Americans who voted for Barack Obama will have the opportunity to repent the error of their vote and the consequences it has had.
There’s a ton of reasons for their repentance already, from the president’s tax and economic policies which will put our kids and grandkids in hock up to their elbows, to his social policies pushing homosexuality, abortion, and socialized medicine, to his international policies of grovelling and apologizing to a world which should be thanking us for saving its sorry arse from tyranny and subjugation.
America will have its first shot at rectifying the grave errors of 2008 in the congressional elections of 2010 and it’s a very good shot. Obama’s approval ratings may still be high, 62% according to some polls but a CBS/New York Times poll two weeks ago gave Congress a 28%. More significantly, every poll shows that rating slipping further into the toilet.
There will be no coattails to hang onto in 2010.
Of course, there are the leftist hardliners and union people blinded by Obama’s flickering light who would vote Democratic if he wanted their daughters served up to him to provide lewinskys, as long as Dems continued Obama’s current efforts and continued to pay those unions back for their support last November. Then there are the overlapping 40%+ of the electorate that pay no income taxes and want their gravy train to keep on rolling.
That doesn’t leave an awful lot of the pie left for hungry conservatives and untainted Republicans, but it’s enough, especially considering new brides.
What?
This first reflection on 2012 isn’t claimed as original. I believe I first heard it from Rush Limbaugh and it centers on what could be called the “New Blushing Bride Theory.” Let’s call that bride Suzie, for no special reason. I offer my elaboration on said postulation in the form of a political parable:
Suzie wasn’t exactly the shiniest crayon in the box but she was essentially a good and caring person, even if she were a tad on the flighty side. She had been disillusioned by her first love, let’s call him Bubba, and had generally been unhappily in love for a number of years.
Then she met a new guy way back in 2000, a new heart throb, let’s call him George, who swept her off her feet. However, he didn’t work out and she felt neglected, if not abused.
Suzie had married George and all seemed wondrous for a number of years. A major crisis arose in 2001 and he dealt with it professionally and admirably. Even her buddies who had never cared much for George conceded that and Suze was extraordinarily proud of him.
They renewed their vows four years later and all was going along relatively swimmingly even if George had this penchant for profligacy. On top of that, it seemed that everything she heard about him was bad, that he was stupid, insensitive, and a bully. The fact he always seemed to mangle what he was talking about at first seemed cute but came to weigh on her.
When George started playing games with her bank account, spending her money as if it were his, Suzie gradually lost confidence in him. And the couple’s financial situation worsened.
By 2008, she had lost her job, their finances were in an atrocious mess, and Suzie and George were spatting constantly. As noted, she was a bit flighty, fickle, in fact, and she began dreaming of being rescued by a knight on a white horse, or something like that.
A veritable miracle then occurred: That knight in shining but tarnished armor did came along, let’s call him Barry.
She didn’t personally know much about Barry but everyone was saying how great he was and whenever she saw him her heart again went all pittypat, just as it had with George but with even more intense pittying and pattying.
Long story short: . . .(Read the rest of this parable and its meaning at http://genelalor.com/)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)