Showing posts with label CHRISTIAN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CHRISTIAN. Show all posts
Sunday, April 22, 2012
"The Hunger Games"
"The Hunger Games"
The movie based on Susan Collins’ young adult trilogy, The Hunger Games, has less to do with hunger and games than it has to do with violence, mayhem, and just plain silliness.
The entire premise of the film is predicated on an absurdity and the action punctuates that absurdity with such elements as arbitrary rule changes in the 74 year old government-mandated tradition of kids killing kids for the entertainment of the elite and teenagers making decisions that are even dumber than the choices often made teens.
As the teens pursue one another, two contradictory rule changes that radically alter the games are implemented via strategically-placed loudpeakers in the forest; when a group of five form an unlikely alliance to track down and kill the protagonist and trap her in a tree, they decide to build a campfire and party rather than smoke her out with a fire under said tree.
To backtrack, in a futuristic, apocalyptic world, the all-powerful, wealthy, centralized “Capitol” government of Panem conducts nationally-televised annual holiday festivities featuring 24 poor kids aged 12 to 18 chosen by lottery from twelve, outlying, impoverished “districts.” With no consideration of their physical prowess to fight to the death of all but one participant, following a few days of training, the two dozen “tributes” are let loose to wreak havoc on one another while the ruling class watches the progress of the blood-letting on TV.
The winner? After murdering all the others, he or she gets to go home to the dismal life of poverty he or she had left before getting “lucky” in the macabre sweepstakes. The winner’s reward after grueling, bruising days of being hunted like an animal is more akin to a booby prize.
“The Hunger Games” does incorporate redeeming features, including the central character, Katniss Everdeen, played by 21 year old Oscar nominee Jennifer Lawrence. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=22168.)
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Accounting for the Tea Party, the OWS, and Tim Tebow
Accounting for the Tea Party, the OWS, and Tim Tebow
In the first part of a series titled, “What Sets the Tea Party Apart,” Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks asks, “What is the difference between OWS and the Tea Party?” a rhetorical question tantamount to asking the reader to distinguish a cesspool from a cathedral.
Kibbe might as well have inquired as to the difference between the Occupy Wall Streeters and Denver Broncos’ much maligned quarterback, Tim Tebow, who hasn’t publicly identified himself as a Tea Party member but who clearly shares their philosophy– and their condemnation.
The chief problem with the Tea Party and Tebow in the eyes of their detractors is that they represent everything their detractors are not. As for the OWS mobs, they should study up on the conservative movement and the conservative quarterback after, as Newt Gingrich suggested, they get a job and take a bath.
Many on the Left like to draw parallels between the anti-taxation Tea Partiers and the anti-everything Occupiers in a futile attempt to give a degree of credibility and civility to the latter. The two groups are as dissimilar as cleanliness and dirt.
Kibbe cites the 18th century English philosopher-economist Adam Smith in presenting his argument that the Tea Party is “set apart,” distinctive from other social movements by virtue of its commitment to what Kibbe describes with a single word, “accountability . . . the moral basis that binds a community, allows for cooperation, and enables human prosperity.”
I would add that the stark absence of a sense of accountability, compounded by an even more gross disinterest in civilized behavior, render the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations irrelevant except, of course, to the lives they have negatively impacted.
Adam Smith expressed that sentiment far more elegantly: “The most sacred laws of justice, therefore, those whose violation seems to call loudest for vengeance and punishment, are the laws which guard the life and person of our neighbour; the next are those which guard his property and possessions.”
Though few are calling for “vengeance and punishment” for OWSers other than the enforcement of existing laws, the accountability factor is key to understanding the phenomenon of relatively small masses of people trampling on the rights of the vast majority.
Matt Kibbe sees the issue as the realization of a concept Tea Partiers genetically inherited from America’s Founders and Occupy Wall Street somehow missed: “Don’t hurt other people and don’t take their stuff.”
The Tea Party respects everyone and hurts no one.
The OWSers respect no one, hurt everyone including themselves and seize whatever “stuff” they can get their socialist, grubby hands on, from public park spaces to the rights of others to property and livelihoods while injuring those parks, those rights, properties, livelihoods, and themselves by their utter contempt for fundamental principles of personal and societal responsibility.
Tim Tebow’s principal responsibility on the football field is to win games for the Denver Broncos and, if he accidentally hurts anyone in the course of executing that duty, he would be contrite and apologetic since, well, that’s Tim Tebow.
He has admitted that he is also accountable to God, religion, and ethical dictates and that antiquated attitude toward morality rankles many in the sports world.
His critics have attacked Tebow’s athletic talents but what evidently bothers them most are other accountabilities. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6358.)
In the first part of a series titled, “What Sets the Tea Party Apart,” Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks asks, “What is the difference between OWS and the Tea Party?” a rhetorical question tantamount to asking the reader to distinguish a cesspool from a cathedral.
Kibbe might as well have inquired as to the difference between the Occupy Wall Streeters and Denver Broncos’ much maligned quarterback, Tim Tebow, who hasn’t publicly identified himself as a Tea Party member but who clearly shares their philosophy– and their condemnation.
The chief problem with the Tea Party and Tebow in the eyes of their detractors is that they represent everything their detractors are not. As for the OWS mobs, they should study up on the conservative movement and the conservative quarterback after, as Newt Gingrich suggested, they get a job and take a bath.
Many on the Left like to draw parallels between the anti-taxation Tea Partiers and the anti-everything Occupiers in a futile attempt to give a degree of credibility and civility to the latter. The two groups are as dissimilar as cleanliness and dirt.
Kibbe cites the 18th century English philosopher-economist Adam Smith in presenting his argument that the Tea Party is “set apart,” distinctive from other social movements by virtue of its commitment to what Kibbe describes with a single word, “accountability . . . the moral basis that binds a community, allows for cooperation, and enables human prosperity.”
I would add that the stark absence of a sense of accountability, compounded by an even more gross disinterest in civilized behavior, render the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations irrelevant except, of course, to the lives they have negatively impacted.
Adam Smith expressed that sentiment far more elegantly: “The most sacred laws of justice, therefore, those whose violation seems to call loudest for vengeance and punishment, are the laws which guard the life and person of our neighbour; the next are those which guard his property and possessions.”
Though few are calling for “vengeance and punishment” for OWSers other than the enforcement of existing laws, the accountability factor is key to understanding the phenomenon of relatively small masses of people trampling on the rights of the vast majority.
Matt Kibbe sees the issue as the realization of a concept Tea Partiers genetically inherited from America’s Founders and Occupy Wall Street somehow missed: “Don’t hurt other people and don’t take their stuff.”
The Tea Party respects everyone and hurts no one.
The OWSers respect no one, hurt everyone including themselves and seize whatever “stuff” they can get their socialist, grubby hands on, from public park spaces to the rights of others to property and livelihoods while injuring those parks, those rights, properties, livelihoods, and themselves by their utter contempt for fundamental principles of personal and societal responsibility.
Tim Tebow’s principal responsibility on the football field is to win games for the Denver Broncos and, if he accidentally hurts anyone in the course of executing that duty, he would be contrite and apologetic since, well, that’s Tim Tebow.
He has admitted that he is also accountable to God, religion, and ethical dictates and that antiquated attitude toward morality rankles many in the sports world.
His critics have attacked Tebow’s athletic talents but what evidently bothers them most are other accountabilities. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6358.)
Sunday, August 7, 2011
The Perils of Rick Perry
The Perils of Rick Perry
What do former President James Earl “Jimmy” Carter and current Texas Governor James Richard “Rick” Perry have in common?
Well, they’re both Protestants although Carter is a Baptist and Perry a Methodist. They’re both from the South, although Carter was a Deep Souther and Perry is a Southwesterner. They both served in the military, Carter in the Navy as a lieutenant, Perry in the Air Force as a captain. They have both been married to the same woman for a gazillion years.
As for their differences, Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and was a failed president and is a bigger failure in his quest for a decent legacy in his post-presidency. Carter is an unreconstructed liberal and Perry a committed conservative. Perry has been a wildly popular, successful three term governor, and he terrifies Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats because he represents everything Obama isn’t and threatens everything they have wrought for the past 31 months.
They needn’t fear Perry since, as of now, he hasn’t declared for the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2012.
Nevertheless, true to form and recent tradition, Perry has already been the object of pre-emptive attacks by Obama’s hatchet men (and women) in the mainstream media on virtually every issue he has supported and for every value to which he subscribes.
A pro-life, fiscal and social conservative Christian, Perry opposes same-sex marriage, all of which positions would be considered more than sufficient reasons to arouse the ire of America’s pro-abortion, pro-taxation, pro-atheistic, anti-Christian Left. He compounds that ire by supporting the State of Israel, a policy anathema to liberals who favor Palestinian rights and all things Muslim.
Demonstrating an amazing hypocrisy, the Left has gone so far as to ridicule Perry based on his less than stellar undergraduate grades at Texas A&M. His transcripts were somehow obtained by one of Obama’s staunchest lackeys, the HuffingtonPost.com via an unnamed source and reputedly show he had a number of “C” and “D” grades, in addition to a few “A’s.”
HuffPo made no reference in its story on Perry’s grades to Obama’s refusal to disclose his Columbia University transcripts but did find space to print a conveniently-unsubstantiated comment by another–or the same?–source who allegedly said of Perry, “This was not the brightest guy around. We always kind of laughed. He was always kind of a joke.” (http://huff.to/qXGesb)
Perry has also been criticized for switching political parties. He was originally a Democrat and switched to Republican apparently for the same reason Ronald Reagan did. As Reagan once said, he didn’t leave the Democrat Party, it left him. That puts Rick Perry in excellent company.
However, what sticks in the liberal craw most and will no doubt be their prime future focus should he choose to run next year are not his political, social, or fiscal views, his previous party affiliation or grades. Rather, his adamantly-Christian religious views which he proudly wears on his sleeve and publicly professes from the podium will be used in an attempt to disqualify him. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5195)
What do former President James Earl “Jimmy” Carter and current Texas Governor James Richard “Rick” Perry have in common?
Well, they’re both Protestants although Carter is a Baptist and Perry a Methodist. They’re both from the South, although Carter was a Deep Souther and Perry is a Southwesterner. They both served in the military, Carter in the Navy as a lieutenant, Perry in the Air Force as a captain. They have both been married to the same woman for a gazillion years.
As for their differences, Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and was a failed president and is a bigger failure in his quest for a decent legacy in his post-presidency. Carter is an unreconstructed liberal and Perry a committed conservative. Perry has been a wildly popular, successful three term governor, and he terrifies Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats because he represents everything Obama isn’t and threatens everything they have wrought for the past 31 months.
They needn’t fear Perry since, as of now, he hasn’t declared for the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2012.
Nevertheless, true to form and recent tradition, Perry has already been the object of pre-emptive attacks by Obama’s hatchet men (and women) in the mainstream media on virtually every issue he has supported and for every value to which he subscribes.
A pro-life, fiscal and social conservative Christian, Perry opposes same-sex marriage, all of which positions would be considered more than sufficient reasons to arouse the ire of America’s pro-abortion, pro-taxation, pro-atheistic, anti-Christian Left. He compounds that ire by supporting the State of Israel, a policy anathema to liberals who favor Palestinian rights and all things Muslim.
Demonstrating an amazing hypocrisy, the Left has gone so far as to ridicule Perry based on his less than stellar undergraduate grades at Texas A&M. His transcripts were somehow obtained by one of Obama’s staunchest lackeys, the HuffingtonPost.com via an unnamed source and reputedly show he had a number of “C” and “D” grades, in addition to a few “A’s.”
HuffPo made no reference in its story on Perry’s grades to Obama’s refusal to disclose his Columbia University transcripts but did find space to print a conveniently-unsubstantiated comment by another–or the same?–source who allegedly said of Perry, “This was not the brightest guy around. We always kind of laughed. He was always kind of a joke.” (http://huff.to/qXGesb)
Perry has also been criticized for switching political parties. He was originally a Democrat and switched to Republican apparently for the same reason Ronald Reagan did. As Reagan once said, he didn’t leave the Democrat Party, it left him. That puts Rick Perry in excellent company.
However, what sticks in the liberal craw most and will no doubt be their prime future focus should he choose to run next year are not his political, social, or fiscal views, his previous party affiliation or grades. Rather, his adamantly-Christian religious views which he proudly wears on his sleeve and publicly professes from the podium will be used in an attempt to disqualify him. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5195)
Monday, February 21, 2011
Two Religions: Islam and Christianity
Two Religions: Islam and Christianity
Religion is an enigmatic concept, a dangerous, formidable enigmatic concept.
Broadly defined as”any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life,” termed “the opium of the people” by the Communist, Karl Marx, no matter its definition or twisted interpretations by atheists, virtually every human being on the planet professes a belief in one form or another of religion.
Yet, religion is and seemingly always will be the root of conflict.
In the not too distant past, religion in America, notably Christian religion, was a fundamental staple of life, before the raging winds of cultural and political changes relegated the belief systems to politically incorrect scrapheaps amidst an increasing amoralism, secular humanism, irreligionism, and nihilism fostered by political and social leaders.
That societal change is rendered most portentous by the relatively recent revivification of one of the world’s most prominent religions, Islam, which, in the name of its faith and 1.2 to 1.6 billion Muslim adherents worldwide and 2.8 to 10 million Muslims in America, has declared jihad, a religious war or struggle by radical and committed Islamists against non-Islamists.
Put bluntly, we are at war and we could lose.
With America’s religious guard down, if not buried, Mohammed Atta’s last words before the horrifically successful attacks of 9/11, “Allāhu Akbar (الله أكبر),” may be taken as the battle cry of Islam’s ultimate intifada against the West and they are attacking when we are the least morally prepared. Allah may not be the greatest but our god has been forgotten, if not abandoned.
Advantage: Allah.
This is not to suggest, either, that war is ever good nor that our god is necessarily superior to their god, although our god and his earthly delegates have invariably preached and striven for the right and the just, even as we mortals have often failed in those quests.
On the other hand, conquest, and death, and war and repression have never been the teachings of Christianity. They have long been standard operating dogma for Islam as promulgated by its holy prophet Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh since the seventh century and they are proven routes to at least temporary victory.
Advantage: Muhammad.
Religion alone will not save and preserve America and Western civilization from the Muslim onslaught, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3702)
Religion is an enigmatic concept, a dangerous, formidable enigmatic concept.
Broadly defined as”any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life,” termed “the opium of the people” by the Communist, Karl Marx, no matter its definition or twisted interpretations by atheists, virtually every human being on the planet professes a belief in one form or another of religion.
Yet, religion is and seemingly always will be the root of conflict.
In the not too distant past, religion in America, notably Christian religion, was a fundamental staple of life, before the raging winds of cultural and political changes relegated the belief systems to politically incorrect scrapheaps amidst an increasing amoralism, secular humanism, irreligionism, and nihilism fostered by political and social leaders.
That societal change is rendered most portentous by the relatively recent revivification of one of the world’s most prominent religions, Islam, which, in the name of its faith and 1.2 to 1.6 billion Muslim adherents worldwide and 2.8 to 10 million Muslims in America, has declared jihad, a religious war or struggle by radical and committed Islamists against non-Islamists.
Put bluntly, we are at war and we could lose.
With America’s religious guard down, if not buried, Mohammed Atta’s last words before the horrifically successful attacks of 9/11, “Allāhu Akbar (الله أكبر),” may be taken as the battle cry of Islam’s ultimate intifada against the West and they are attacking when we are the least morally prepared. Allah may not be the greatest but our god has been forgotten, if not abandoned.
Advantage: Allah.
This is not to suggest, either, that war is ever good nor that our god is necessarily superior to their god, although our god and his earthly delegates have invariably preached and striven for the right and the just, even as we mortals have often failed in those quests.
On the other hand, conquest, and death, and war and repression have never been the teachings of Christianity. They have long been standard operating dogma for Islam as promulgated by its holy prophet Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh since the seventh century and they are proven routes to at least temporary victory.
Advantage: Muhammad.
Religion alone will not save and preserve America and Western civilization from the Muslim onslaught, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3702)
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Gimme That Ol' Time Religion at the White House
Gimme That Ol' Time Religion at the White House
Ya think President Barack Hussein Obama smells an election coming and knows his Dems just may suffer a historic defeat on November 2? I do.
I concluded an earlier article on Barack Obama’s new-found religiosity–and it’s NOT the Islamic religion, I’ll have you know!–with the following: ”The mainstream, the center, is the source of all good things for politicians and in that center are 225,000,000 American Christians. Obama is tracking in that direction and thinks he can go ‘a hundred miles an hour’ as long as he has his plastic Jesus on board.”
That was a reference to Obama’s semi-retreat on his earlier pronouncement to the Muslim world that America was not a Christian nation, his statement last month that the U.S. is “still predominantly Christian,” his packing up the family to attend services at St. John’s Episcopal on September 14th, and telling a New Mexico audience (71% Christian) how deeply influenced he was ”by the precepts of Jesus Christ.”
See “Barack and His Amazing Technicolor Conversion,” http://tiny.cc/auv0q
Someone should remind the president that Christ didn’t much care for lying hypocrites. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2193)
Ya think President Barack Hussein Obama smells an election coming and knows his Dems just may suffer a historic defeat on November 2? I do.
I concluded an earlier article on Barack Obama’s new-found religiosity–and it’s NOT the Islamic religion, I’ll have you know!–with the following: ”The mainstream, the center, is the source of all good things for politicians and in that center are 225,000,000 American Christians. Obama is tracking in that direction and thinks he can go ‘a hundred miles an hour’ as long as he has his plastic Jesus on board.”
That was a reference to Obama’s semi-retreat on his earlier pronouncement to the Muslim world that America was not a Christian nation, his statement last month that the U.S. is “still predominantly Christian,” his packing up the family to attend services at St. John’s Episcopal on September 14th, and telling a New Mexico audience (71% Christian) how deeply influenced he was ”by the precepts of Jesus Christ.”
See “Barack and His Amazing Technicolor Conversion,” http://tiny.cc/auv0q
Someone should remind the president that Christ didn’t much care for lying hypocrites. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2193)
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Barack and His Amazing Technicolor Conversion!
Barack and His Amazing Technicolor Conversion!
Back in the old days, circa 1971 A.D., Don Imus, pre-WFAN and pre- his “nappy-headed ho’s” scandal, had a song-shtick on his morning radio show which featured the “Reverend Billy Saul Hargis,” pastor of the First Church of the Gooey Death and Discount House of Worship.
In part, the lyrics were, “Well, I don’t care if it rains or freezes/Long as I have my plastic Jesus/Riding on the dashboard of my car./ I can go a hundred miles an hour/Long as I got the almighty power/Glued up there by my pair of fuzzy dice.”
As irreverent as those lyrics were, our president may have outdone them in irreverence. He’s glued his plastic Jesus up there next to his framed picture of himself.
The same man who proclaimed to the Muslim world that America was not a Christian nation seems to have experienced a Christian epiphany comparable to that of Saul of Tarsus. Okay, Obama wasn’t knocked off his high horse and wasn’t blinded by a light but he must have had a startling epiphany nevertheless since he finally “got religion,” and the Christian religion at that!
Not one to often darken the doorways of churches since he tossed his pastor of 20 years under a Greyhound, along with the Reverend Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, Barack Obama has finally cleared the festering air as to whether he is a Muslim or a Christian: “President Obama took the issue of his faith head on Tuesday, telling residents in New Mexico that he is a ‘Christian by choice’ who came to religion later in life after being inspired by the teachings of Jesus Christ.”
Now, is that a heartfelt, sincere profession of Christian faith or what? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2029)
Back in the old days, circa 1971 A.D., Don Imus, pre-WFAN and pre- his “nappy-headed ho’s” scandal, had a song-shtick on his morning radio show which featured the “Reverend Billy Saul Hargis,” pastor of the First Church of the Gooey Death and Discount House of Worship.
In part, the lyrics were, “Well, I don’t care if it rains or freezes/Long as I have my plastic Jesus/Riding on the dashboard of my car./ I can go a hundred miles an hour/Long as I got the almighty power/Glued up there by my pair of fuzzy dice.”
As irreverent as those lyrics were, our president may have outdone them in irreverence. He’s glued his plastic Jesus up there next to his framed picture of himself.
The same man who proclaimed to the Muslim world that America was not a Christian nation seems to have experienced a Christian epiphany comparable to that of Saul of Tarsus. Okay, Obama wasn’t knocked off his high horse and wasn’t blinded by a light but he must have had a startling epiphany nevertheless since he finally “got religion,” and the Christian religion at that!
Not one to often darken the doorways of churches since he tossed his pastor of 20 years under a Greyhound, along with the Reverend Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, Barack Obama has finally cleared the festering air as to whether he is a Muslim or a Christian: “President Obama took the issue of his faith head on Tuesday, telling residents in New Mexico that he is a ‘Christian by choice’ who came to religion later in life after being inspired by the teachings of Jesus Christ.”
Now, is that a heartfelt, sincere profession of Christian faith or what? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2029)
Sunday, September 26, 2010
The Attempted Deconstruction of Christine O'Donnell
The Attempted Deconstruction of Christine O'Donnell
Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, and vile slander and vicious bile may be the surest evidence of fear, at least on the part of leftists.
We saw that trick played out with Sarah Palin in 2008, a tactical pattern which continues to this day demonstrating continued terror of her presidential candidacy in 2012. We’re witnessing comparable leftist slander and bile now with respect to the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from the state of Delaware, Christine O’Donnell and, indeed, of the whole Tea Party Movement.
That tactic of marginalization, defamation, and demonization of opponents is excerpted from the Saul Alinsky playbook. It’s not mere coincidence that our president was an ardent admirer of Alinsky during his days as director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago and earlier when he wrote an article which became chapter four in After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois.
Like stealth assassins, the Alinsky-ites move from candidate to candidate, from intended victim to intended victim, and it’s not surprising that, with the aid and comfort of the mainstream media, the left has now drawn a bead on Christine O’Donnell in what can only be called a literal witch hunt.
“At the prompting of New Age guru Jean Houston, [she] engaged in fantasy chats with [Eleanor] Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi, two of [her] heroes:” http://tiny.cc/r14ityc3bh
No, that wasn’t Ms. O’Donnell who conversed with people long dead, that was former First Lady, current Secretary of State, and perpetual wannabe president, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Those “chats,” seances, if you will, were conducted by Mrs. Clinton in the White House when she was in her mid-forties or early fifties.
I mention age only because Christine O’Donnell has admitted to her grave sin of “dabbling” in Wicca, in witchcraft–while she was a teenager in high school, those years when teenagers “dabble” in the most godawful, silly ideas and activities for which their natural immaturity is a valid defense.
Hillary was a full-fledged adult with no adolescent defense for being weird yet she escaped any serious derision or calumny. Christine is being defamed and ridiculed for her youthful silliness of a quarter century ago while she was studying earth science and intermediate algebra and sheepishly giggling in the school library when the school jocks strolled by. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1975)
Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, and vile slander and vicious bile may be the surest evidence of fear, at least on the part of leftists.
We saw that trick played out with Sarah Palin in 2008, a tactical pattern which continues to this day demonstrating continued terror of her presidential candidacy in 2012. We’re witnessing comparable leftist slander and bile now with respect to the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from the state of Delaware, Christine O’Donnell and, indeed, of the whole Tea Party Movement.
That tactic of marginalization, defamation, and demonization of opponents is excerpted from the Saul Alinsky playbook. It’s not mere coincidence that our president was an ardent admirer of Alinsky during his days as director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago and earlier when he wrote an article which became chapter four in After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois.
Like stealth assassins, the Alinsky-ites move from candidate to candidate, from intended victim to intended victim, and it’s not surprising that, with the aid and comfort of the mainstream media, the left has now drawn a bead on Christine O’Donnell in what can only be called a literal witch hunt.
“At the prompting of New Age guru Jean Houston, [she] engaged in fantasy chats with [Eleanor] Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi, two of [her] heroes:” http://tiny.cc/r14ityc3bh
No, that wasn’t Ms. O’Donnell who conversed with people long dead, that was former First Lady, current Secretary of State, and perpetual wannabe president, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Those “chats,” seances, if you will, were conducted by Mrs. Clinton in the White House when she was in her mid-forties or early fifties.
I mention age only because Christine O’Donnell has admitted to her grave sin of “dabbling” in Wicca, in witchcraft–while she was a teenager in high school, those years when teenagers “dabble” in the most godawful, silly ideas and activities for which their natural immaturity is a valid defense.
Hillary was a full-fledged adult with no adolescent defense for being weird yet she escaped any serious derision or calumny. Christine is being defamed and ridiculed for her youthful silliness of a quarter century ago while she was studying earth science and intermediate algebra and sheepishly giggling in the school library when the school jocks strolled by. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1975)
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Hyperbole Morphing into Reality: America's Looming Revolution?
Hyperbole Morphing into Reality: America's Looming Revolution?
It’s easy to engage in negative hyperbole in discussing the current president even if that exaggeration sometimes seems unfair.
His policies, his associations, the statutes and regulations he and his swampy congress have pushed through, the now-exposed media conspiracy to grease his way into office and cover up his gaffes and flaws, the national upheaval and divisiveness he has created naturally lend themselves, and him, to occasional, irrational overreaction.
No president has ever won the hearts and minds of 100% of the American people; even George Washington was disparaged by some former Tories. However, from his inauguration and in the campaign leading up to November 4th, 2008 when he so often slipped and tipped his hand as to his true designs on the country, this chief executive escaped general distrust.
At the inauguration he insisted on taking the oath of office using the middle name he never really used; during his run for the presidency he kept preaching but never defined “change” and slipped and admitted what should have been incriminating ideas such as his Saul Alinsky-Marxist plan to “share the wealth.”
The mass media let it all slide, never doing its job, never inquiring and investigating his reasons for suddenly invoking the name Hussein, never asking what specifically he meant by sharing the wealth and just how he would accomplish that redistribution of Americans’ hard-earned money.
The bitter fruits of his socialistic thinking and scheming are daily becoming more and more apparent so is it any surprise that people, many of whom supported and voted for him just 20 months ago, have become so disenchanted, frustrated, and furious with Barack Hussein Obama that their emotions sometimes get the best of them and they hyperbolize their feelings? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1820)
It’s easy to engage in negative hyperbole in discussing the current president even if that exaggeration sometimes seems unfair.
His policies, his associations, the statutes and regulations he and his swampy congress have pushed through, the now-exposed media conspiracy to grease his way into office and cover up his gaffes and flaws, the national upheaval and divisiveness he has created naturally lend themselves, and him, to occasional, irrational overreaction.
No president has ever won the hearts and minds of 100% of the American people; even George Washington was disparaged by some former Tories. However, from his inauguration and in the campaign leading up to November 4th, 2008 when he so often slipped and tipped his hand as to his true designs on the country, this chief executive escaped general distrust.
At the inauguration he insisted on taking the oath of office using the middle name he never really used; during his run for the presidency he kept preaching but never defined “change” and slipped and admitted what should have been incriminating ideas such as his Saul Alinsky-Marxist plan to “share the wealth.”
The mass media let it all slide, never doing its job, never inquiring and investigating his reasons for suddenly invoking the name Hussein, never asking what specifically he meant by sharing the wealth and just how he would accomplish that redistribution of Americans’ hard-earned money.
The bitter fruits of his socialistic thinking and scheming are daily becoming more and more apparent so is it any surprise that people, many of whom supported and voted for him just 20 months ago, have become so disenchanted, frustrated, and furious with Barack Hussein Obama that their emotions sometimes get the best of them and they hyperbolize their feelings? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1820)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)