Rancid Muslim Odors Permeate the Case of Major Malik Nidal Hasan

Rancid Muslim Odors Permeate the Case of Major Malik Nidal Hasan

Many things stink in President Barack Hussein Obama’s administration and some of them stink to high heaven.




The major stinkers include the sneaky passage of Obamacare under a Democrat cloak of secrecy and everything associated with that socialistic monstrosity, the blatant black racism in the Department of Justice, the stonewalling on the Fast and Furious debacle, and the president’s abject failure to lead us out of an endless recession in lieu of which he speechifies us into numbness.



Obama’s misbegotten “cash for clunkers” scheme which cost taxpayers $24,000 per clunker qualifies as a relatively minor stinker but the matter of Nidal Malik Hasan has to be up there in the stinks to high heaven category and may yet evolve into the most obscene of all obscene Obamian travesties.



Without mitigating the seriousness of the other political stinkers, an odoriferous smell permeates the case of US Major Nidal Malik Hasan, soldier, psychiatrist, Muslim–and alleged mass murderer who slaughtered more men and women at Fort Hood on November 9th, 2009 than James Holmes did in Aurora, Colorado on July 20th, 2012.



Major Hasan must be referred to as an “alleged mass murderer” under the American military justice system despite dozens of witnesses to his summary execution of 13 innocent victims, 14 if we include a pre-born baby, and wounding of 29 others at Fort Hood, Texas.



Had Hasan been charged, tried, and convicted of such horrific crimes in a kangaroo Islamic court, he would have long since been beheaded, hanged by his privates, then disemboweled with his carcass tossed into pit filled with ravenous, rabid wolves.



However, this is America.



With the aid and comfort of the Obama administration which cowed Hasan’s superior officers into turning deaf ears and blind eyes toward their underling’s terrorist ties for fear of being accused of anti-Islamic bias, Hasan has been milking our justice system for all it’s worth.



At the same time, he and his free, government-appointed lawyers supplemented by volunteer Muslim sympathizers have been delaying justice as well as affording an alleged mass murderer extended time to plead an indefensible case.



The Hasan fix is in and it stinks to high heaven.



Our president laid the foundation for Hasan’s defense with his adamant refusal to admit that America is enmeshed in a decades-old war with Islamic terrorists as shown in his memorial speech following the Fort Hood massacre. He attributed the shootings to wartime stress even though Hasan had never served a day in armed battle.



Besides, since a war against Muslim terrorists doesn’t exist, how could Hasan be a Muslim terrorist?



Subsequently, Obama’s Department of Justice, America’s Department of Justice, provided Hasan with another out when it chose to describe his unprovoked mayhem at Fort Hood not as a clear instance of domestic Islamic terrorism but as an example of “workplace violence,” the equivalent of an overpaid USPS letter carrier going postal because his route was changed and he now had to deliver mail from a satchel instead of a truck.



Echoing Mohammad Atta’s war cry “Alahu Akbar” (Allah is great) as he crashed American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Center’s North Tower on September 11th, 2001, Hasan, whose business card identified him as “a soldier of Allah,” delivered murderous mayhem upon his victims in that “workplace violence.” . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=27147.)

Independence Day Reflections

Independence Day Reflections

America’s Founding Fathers were well aware that simply declaring our independence from the most powerful empire on the planet in 1776 was relatively easy.




They also knew that accomplishing that resolve could result in the loss of their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor and that it definitely would involve shedding a great deal of American blood, sweat, and tears, which the Revolutionary War proved all too correct.



How far we’ve fallen from that initial dedication to freedom at all costs, that commitment to independence from an oppressive government, that refusal to allow alien oppression to subvert our most fundamental, unalienable, human rights!



Today, the United States of America is confronted by threats of Islamic terrorist assaults on our soil during an ongoing war our commander in chief refuses to admit even exists. With the blessings of God, not Allah, we can and will defeat our enemy and then feel free to cringe and smirk at a religion that beheads anyone who doesn’t worship Allah and which believes women should be forbidden to be near bananas, cucumbers, carrots, and zucchinis to avoid sexual arousal.



We are also beset by nominal Americans who pose far worse threats to our survival than berserk Muslims insanely obsessed with vengeance for the Crusades, terminally distressed over Islam’s inability to evolve and so sexually and developmentally-arrested that it fears fruits and vegetables.



Nominal Americans represent the antithesis of the Founders.



Instead of uniting the nation, they are dedicated to divisiveness. Instead of praising our country, they demean it. Instead of defending and working to perfect America, they attack and ridicule it at every turn. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=26457.)

Considering Islam, Obamacare Ruling Is the Least of Our Problems

Considering Islam, Obamacare Ruling Is the Least of Our Problems

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ defection to the dark side on the issue of Obamacare was startling and incredibly disappointing.




Nevertheless, there are noteworthy positives associated with his decision to join the ranks of extreme Leftists on SCOTUS, one of whom should have recused herself had she possessed a shred of integrity, and opt to support a law that was foisted on the American people by the Democrat Party.



For one, Roberts’ vote demonstrated that an ardent conservative can sometimes stray from the consevative path, unlike liberals on the Court and elsewhere who would rather swallow their shoes than voice disagreements with leftist ideology.



For another, declaring Obamacare constitutional offered Mitt Romney the opportunity to gain millions of votes from the majority of Americans who believe the concept of British-style socialized medicine stinks.



For yet another, mandating Obamacare once again outed President Barack Hussein Obama as a liar since the 5-4 split decesion essentially imposes a huge tax increase, a tax the president has repeatedly and emphatically vowed would never happen.



In any event, when Obama is thrown out of office in November and Republicans sweep House and Senate races, Obamacare will be methodically dismantled. Only the good features of the Unaffordable Care Act, such as elimination of lifetime dollar limits on policies and elimination of co-pays for preventive care, will be retained.



More importantly, the entire brouhaha over Obamacare and unduly stressing over a SCOTUS ruling may be moot and a foolish disregard for geopolitical realities–the dire threat to the nation posed by Islam and Muslim extremists intent not on merely destroying America’s health care system but on destroying America itself.



Among the president’s many other flaws is his ignorant obliviousness of the fundamental evil that is Islam. And that evil is not confined to Muslim countries. It is speading rapidly to the West, to America’s shores, and even to our military.



Read the story of British journalist Natasha Smith who, last year, was ecstatic over the glorious, popular upheaval of the Arab Spring. This spring Ms. Smith came face to face with the true nature of Islam in Cairo’s Tahir Square.



She described her not unprecedented experience (remember CBS New’s Lara Logan?) after the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Corsi’s visit to Obama’s White House and his victory in Egypt’s presidential election.



Smith graphically wrote on her blog: “Men began to rip off my clothes. I was stripped naked. Their insatiable appetite to hurt me heightened. These men, hundreds of them, had turned from humans to animals.



“Hundreds of men pulled my limbs apart and threw me around. They were scratching and clenching my breasts and forcing their fingers inside me in every possible way. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=26055.)

America 2012: A Nation at Risk

America 2012: A Nation at Risk

“Stuff” is happening in America today that our country has rarely witnessed in our 224 year old history and none of it is propitious for our future.




True, we have suffered through other major crises, but never so many at the same time.



We survived the Revolution and early wars and revolts against our nationhood; we weathered a bloody Civil War; we eventually overcame the Great Depression; we struggled through the upheavals of the Civil Rights Movement the Viet Nam War protests; we mostly recovered from the horrors of September 11th, 2001; we lost thousands of our brave troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and some believe we actually won those wars.



However, we have never endured so many contemporaneous, dire threats to our national security, our fiscal future, our way of life, our cherished values, and our national character as we are witnessing today.



America made a grave mistake in November, 2008, a terrible mistake which, in the brief span of three and a half years, has served to greatly intensify those dire threats.



To be sure, the election of President Barack Hussein Obama did not incite crazed Muslim terrorists to launch an unprovoked war against the “Great Satan” and the entire Western world; that war has been ongoing for decades and has been smoldering for centuries.



What Obama has done is to minimize the magnitude of the dangers posed by Islam and has catered to, literally bowed to, the very Muslim potentate whose country hatched and financed 9/11.



He declared that a war on terrorism didn’t exist and then announced that the non-existent war was over by virtue of the defeat of al-Qaeda and our supposed victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which is a valid assumption.



He established domestic security measures which are more smoke and mirrors than actual safety nets. Perhaps the most telling feature of this commander-in-chief’s perspective on Americans’ safety was his 2010 concession to Fareed Zakariah that we are “resilient” enough to “bounce back” after nuclear attacks.



We were woefully unprepared for the Second World War. We are far more vulnerable in this, the Third World War, thanks to our president.



Should we somehow succeed in overcoming Muslim forces intent on destroying the America we love, we would still have to contend with the Great Recession, an economy which began to implode in 2008 and which shows few signs of real recovery.



The Obama administration’s total disregard for fiscal sanity and racking up trillions of dollars in unprecedented national deficits and debt has already cost the United States its long-standing AAA credit rating with no hope of paying our bills in sight.



The administration’s obsession with socialistic social programs such as food stamps, multi-billion dollar boondoggles and bailouts, and oppressive environmental regulations have stifled job growth and fostered dependency among the millions of the poor and the unemployed.



In brief, our economy and our society are a critical mess, a disaster as beneficial to Obama’s re-election prospects due to that widespread dependency as it is destructive of the human spirit.



Wars and rumors of war combined with economic malaise would be more than sufficient to effect America’s downfall. Unfortunately, there’s much more on our dismal plate: The social fabric which is supposed to bind us together and define us as a nation is disintegrating as rapidly as the integrity of our borders. . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=23948.)

Obama Changes We Can Really Believe In?

Obama Changes We Can Really Believe In?

I haven’t had the pleasure of visiting the White House in decades so I can’t personally attest to all of the following details on recent alterations in America’s executive mansion but they are interesting, to say the least.

For example, has anyone noticed that our president no longer conducts his rare press conferences with the traditional trappings of American flags in the background?

Instead, a bright yellow curtain replete with what some people believe are Arabic symbols now decorates the press room, along with Obama’s trusty teleprompters, of course, without which he tends to put his foot in his mouth.

And, has anyone noticed that the decor at the White House has radically changed since the Obama clan occupied 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

The Oval Office is now almost devoid of the traditional display of American red, white, and blue. It has been replaced with what appears to be middle eastern wallpaper, drapes, and decor and the hallway Obama uses to talk to the press now features middle eastern-style chairs, drapes, etc.

And, has anyone noticed that Obama seems more Islamic than he seems American?

It’s understandable, actually, since his paternal heritage is Muslim, all his Kenyan relatives are Muslims, his mother married two Muslims, and he spent years of his childhood in Muslim Indonesia where he was partially educated in a Muslim madrassa and he diligently studied the Quran.

Before any White House alterations were made, surely the POTUS had extensive input from his lovely, style-conscious FLOTUS who, only a few years ago discovered she was proud of her country. She must be even more proud of her husband’s Muslim roots.

Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama must also be tickled pink that America’s White House now reflects both her tastes and her hubby’s documented Islamic affiliations even though those tastes and affiliations give rise to suspicions that the Obamas aren’t all we have been led to believe in.

Is Barack Hussein Obama a Muslim at heart? . . . (See pictures and read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=18390.)

Muslims in America

Muslims in America

Notwithstanding TLC’s cancellation of the reality show, “All-American Muslim,” because it didn’t portray reality and because the Muslims depicted weren’t as much Americans as they were Islamists, Muslims have been making inroads into American society and becoming a force to be reckoned with.

Just a few examples of growing Islamic influence in America: Muslim schoolkids are given preferences over non-Muslims in New York City schools and elsewhere; the Muslim Brotherhood was "consulted" on the appointment of the Los Angeles police chief; Twitter just closed down accounts critical of Syrian dictator Assad on request of his wife; and the Black Muslim official newspaper characterized Glenn Beck as “a minion of the synagogue of Satan” for daring to intimate that President Barack Hussein Obama’s life could be in danger.

True, Islamists occasionally overstep but, for the most part, they are granted special treatment mainly due to the mainstream media’s fear of violent and bloody Muslim retaliation should the MSM report extensively on such horrors as “mercy killings” or treat Islamists with the same disdain they treat Christians.

One Muslim, the black racist leader of the subversive Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, knows no bounds when it comes to spewing his extremist views but he recently discovered that even the students and faculty at one of the most liberal universities in the country have their limits of tolerance.

Last Saturday, Farrakhan addressed an audience of some 600 at the University of California Berkeley where they are accustomed to applauding subversion and anti-Americanism. However, he crossed the PC line when he launched into a tirade against his favorite punching bag, Jews.

Why his virulently anti-Semitic rant came as a surprise to the audience is mystifying since Farrakhan has lambasted Jews for decades and has called Judaism “a gutter religion,” and worse. He has also called Obama both a “murderer” and an “assassin.”

None of that vile background bothered Berkeley . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=17264.)

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.)

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.)

The Myth of the Sensitive, Tolerant Liberal

The Myth of the Sensitive, Tolerant Liberal

A popular misconception created by liberals, is that those dastardly conservatives are mean, nasty, and intolerant. The truth is precisely the opposite.

Little surprises me about liberal insensitivity and intolerance anymore even though some things they say, write, and do shock the conscience of anyone with a modicum of decency.

They have exhibited their true colors over the years, among other exhibitions castigating Sarah Palin for bearing in lieu of aborting her youngest child, calling Laura Ingraham a “talk slut,” ceaseless fat jokes about Chris Christie, and on and on and on.

However, nothing has better exposed liberals-leftists-Democrats for what they are than more recent examples of crude, insensitive intolerance toward Rick Santorum.

Following in the footsteps of such libs as Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Bill Maher et al., political commentator Alan Colmes feels free to launch viciously outrageous ad hominem salvos at conservatives and, like his fellow bomb-throwers, gets away with it.

Last Monday, Colmes’ hurled his latest insult at GOP presidential contender Santorum during a Fox News segment when he predicted the former Pennsylvania senator’s Iowa surge wouldn’t last.

That evaluation was reasonable though incorrect, the basis for his view was unreasonable and downright nasty.

Colmes speculated that voters would turn on Santorum as soon as they “get a load of some of the crazy things he’s said and done, like taking his two-hour-old baby when it died right after childbirth home and played with it so that his other children would know that the child was real.”

Rich Lowry rightly and promptly jumped all over Colmes for his “cheap shot” in disgracefully impugning both Santorum and his family and misinterpreting Santorum’s actions after the premature birth and sadly-abbreviated two-hour lifespan of baby Gabriel Santorum in 1996.

As John Hayward opined on HumanEvents.com, Colmes’ comment “wasn’t a random slip of the tongue” and was planned to demonstrate how proudly astute he is. Hayward observed that, “For an ostensibly ‘tolerant liberal,’ Colmes is deeply, disturbingly obsessed with cultivating intolerance for this unusual act of devotion.”

“Ostensibly” is the key word. For liberals, sensitivity and tolerance are reserved for people who would have aborted Gabriel instead of attempting to save his life.

That same twisted, restricted sense of “tolerance” extends to how liberals in the mainstream media in America and abroad react to expressions of Muslim faith as opposed to comparable Christian observances.

Basically in the liberal nutshell: Christians bad, Muslims good.

Denver Broncos’ quarterback, Tim Tebow, has been lambasted, ridiculed, and abused for what is termed, Tebowing, i.e. kneeling to thank God for his good fortune. Tebow, a committed Christian, pro-life, decent guy–all of which characteristics rankle liberals–feels it is his right and duty to publicly demonstrate his faith . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12002.)

2011 Sucked, 2012 Could Be Even Worse

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.)

Lowes Lowers Boom on Muslims

Lowes Lowers Boom on Muslims

What’s wrong with American Muslims?

Nothing, according to Muslims and Democrat politicians who are incensed over Lowes pulling its ads from The Learning Channel’s new reality show, “All American Muslim.” Something, according to Lowes which makes money when people buy stuff at their home improvement stores but which felt advertising on”All American Muslim” was counterproductive to its interests.

There are also the questions as to what constitutes worthwhile “learning” and Muslim realities.

Lowes’ apt corporate motto is “Never Stop Improving” and this week it joined some 75 other advertisers in bailing on sponsoring the show. Some people, including those Democrat pols, attribute Lowes’ action to caving to prejudiced, conservative special interest groups, others including the travel website, Kayak.com, to the fact “the show sucked.”

In the interests of full disclosure, I’ve never seen an “All-American Muslim.” However, from what I’ve researched, it does suck and even more relevantly, the Muslims depicted are far from representative of American Muslims. TLC’s offering seems more an exercise in propagandistic political correctness than a serious effort at informational entertainment.

There’s a major difference between infotainment and infoganda.

Minnesota Democrat Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to serve in Congress who staged a 24 hour hunger strike in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Sreet anarchists, also protested against Lowes saying, “Corporate America needs to take a stand against these anti-Muslim fringe groups and stand up for what is right because this is what it means to be an American.”

Joining Ellison in his righteous indignation were Detroit-area Democrats, the first Bangladeshi-American congressman, Hansen Hashim Clarke, John Dingell, and Gary Peters who expressed dismay over the Florida Family Association’s dismay over ”All-American Muslim.”

The good congressmen dutifully dispatched a letter to Lowes defending Muslims and their contributions to the nation, without delineating those contributions. They concluded their missive by saying, ”We implore you to reconsider your decision and live up to your corporate ideals of diversity and inclusion and the values of tolerance and acceptance that create the foundation of our nation.”

Anymore than Ellison explained how an American corporation refusing to advertise on a television show it felt distorted reality related in any way to “what it means to be an American,” the other congressmen failed to clarify how supporting intolerance is a building block of America’s foundation.

That aside, Ellison’s comment regarding alleged “Muslim anti-fringe groups” and “what it means to be an American” bears more scrutiny.

The Florida Family Association which organized a wildly-successful petition against TLC’s ”All-American Muslim” is a quarter century old organization dedicated to the betterment of life in America. Its mission statement, to “Educate people on what they can do to defend, protect and promote traditional, biblical values,” is hardly a “fringe” sentiment.

Toward that end, the FFA has campaigned against what it deems offensive television shows advocating aberrant lifestyles, smutty fare for children, pornography–as well as Islamic propaganda. The FFA is urging Florida Gov. Rick Scott to order an investigation into whether a Muslim woman’s death was due to suicide or to an all-too-common Islamic “honor killing.” . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11016.)

Iran and America's Drones

If it hadn’t before, the Islamic Republic of Iran now completely understands what makes America’s drones tick, both the hapless drone sitting in the White House and our surveillance drone sitting somewhere in Iranian territory.

At this juncture, Iran probably understands President Barack Hussein Obama better than it understands our top secret spy plane although, given enough time, they, China, and other American enemies will learn plenty about the Lockheed RQ-170 Sentinel Stealth Drone.

On Tuesday, Democrat congressman Dennis Cardoza (CA) criticized the president as arrogant and alienating, as a man who would be better off teaching somewhere than serving as chief executive, a charge that is only partially true. He is, indeed, arrogant and alienating but only on the partisan, domestic front. Internationally, he functions much like the RQ-170 is functioning now.

As for Obama being better off doing something, anything else, that’s true. The country would also be better off.

A week ago, the Sentinel inexplicably went down somewhere in Iran while on a surveillance mission over Iran.

Chockful of stealth technology, capable of flying at 50,000 feet, and costing $6 million dollars each, the remotely-operated drone apparently malfunctioned and was not shot down by the Iranian airforce as Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad alleges but at this point little of that matters.

Obama wants it returned. It’s not known whether he stamped his foot when he said so. Various options for recovering or destroying the aircraft were presented to him. He chose to grovel and beg, instead. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10741.)

God and Obama

God and Obama

The nuns used to tell us we couldn’t understand God, information that wasn’t news to eight year olds since we often couldn’t understand the nuns, either.

Still, I eventually picked up on the concept that God was beyond understanding, much like arithmatic, and I accepted the principle of the existence of an Almighty Who, if He wasn’t watching every move we made or taking notes on every time I was impudent, was up there, somewhere, not taking written notes but aware.

Atheists aren’t beset by such mundane concerns since they don’t believe in the existence of any god, opting instead for the belief they and the universe weren’t created but rather are the products of happenstance. Chicken atheists, agnostics, believe only what Thomas the Doubting Apostle believed. They want proof, tantamount to insisting their Creator furnish irrefutable evidence of His existence before they subscribe.

Which brings us to Barack Hussein Obama and what he believes.

Few modern presidents have been overtly religious and many seem to have been “Christmas Christians,” men who visit churches on important occasions such as major religious holidays or for funerals of dignitaries.

Some, like Ike, hosted White House observances, others, like Bill Clinton, rarely if ever went to church and made no pretense of being regular attendees, and still others, notably Jimmy Carter, wore their religion on their sleeves right next to his incompetency pin.

None of this is meant to suggest that that a belief in God is a requisite for the position of president of the United States. It’s not mandated in the Constitution which was designed to permit any natural born citizen age 35 and up who has been a permanent resident for a minimum of 14 years to accede to the office of the presidency.

And, I’m not arguing the “birther” position with regard to Obama, though the jury is still out on that one, nor contending this chief executive’s penchant for vacationing overseas renders him ineligible for re-election because he’s still technically a permanent resident.

However, a president who has a clear aversion to references to Someone greater than he is should be questioned as to just exactly what he does believe.

No? (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6831.)

Revolting Muslims

Revolting Muslims

Islam, “The Religion of Peace,” has a peculiar approach to demonstrating the applicability of that description–unless firebombing a French newspaper, raping Norwegian women, and threatening and stabbing British MP’s are now condoned by the “Holy Prophet.”

Muslims have been revolting, in every sense of the word, for decades and not only during the Arab Spring. They are wreaking havoc throughout the Western world as well and the greatest irony in those upheavals is that the havoc is occurring in nations which welcomed them with open arms and open borders.

So much for misguided cultural diversity, so much for destructive multiculturalism, so much for fantasies of assimilation.

In France, Islamic terrorists showed their contempt for free speech by firebombing the offices of the leftist satirical publication Charlie Hebdo, (Charlie Weekly), in reaction to the weekly’s announced special edition to be titled, Sharia Hebdo “guest-edited” by none other than Muhammad, the “Holy Prophet” himself.

The editors had planned to satirize the first and probably last democratic Tunisian elections; Islamic sharia law was destined to become the dominant force in Tunisia and sharia has as much regard for democracy as it does for women. As for the proposed guest-editor, Muhammad had a great regard for war, mayhem, and his 8 year old child bride Aisha but “democracy” was a somewhat foreign concept to him.

It may have been an audacious idea for Charlie Hebdo and proved to be perilous as well when their office was hit with a Molotov cocktail and its website was hacked with a message criticizing irreverance toward “Islam’s almighty Prophet.”

Incidentally, one of America’s Leftist rags, Time magazine, chimed in on the fire bombing by attacking not the fire-bombers but Charlie Hebdo for “Islamophobic antics [which are] futile and childish.”

There may great sense of futility in Norway over its open invite to Muslims to come on over, become one of them, become a Norwegian, join their Nordic culture, and scrap their historic tendency for violence and the Qu’ran’s repugnance for and discrimination against the female gender.

The social experiment by ultra-liberal Norway isn’t working very well and the women of Oslo can attest to the fact that Muslim immigrants in Norway are far from childish. Brutal, violent, Muslim-ish, yes, childish, no.

A virtual rape-epidemic is in process in Oslo, already doubling 2010 incidents.

One member of the Norwegian Parliament, Oktay Dahl of the Conservative Party, risked a firebomb tossed by one of Norway’s new Muslim residents . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5902.)

When Israel Attacks

When Israel Attacks

It hasn’t been been an “if” for a long time and the “when” now appears imminent. The dilemma for the United States remains, When Israel launches its long-anticipated tactical strike at Iranian nuclear facilities, what will America do?

Despite being beset with economic upheaval and by endless threats from its other Muslim neighbors, it’s nevertheless a foregone conclusion that Israel will soon replicate the September 6th, 2007 attack on Syria’s al-Kibar nuclear weapons site which effectively ended the Assad regime’s pretensions of dominating the Mideast.

There is one significant difference between the al-Kibar strike by Israel’s IAF and the expected operation to eradicate Iran’s nuke capabilities, namely, al-Kibar preceded the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.

The latest news out of Washington is that the unilateralism-averse Obama administration has been pressuring the U.N. Security Council and the two permanent members who have opposed tougher sanctions, China and Russia, to support American initiatives intended to forestall a unilateral attack by Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Fat chance, as is the chance Israel will heed Obama’s importunings not to take out a growing and virtually-certain danger before it becomes an accomplished fact and much of the tiny Jewish state is decimated.

The latest news out of Tel Aviv is that Israel is developing ICBM capabilities and launched a test missile just two days after Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu again warned of the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. Those ominous developments followed reports Netanyahu has been working to firm up his cabinet’s endorsement of a first strike.

Israel is preparing for war.

Given international and IAEA awareness of Iranian progress in both missile technology and nuclear capabilities, Iran’s persistent declarations of wiping Israel off the face of the map, and their most recent vow to inflict “heavy damages to the US as well as to the Zionist regime” in the event of a pre-emptive strike, that pre-emption is a certainty.

The only uncertainty is how the United States should react. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5877.)

Catholics, Crucifixes, and Muslims

Catholics, Crucifixes, and Muslims

Those darned papists are at it again!

It’s bad enough they established tens of thousands of Catholic elementary and high schools throughout America as alternatives to public school systems, a transparent affront to the quality of public education, but then they went and founded their own institutions of higher learning!

Now, their universities feel they have the right to display crucifixes and other fundamental symbols of Catholicism on their premises, thereby insulting, humiliating, and infuriating members of other faiths, particularly Muslims!

When will this madness end?

According to census.gov, there are over 4,000 colleges and universities in the United States in addition to 3,660 post-secondary vocational and technical institutions. Of that number, 244 are “Catholic.”

Regrettably, some of those 244 have become Catholic in name only, indeed only nominally-religious in any way. Among them is Georgetown University and the University of Notre Dame, both of which prestigious schools have “secularized” themselves in the interests of gaining acceptance as mainstream rather than being labelled “Catholic universities” which they seem to believe is a pejorative description.

In 2009, Georgetown invited avid abortion advocate President Barack Hussein Obama to speak at the school and accommodated his objections to the deeply-religious letters “IHS” (In Hoc Signo) by covering them during his speech. Georgetown observed the beginning of the holy season of Lent with “Sex Positive Week” featuring discussions on homosexuality and pornography with one hosted by a porn movie director.

For its secular part, Notre Dame abandoned the moral principles on which it was founded by proudly featuring the Abortionist in Chief as its 2009 commencement speaker despite widespread alumni and Catholic media condemnation. Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins won accolades from the liberal media even as he shamed the Irish and his religion.

(See “Apostate Universities,” http://tiny.cc/mxqsj.)

The one hundred twenty five year old Catholic University of America just outside Washington, D.C. hasn’t, as yet, totally succumbed to secularism and political correctness but that’s not due to a lack of effort by an infinitesimal if existent number of its student body, Muslims.

CU has seen a recent 100%+ spike in its Muslim population, from 41 in 2006 to 91 in 2011 out of a total of nearly 7,000 graduate and undergrad students. Life must be challenging for worshipers Of Allah and Muhammad in a Catholic institution . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5836.)
. . .

Proofs that Darwin Was Right: The Iraq-Iran Hikers

Proof that Darwin Was Right: The Iraq-Iran Hikers

The ”Darwin Award” is conferred on individuals who unknowingly gave their all in the inadvertent interests of preserving humanity’s gene pool by expiring in the process of committing acts of amazing stupidity and thereby removing themselves from the danger of further corrupting the genetic makeup of the human species.

Without referencing darwinism and the survival of the fittest, Spike TV features any number of deserving Darwin Awards winners on “1000 Ways to Die,” a ghoulish series on how people meet their Maker via wooden-headed choices.

Usually conferred posthumously, exceptions should be granted for giving a “Darwin” to the recently-released Iraq, (or was it Iran?) hikers.

Most Americans were delighted when Shane Bower and Josh Fattal were finally set free by the Iranians and were able to re-join fellow hiker Sarah Shourd on American soil after what the HuffingtonPost.com a 2-year “saga,” a term most often reserved to describe heroic adventures rather than idiotic blunders.

America may be desperate for heroes but Bower, Fattal, and Shourd hardly fit the bill.

In an impressive display of Islamic magnanimity toward a gender customarily stoned to death for much less grievous offenses than violating Iranian territorial integrity–and alleged spying–Shourd was released in 2010.

All three had been captured the year before as they blithely traversed the Iraq-Iran border since, apparently, the millions of acres of national parkland, untrammeled mountains, woods, and deserts available to hikers throughout the United States and other civilized countries held no attraction or opportunities for adventure.

Instead Bower, Fattal, and Shourd chose what they believed to be Iraq’s Kurdish region, . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5563.)

9/11: Allies and Abusers

9/11 Allies and Abusers

Now that the dusty rhetoric has cleared from Ground Zero, the Pentagon, and Shanksville following the politicians’ commemorative politicking at those sites, following the families of relatives of the 2,977 victims of 9/11/2001 publicly and privately expressing their grief in expectations of to closing memories that defy closure, the rats are leaving their ratholes.

To be sure, not every nation ignored 9/11.

Parts of the world paid solemn tribute to America’s incalculable losses on that day and shared our anguish on the tenth anniversary of the darkest day in American history. One of the most stirring expressions of solidarity occurred in Paris where two forty-foot replicas of the Twin Towers were erected in the shadow of the Eifel Tower displaying in two languages France’s national sentiment, “The French Will Never Forget.”

However, far from everyone abroad and at home expressed that emotion. The vermin emerged.

In London, instead of joining hands with Americans on solemn occasions dedicating memorials to the dead of September 11th, 2001 Muslims in London chose to emulate their fellow Islamists who hatefully exulted in the attacks on the World Trade Center and Washington ten years ago by spreading more hatred, compliments of Islam.

Members of the “religion of peace” set fire to an American flag outside the American embassy and disrupted a moment of silence declared in observation of that moment when Muslims crashed a Boeing 767 into the North Tower of the WTC.

Not content with Britain’s indulgences for sharia nor with British tolerance for the presence of a people on their soil dedicated to eradicating all remnants of English and Western tradition and law, Islamic crazies chanted “US Terrorists!” and carried signs condemning America and criticizing the Crusades.

One jihadist summarized all feigned Muslim grievances by declaring, “You [Americans?] will always face suffering, you [Western imperialists?] will always face humiliation, unless you [all nations not interested in a worldwide Islamic caliphate?] withdraw your troops from Muslim lands.”

Left unmentioned is any reference to September 11th, to Islam’s bloody history, or to the fact the Crusades ended in 1291 A.D. even if Muslim vengeance lingers on and most malcontented Muslim nations are still mired in the thirteenth century.

The grandson of Jewish immigrants to America, Paul Krugman, is another malcontent. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5429.)

Newsday Puffs Muslims

Newsday Puffs Muslims

Newsday, Long Island’s default daily newspaper due to its status as the only Long Island daily paper, published a commentary on Tuesday that must have been a failed attempt at twisted humor, an excursion into fantasy, an Islamic puff piece, or all of the above. (http://bit.ly/npGBJ2)

In a few hundred words, Ibrahim Negm, described as “senior adviser to the grand mufti of Egypt, the second-highest cleric among Sunni Muslims, and a visiting scholar at the Islamic Center of Long Island,” managed to incorporate dark humor, fantastical flights of disturbed fancy, and an unabashed puffery not as much for himself as for his religion, Islam.

Practicing its typical distortions, the ultra-liberal Newsday titled the piece, “Negm: American Muslims, American Goals,” as if its readers would be familiar with the ”senior adviser to the grand mufti of Egypt,” as if they would buy into the premise of the title, as if they would accept the idea that an Egyptian could speak for Americans and believe he would speak the truth.

Published just days before the tenth anniversary of the day when Muslim terrorists screaming “Allahu akbar!” attacked the United States and murdered 2,977 innocent people, the Newsday article reached a new low–even for Newsday–in its contempt for its readership and its country.

Negm begins his piece with what has to be the most preposterously-amusing and bizarre lies that, “The Prophet Muhammad is a model for all observant Muslims, . . . Muslims not only revere the personality of the prophet, but they strive to emulate him. The Quran describes him as a ‘mercy to the world.’ His compassion and magnanimity are immortalized in Islamic culture through both poetic expression and the everyday stories parents tell their children.”

Muhammad may be a Muslim model but that doesn’t say much for Muslims.

I would pity those kids if not . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5392.)

Libya--the Mideast Cuba?

Libya--the Mideast Cuba?

I was just a teenager back in 1959 but I can still recall the great hullabaloo, predominantly positive hulabaloo, over Fidel Castro, with the media referring to him as the “George Washington of Cuba” and exulting over their darling’s victory over the evil Fulgencio Batista, with teachers all a-bubble with excitement since Cuba was finally free.

Not only was Batista, El Hombre, a dictator but he had illegally seized power, had consorted with gamblers and known criminals, and suffered from the severe liability (to American leftists) of being friendly toward the United States.

Similar to the 2008 hype for Barack Hussein Obama, his successor, Fidel Castro was hailed a a savior, a man of the people who would bring joy and prosperity to his island nation. Fidel couldn’t quite walk on water as Obama could but he seemed to share most other Obama qualities and oratorical skills, sans teleprompters.

Not known at the time, with the able assistance of his fellow Marxist revolutionary, Che Guevara, Fidel would imprison and murder tens of thousands of his countrymen, come close to initiating World War III, and reduce Cuba to an economic basket case.

An added bonus for leftist Castrophiles is that, unlike Batista, Fidel hates America.

Although they may not smoke cigars because Islam and Allah frown on tobacco products, the Libyan rebels now on the verge of deposing Muammar Khadaffi and hopefully doing unto him what Iraqis did unto Saddam Hussein may very well turn out to be far worse for U.S. interests than both “mad dog of the Middle East” and the mad dog of the Caribbean.

Khadaffi was certainly not one of America’s best buddies and continued to support international Islamic terrorism yet he, allegedly, abandoned his efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction in 2003, after America massively visited mass destruction on Afghanistan and Hussein’s regime.

Nevertheless, “The devil you know . . . ” and Libyan rebel devils may soon make the United States yearn for the good, old Muammar days.

Our president, peace-lover that he is, refused to concede that our war in Libya was even a war.

The White House opted to describe the conflict as a “kinetic military action” while we kinetically led NATO forces against Khadaffi loyalists, launched hundreds of kinetic Tomahawk cruise missiles against Tripoli and loyalist strongholds, and gave Syria’s equally-treacherous Bashar al-Assad a free pass.

You see, war bad, kinetic military action good in Obamaese. As for Assad, the Obamians haven’t a clue what to do.

Like Fidel Castro who was deemed good contrasted with Fulgencio Batista, the Libyan rebels are likewise considered the good guys compared to Khadaffi. Like Castro, they are likely to bite America on its collective arse, only more severely. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5353.)