Signs of the End of Obama's Reign?

Signs of the End of Obama's Reign?

It may be an exercise in wishful thinking, but there are clear indications that Emperor Barack Hussein Obama’s assaults on the Constitution, his wars against the wealthy and middle class, against religion, against women, against prosperity, against Israel are all taking their toll and his despotic rule may be coming to an end.




In about 146 days, to be precise.



The very welcome signs are not just the obvious ones.



Continued economic stagnation, persistently high unemployment, widespread dismay over a raft of broken promises, and public disgust over admistration scandals and the president’s gaffes, lies, vacations, and golf games certainly will play a major part in Obama’s defeat on November 6th.



However, it is the erosion of his political base that must be giving David Axelrod and Company the hebejebes, if not chronic diarrhea, and causing similar reactions for Empress Michelle. She has to be wondering who will pay for her future extravagances and whether she will remain proud of her country should her hubby lose.



Thanks to the president’s sudden evolution on same-sex marriage and his dubious success in repealing the military’s DADT policy, he still has a lock on the homosexual vote. So, too, will a large majority of Latinos, African-Americans, and Jews cast their ballots for Obama.



Blacks will again vote for him in droves primarily because he is “one of their own” and despite complaints he hasn’t done nearly enough for the black community over the past three and a half years. Latinos will again vote for him in the expectation that with more “flexibility” in a second term Obama will legalize undocumented aliens despite the fact he has failed them.



Jews will again vote for Obama mainly because they have almost always voted for Democrats and despite his well-known antagonism toward the state of Israel and its president, Benjamin Netanyahu.



However, the electoral devil is in the ethnic details.



Obama garnered an unprecedented 93% of black votes in 2008 and, assuredly, most African-Americans will follow suit in 2012 but, based on North Carolina and Spike Lee, he won’t enjoy comparable numbers this year.



According to the authoritative BusinessInsider.com, the “Democrat-leaning” Public Policy Polling has found that Republican Mitt Romney would get 20% of the African-American vote and Barack Obama 76%.



That’s a comfortable margin for the president until one considers that in 2008 he won with 95% of the N.C. tally and Romney is now beating Obama 48% to 46% in the state. (http://tinyurl.com/6tux346)



If those figures don’t cause Axelrod to head for the Kaopectate, Spike Lee’s doubts on the re-election results should. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=25503.)

The Case FOR Iranian Nukes

The Case FOR Iranian Nukes

Let’s do some hypothetical supposing.

Let’s suppose that for very valid reasons you don’t like your neighbor and that neighbor has never cared much for you, either. Let’s suppose your neighbor has a history of acting aggressively toward people he didn’t like. Let’s suppose the neighbor is armed to the teeth and most of the neighborhood is perfectly content with that. Let’s suppose the neighbor has an extremely powerful friend who is ready, willing, and able to intercede on his behalf in any altercation.

Let’s suppose you are Iran and the neighbor is Israel.

Now that the UK’s Guardian is reporting that the hapless Obama administration concedes that crippling sanctions it had naively hoped would bring Tehran to its knees will fail, it’s time for America to backtrack. Obama has supported sanctions so that he could run for re-election as a peacemonger despite Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, et al. but those measures have only served to enable Iran to stall and lie its way to nuclear power status.

Granted, with the notable exception of North Korea, Iran is easily the most psychotic nation on the planet with a mentally-imbalanced leadership cabal that rivals the insanity of Caligula. Granted, too, Iran is a principal money-man financing terrorism throughout the globe and regards truth with the same disdain it holds for women.

Nevertheless, put yourself in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s and Ayatollah Khameini’s sandals: Israel has long been equipped with nuclear weapons and Iran isn’t.

Almost worse, the international community has long been aware of the Israeli nuclear capability with which the Jewish state could obliterate at will any designated enemy within range of its missiles and that community hasn’t done a bloody thing about the situation but bitches over your ambitions.

It’s enough to make a country paranoid. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=13588.)

Richard Goldstone and Israel

Seventy three year old Richard Joseph Goldstone must be either a terminally-ill man, an extremely-befuddled man, or both. Seriously sick people tend to try to make amends before they meet their Maker; confused people often mistake fantasy for reality.

Goldstone, a former and eminent South African judge, made his mark on the bench by undermining South Africa’s apartheid laws with his rulings advancing the rights of that nation’s majority blacks, thereby leading to the end of discrimination by minority whites. He subsequently served as chief prosecutor for the U.N.’s trials of war criminals in Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

He is evidently an avid proponent of majority rule as well as a sincere advocate for the oppressed. Sometimes.

His advocacy came under fire from the world’s Jewish community and especially from Israel when Goldstone, a non-religious Jew, personally investigated the 3-week Israeli Gaza war of 2008-2009 and the United Nations issued the Goldstone Report, officially titled, “Human Rights in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories: Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.”

The final version of that scathing report, issued in April 2009, charged Israel’s IDF with a systematic, official policy of inflicting undue punishment on civilians in Gaza and violating international humanitarian and human rights law. It also deleted most references to Hamas atrocities and focused on the disproportionality of Israel’s retaliation.

The investigation and report had been commisioned by the U.N. Human Rights Council, a fact that made it suspect from the outset. The U.N. is notorious for its anti-Semitism and the UNHRC includes China, Cuba, and Pakistan among its 47 members but, still, Goldstone was a Jew and his religion added a significant credibility factor.

Not unexpectedly, he was reviled in Israel and elsewhere by Israel supporters as a wayward jurist suffering from a “moral inversion” who “preserved his judicial reputation while perpetrating a blood libel against Israel” and with worse epithets, all because he had dared expose Israeli war crimes against humanity, in Gaza just as he had exposed comparable crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the evil of apartheid in South Africa.

In effect, Goldstone was characterized as a Jew-hating Jew.

Fast forward to April of this year when the jurist had an epiphany, a religious attack, a re-examination of conscience, a re-evaluation of perceptions. Call it what you will, Goldstone retracted and contradicted much of what he had witnessed on his fact-finding mission to Gaza just two years earlier.

See his retraction, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5942.)

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.)

Herman Cain's Republican Prospects

Herman Cain's Republican Prospects

I concede little or no acquaintance with Herman Cain.

He came out of the political blue and burst into the Republican presidential sweepstakes as a nonentity, a candidate with fewer qualifications for the presidency than Barack Hussein Obama–which is saying a great deal. Because of his dearth of experience, I don’t think I could vote for him next year but, considering the rest of the GOP field, who knows?

Should Cain make a serious run, I certainly wouldn’t ignore him. Ignoring him could be interpreted as racist since Herman Cain is an African-American, an odd African-American at that since he’s a rare breed, a Republican conservative black and a Tea Party member to boot!

Liberals, however, basking in their liberality and empty professions of race equality, tend to react to black conservatives like most of us would react to the plague.

Some years ago, pre-Obama, I had hoped another black conservative, J.C. Watts, would run for president. I felt that here was a black man who was clean and articulate, as then-Senator Joe Biden later described Obama, and Watts had the added attraction of being conservative. I gave up on Watts after he proved to be a black racist by abandoning his alleged conservatism by throwing his support and his vote to the most liberal Democrat in the history of the Republic.

For the record, I would also have backed Rep. Allen West had he been around at the time or Condi Rice or Thomas Sowell had they been candidates. Alan Keyes, I’m not so sure about.

I can’t substantiate my view that Watts is a black racist so I’ll let his radical flipflop speak for itself.

Herman Cain, former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza which, like Cain, I had never heard of until recently and which title, should he get the Republican presidential or vice-presidential nomination, would be used by Democrats to beat him over the head without ever saying, “A black pizza man?”) has more going for him than pizzas.

Ballistics mathematician with the U.S. Navy, deputy chairman of the civilian Board of Directors at the Kansas City Federal Reserve, successful businessman, columnist, radio show host, the 65 year old native Georgian worked his way through Morehouse and Purdue and went on to make a name for himself.

He considers Social Security a “scam,” which it is, and he advocates major reform. He wants a reduction in corporate tax rates, which would benefit everyone, he attacks welfare as a dependency system, favors vouchers in education, off-shore drilling, repeal of Obamacare, tightening of our borders, the Defense of Marriage Act, and de-funding Planned Parenthood since he holds the radical belief that life begins at conception.

Cain also enthusiastically supported TARP, bank bailouts, the only real chink in his conservative armor. More about that below.

On foreign policy, he generally favors a hard line and, with respect to Israel, he opposes Obama’s approach of forcing Israel into the indefensible box of its 1967 borders. Cain was caught by the MSM when he muffed a response on the “Palestinian right of return,” which he now endorses but only under Israeli conditions.

That same mainstream media has yet to ask Obama about those 57 states he visited.

Cain threw his hat into the presidential ring on May 21st but seemed to know weeks earlier where his hat was going. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4740)

Israel Reconfigured and Reconsidered

Israel Reconfigured and Reconsidered

“Obama Is No Friend of Israel” blared the headline on SayAnything.com with variations on other blogs and in the print media in the wake of the president’s announcement that he was effectively screwing the Jewish nation. His “final solution” for Israel’s border wars, though he dare not use that term, would make everyone in the area happy and peaceful and ready to play together in perpetual peace and harmony.

Confirmed and reinforced in his tense Friday sit-down with Israel’s furious, diplomatically-assertive Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Obama’s scheme is to have Israel return to its pre-6 Day War, 1967 borders, tantamount in this age of sophisticated rocketry in the bloody hands of Hamas to asking Israel to commit national suicide.

That said, two questions: One, why is it such a surprise to so many that Israel is not at the top of Obama’s buddy list and, two, why should he be? The answers to both queries are complex with the first less so than the second.

It’s either incredibly naive or amazingly stupid to be surprised that the president cares not a whit about the nation of Israel. Whether he would prefer it to be totally submerged in the Mediterranean as Arab states wish is debatable but his affinity for those states and all things and people Islamic is not. An excellent rule of thumb to gauge Obama is to note carefully what he says and then to compare and contrast those statements with what he does, has done, and refuses to do.

They’re remarkably different.

Obama tows the line with what he says, mouthing platitudes and the conventional pap about how much America loves Israel, how important an ally it is, how our support is unwavering, etc. etc. At the same time, he adamantly refuses to acknowledge a worldwide war against Islamic terrorism, he bows to Saudi potentates, he inexplicably instructs NASA to focus not on space but on building Arab self-esteem. Is pushing for a Palestinian state such a stretch? . . .
(Read more about Question Two, Why Should Obama or America about Israel? at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4516 (Hint: We should not.)

When Islamic and Christian Worlds Collide

When Islamic and Christian Worlds Collide

A good, general blogging rule of thumb is that when two sides of a controversial issue criticize you, it’s fairly certain an article was reasonable and objective.

I’ve had more than my share of brickbats and worse hurled my way by the Jewish community for commentary on such issues as the 1967 USS Liberty “incident” and, more recently, for articles on Judge Richard Goldstone’s U.N. Report on Israel’s actions in the Gaza War of 2008-2009. Therefore, I consider it a compliment when a Muslim sympathizer also attacks my objectivity.

A reader of my article, “Islam, the U.N., and 9/11,” http://bit.ly/gVLLxL, responded to my re-posting of that piece on CNSNews.com and “ithinkrevolution” was positively vitriolic. His screenname says a great deal about “ithinkrevolution’s” mindset and his comments says a great deal about his biases and skewed interpretation of history.

I wasn’t perturbed by his condescension, (“Before you make such a comment though you should read a bit more”) and his defense of the United Nations, (“The UN is not authorized to investigate such a matter”), as much as by “ithinkrevolution’s” free and breezy willingness to engage in Islamic revisionism.

The premises of “Islam, the U.N., and 9/11″ were the stultification of the United Nations, which has been evidenced so often it barely needs repetition, but primarily the effects of that uselessness and ineptitude on the U.N.’s ability to condemn Islamic terrorism or even to define terrorism almost 10 years after September 11th, 2001. The 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the OIC, compounded by the sympathies and fear of other U.N. member states have seen to that.

“Ithinkrevolution” took issue with that contention but was particularly incensed over a critique of Islam’s violence and went on a roll: ”And as far as your ‘Islamic nations are historically accustomed to mass murder, religious mayhem, unimaginable bloody atrocities’, I hope your [sic] not a Christian who has the balls [sic] to make such a statement.” [Editor's note, I am and I do.] The history of Christianity is much more bloody and horrible than Islam is. The deaths in the Middle East since the creation of Israel. [sic] Until the Allies rolled in and forced tens of thousands of people out of homes their people| had lived in for nearly 2000 years. [sic]“

As rebuttal, I would point to the facts that Islam was born in violence replete with murders and bloody massacres, grew into invasions and pillaging, and reached its Golden Age through inflicting systematic devastation on the regions and nations it conquered. And, yes, it’s true that Christian armies in the Crusades . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4235)

Richard Goldstone's Gaza Epiphany

Richard Goldstone's Gaza Epiphany

Richard Goldstone isn’t exactly a familiar household name in America. However, in Israel, Goldstone was very well known until very recently as a Jewish apostate, a label he tried to shuck when he issued a retraction of his previous allegations of Israeli atrocities commited during the Gaza war of 2008-2009.

Briefly, Goldstone, an eminent Jewish South African judge, saw his name affixed to a United Nations’ report on that 3-week war. As a result of the Goldstone Report, commisioned by the U.N. Human Rights Council, he was reviled in Israel and elsewhere by Israel supporters as a wayward jurist suffering from a “moral inversion” who “preserved his judicial reputation while perpetrating a blood libel against Israel” and with worse epithets because he had dared to expose Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

The Goldstone Report charged Israel’s IDF with a systematic, official policy to inflict punishment on civilians in Gaza. Titled, “Human Rights in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories: Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict,” the English language pdf version may be read here in its entirety: http://bit.ly/1BjEXr

The final version issued by the anti-Semitic U.N. HRC deleted most references to Hamas atrocities and focused on the disproportionality of Israel’s retaliation. Fourteen Israeli settlers had been killed in unprovoked Hamas missile attacks; some 700 enemy combatants were killed by the IDF as well as 714 Gaza civilians including at least 412 children. (Hamas claimed 1200 dead children.)

The Goldstone Report concluded that Israel, which touts itself as having “the most moral army in the world,” committed the most heinous crimes imaginable against defenseless Gazan non-combatatants.

There was no question that the IDF was battling a grossly amoral enemy which had secreted weaponry in mosques, hospitals, and schools and had launched missile atttacks from private homes, and Israel contends it gave advance warnings, none of which mitigates Israeli war crimes.

On April 1, 2011, coincidentally April Fools Day, Goldstone issued a retraction of the Goldstone Report. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4151)

Jew-Bashing Re-Visited

Jew-Bashing Re-Visited

It seems that, even as I came across as a Jew-hater to some, others interpreted my sentiments in “What’s With All the Jew-Bashing?” (http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3756) as evidence I am an Israel-apologist.

In truth, I am neither.

Rather, I am an American Firster revivified, someone who believes to his core in the United States, in all it is, in all it stands for, and in all I hope it will be. I also subscribe to the antiquated notion that those who are not with us are against us. If we include “those against us” as any nation or people who have disparate aims from ours and would be more than willing to sacrifice the United States to their ultimate goals then I would have to say they are against us.

If that profile fits Israel, so be it.

That said, the following angry yet comical diatribe was posted as a comment on the Jew-bashing article. It’s too preciously inane, vitriolic, and wrong to be incorporated as a mere addendum to previous postings and deserves some extra attention if only to illustrate the inanity, the vitriol, and the wrong-ness out there in blogland.

As before, the comment is verbatim and bracketed editorial commentary is provided.

From niungramodeclase@yahoo.com:

“See, what you get, Berlet98, for sucking ass? [Good grief!]

You try to ingratiate yourself by pantingly defending the Jew cause at the expense of browbeating and condemning other people’s right to dislike the ‘sacred cows’ but they still don’t approve you and validate you.

That is their nature, Sir.

You just don’t take it on your own and start defending their ass without any license lest you cause their lucrative industry of victimhood to be downplayed by your honest and objective view of history. [That seems just a tad confused, "Naiungramodeclase."]

Wait ‘til they soon enact laws to enforce ‘their version of history’ as they’ve done in Europe and in Canada. . ."
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3772)

The Un-Fan Club Chimes In

The Un-Fan Club Chimes In

Blogsite comments are the lifeblood of a blog. They can also be entertaining. The following are a few received recently, printed verbatim with editorial commentary in brackets and italics where visible.

From “lonsberg” comes a very dubious accolade in reference to “What’s With All the Jew-Bashing?” (http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3756)

“I like your site–a lot. Still, I think you too are a kook when it comes to Israel and the Jews. You betray yourself with the Versaille bit. [Pardonnez-moi? Hitler rose to power by railing against the Treaty of Versailles and linking the ascendancy of Jews with Germany's economic catastrophe.] Versaille had nothing to do with the rise of Naziism–it was just a cheap way to score points with the disgruntled workies and unionistas especially. [My points NEVER come cheap!] The terms of the treaty were lenient. [Lenient? In addition to conceding valuable territories, exorbitant, punitive reparations totaling the equivalent of $385 billion in today's dollars were imposed, crippling Germany's future and leading to WWII.] Its like today’s Egyptians saying that the Camp David accord is a “humiliation”. Right. And at the end, you say this is “not healthy, especially for the Jews”. You are normally a cogent thinker, and writer, ]Thank you!] but this makes no sense. If you meant to say, this is “dangerous” for the Jews, why didn’t you say that? Because you have a blind spot. Unconsciously, you are saying that the Jews are not healthy, that’s why. Because you cannot admit that the Jews are fine thank you very much, that America and the Free World owes is legacy to Jewish law and ethics, and that it is society-at-large (as usual) that is going off the rails. That is what is not healthy– for you, and for all of us. [I would prefer not to be psychoanalyzed but, for the record, the "fineness" of Jews is irrelevant and my reference to "healthy" was intended euphemistically to mean that there are distinct suggestions that, if a new Holocaust is not in the making, the rise of anti-Semitism could signal even worse attacks to come which, yes, is very dangerous.]“

“Hey” extends no accolades but does wield a few brickbats re: “Our United Nations, Our World, Our Folly,” http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3751. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3762)

National Insecurity, Compliments of the CIA and ODNI

National Insecurity, Compliments of the CIA and ODNI

Most objective observers knew from the outset that the Community Organizer in Chief was in way over his head when America elected Barack Hussein Obama as president based primarily on his vague promises of hope and change.

We cringed with his various czar appointments and wondered about the people he installed as protectors of our national security. Leon Panetta at age 71 was awarded the post as CIA Director even though his experience and expertise in the areas of foreign intelligence were nil and then 69 year old James R. Clapper became our Director of National Intelligence.

Panetta’s chief claim to fame were his nine terms as a California congressman from California and his 4 years as Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff. Panetta is a nothing more than a political hack. Retired Air Force Lt. General Clapper did have an intelligence background although you’d never know it.

The CIA is charged with furnishing “intelligence (or information) to the President, the National Security Council, and all other government officials who make and carry out US national security policy.” ODNI’s responsibility is to ”Ensure that timely and objective national intelligence is provided to the President, the heads of departments and agencies of the executive branch; the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior military commanders; and the Congress.”

Both the CIA and ODNI have failed miserably in their stated missions.

Tweedledum Panetta and Tweedledee Clapper have jointly reinforced Malcolm X’s and Obama’s favorite pastor’s line about America’s chickens coming home to roost. Panetta and Clapper have also reminded Americans that very people who are supposed to be keeping abreast of national security issues haven’t the vaguest clue as to what’s going on in the world.

When those chickens roost, America could be toast, for all they know. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3612)

Anthems and Conspiracies, Liberals and Caliphates

It doesn’t take long to detect a leftist and it takes even less time to detect a nimrod. Just listen to what they say and read what they write. As for leftist nimrods, which are usually interchangeable terms, they might as well carry a sign.

David Corn, a card-carrying leftist nimrod, is a case in point. Kevin Blackistone, a sports-writing nonentity, is another. The chief difference between them is that in Corn’s case he veritably oozes leftist venom through his pores and Blackistone is just a run-of-the-mill, America-hating liberal.

Like most leftists, Blackistone has issues with American traditions unless, of course, those traditions involve favored liberal causes, like flag-burning. Referring to Christina Aguilera’s botching of the national anthem at the Superbowl, he ragged on “The Star-Spangled-Banner” as not only irrelevant to sporting events when it is traditionally played or sung prior to the start of play, Blackistone also contended it has nothing to do with patriotism, either. Rather, it has “everything to do with war” and “the politics of militarism.”

His complaints are nothing more than a re-hash of anti-war rhetoric which is near and dear to the hearts of liberals and distinguishing them from us warmongering conservatives who absolutely love the idea of armies slaughtering other armies. That false, inflated sense of moral superiority is characteristic of the liberal mentality and is as flawed as everything else the left professes to believe.

“The Star-Spangled Banner” was composed by Francis Scott Key following the bombardment of Fort McHenry during the War of 1812 but is anything but a glorification of war. Adopted as the nation’s anthem in 1931, the song serves as a reminder of our country’s history and the glory of our flag. The rockets and bombs “Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there . . . that star-spangled banner yet wave[d] O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

We could adopt a new national anthem, one easier to sing, but why? To please people like Blackistone? We could instead choose “Hail, Columbia!” or “America the Beautiful,” or “God Bless America,” but why? Liberals despise those sentiments, as well. And would a different anthem give patriotic Americans the same lump in the throat as do the strains of “The Star-Spangled Banner”?

Blackistone also suggested “Ballad for Americans,” a song popularized by the black Communist, Paul Robeson: http://tiny.cc/iigvu

Blackistone is correct about one thing, however. Many Americans don’t know all the anthem lyrics and it is often disrespected by thoughtless sports fans when it is played. That, however, is just testimony to our schools’ failure to teach the song and to their failure to explain why audiences should demonstrate proper reverence for our flag.

David Corn is a leftist of a different color from David Blackistone, no racial pun intended.

Corn, a “progressive” author and commentator, like all “progressives” despises Glenn Beck as much as he despises Sarah Palin and thinks he has just the ticket for getting rid of one of the banes of his existence, Beck. Corn began an article on the “progressive” PoliticsDaily.com with an excussion into wishful thinking: “Glenn Beck is walking toward a cliff–or running, or skipping. The question is, will Fox News go flying over the edge with him, or give him a push?” . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3597)

Who Goes First, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il?

Who Goes First, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-il?

The field has come down to two insane despots, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and North Korea’s Kim Jong-il. The question comes down to which of those two crazies will be first to precipitate a nuclear holocaust, the twice-elected Iranian 54 year old nut or the never-elected 69 year old fruitcake in North Korea?

It’s a bewilderment, I tell you, an absolute bewilderment, even if some would emphasize that the dynamic duo wouldn’t be the first country to nuke another country. The United States has undisputed claim to that first since we dropped ”Little Boy” and ”Fat Man” on, respectively, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War Two.

We also can proudly lay claim to being the only nation in the history of the planet to possses the ability to bring every other nation on the planet to its knees, enslave them if we had such a mind, and have them pay billions in tribute in perpetuity. We chose not to do any of that and instead chose to rebuild a devastated world.

It can only be speculated as to whether the Communist U.S.S.R. or the Communist People’s Republic of China–or today’s Iran or North Korea–would have picked that option, speculated only by the terminally naive.

However, back to our two contemporary loonies, Mahmoud and Kim, either or both of whom would have gleefully reduced the globe to glowing, radioactive dust had they been able 65 years ago and, as they themselves gasped their last glowing, radioactive breaths, still have blamed someone else. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2793)

Good-Bye Pat-Downs, Hello Boom-Booms?

Good-Bye Pat-Downs, Hello Boom-Booms?

. . . You’re in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Shortly thereafter an announcement comes over the PA system: “Attention standby passengers–we now have a seat available on flight number XXXX. Shalom!”

There are a few obvious flaws in that new approach to terror in the skies and elsewhere, chief among which is the issue of containing the explosion to the bomb-carrier.

Also to be considered would be the certainty of the ACLU and other terrorist-loving groups filing complaints and lawsuits seeking to overturn the system to give terrorists a fighting chance to kill a bunch of innocents. After all, at that juncture in their travel, they would still be ground-bound and to effectively profile them by singling out underwear or armpit or crotch bombers is un-Constitutional, no?

Finally, the whole plan is impractical. . .
Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2732)

A Reader's Comment on the USS Liberty Controversy

A Reader's Comment on the USS Liberty Controversy

“I assist in the USS Liberty Cover Up web site and have concluded that nothing annoys and drives the Israel First-Liberty apologist crowd nuts [as much as] facts and the mention of the deliberate attack of the ship. If you believe that the attack was without premeditation then you could easily justify that Pearl Harbor was non-intentional by the logic and reasons used by apologists.

“It should be noted that Israel accepted responsibility for the incident and paid millions to the families of those that died, those that were injured and to cover damage to the vessel itself.

“Standard apologist similar boilerplate above for years has claimed this. The families of the dead were not paid until 1968, the wounded were not paid until 1969, Ship damages of only ’six million’ were not paid until Dec. 18, 1980 until James Ennes exposed the non payment of 13 years in his 1979 book, Assault on the Liberty.

“George Ball, Kennedy and LBJ Under Secretary of State said: ‘In the end, the Israelis tendered a reluctant and graceless apology; indemnities for the victims and damaged ship were both parsimonious and slow in coming.’

“Israel’s Naval Museum in some classless and some convoluted pride displays the MTB’s bell and helm that fired the torpedo that killed 25 Liberty crew but to their credit does not advertise this or mention the attack in the display. Do they know what their vessel did that warrants such a display? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1883)

The USS Liberty: Israel's Defenders Stage a Counterattack

The USS Liberty: Israel's Defenders Stage a Counterattack

A bit of a brouhaha. A mini tempest in a teapot. A minor hulabaloo. Much ado about nothing.

All of the above describe the second set of reactions to my articles on the USS Liberty as reprinted on AmericanConservativeDaily.com, and all of which were anticipated.

It seems as if whenever I dare cite evidence with regard to Israel’s 1967 attack on the Liberty it stirs up great angst in certain sectors of the citizenry. I haven’t yet been accused of being an anti-Semite because of my views but just give it time. It’s just coincidental, I’m sure, but the last time I dealt with this topic my blogsite was assaulted with malware.

As I said, just a coincidence.

Three comments on ACD with my [bracketed] rebuttals.

3 Responses to “The USS Liberty, Sickening Truth vs. Official Lies”

Jaffrin Spes on September 4th, 2010 9:23 am
You’re hysterical in more ways than one Gene. First you are hysterical in the funny sense as anyone that reads my comments will clearly see that I was not “irate” as you claim to avoid actually addressing the facts. Secondly you are hysterical in the sense that, well you are just hysterical over the fact that someone would dare provide facts instead of conspiracy theories. [Maybe it’s just me but comments such as, “Of course if you want to delve into Truther land of LIHOP or MIHOP you are welcome to do that. I think it is silly but to each his own. If you want to think of more sinister motives and convince anyone more than accusations will be needed,” smack of sarcasm which is a product of ire. Furthermore, those facts that “Jaffrin Spes” craves were more than adequately furnished in the words of such notables as Dean Rusk, Richard Helms, Oliver Kirby, Richard F. Kiepfer, and eyewitness and crew member of the Liberty, Rick Aimetti. That is, unless “Jaffrin Spes” considers a Secretary of State, a head of the CIA, an NSA Deputy Director, and two Liberty survivors as equally “silly” and/or liars.]

Black Con on September 4th, 2010 12:56 pm
Gene, I followed your last post and saw this comment you are referring to. How you jumped to the conclusion that his comments were “irate” really boggles my mind. It seems to me that you are acting very defense. [See above]

Actually Gene the theories if [sic] MIHOP and LIHOP do pertain to this incident although [sic] Since they also refer . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1881)

The USS Liberty, Sickening Truth vs Official Lies

The USS Liberty, Sickening Truth vs Official Lies

Not unexpectedly, an apparently irate reader of “A Reader Speaks Out on the Festering Shame of the USS Liberty” also spoke out on the “USS Liberty Incident” on AmericanConservativeDaily.com where this blog is syndicated.

Writing as if he were someone in the know, “Jaffrin Spes” wrote on ACD that, “The reason Israel was never condemned for the attack is because the U.S. Naval Court Inquiry in 1967 determined the attack was a case of mistaken identity. The CIA’s intelligence report of the same year determined there was no malice intended but, as often happened in war, the target was failed to be properly identified. This is hardly a new problem as even during the Iraq War many U.S. soldiers were killed by friendly fire because of misidentification.

Of course if you want to delve into Truther land of LIHOP or MIHOP you are welcome to do that. I think it is silly but to each his own. If you want to think of more sinister motives and convince anyone more than accusations will be needed.”

Being something of a silly dolt, I admit I had to research LIHOP, (”Let It Happen on Purpose”) and MIHOP, (”Make It Happen on Purpose”), two levels of conspiracy theories I discovered are most often applied to the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001.

I can assure “Jaffrin Spes” that there is no valid comparison between those poppycock theories and the events of June 8th, 1967.

To be precise, “Jaffrin Spes’ ” citing of that U.S. Naval Court Inquiry and the CIA report is a further example of the cover-up that refuses to go away and is testimony to the effectiveness of that cover-up even after 43 years. To be more blunt, “Jaffrin Spes” must be functioning in one of three roles: a governmental front, a blind apologist for Israel, or a terminally naive indidividual.

Or, maybe, a combination of all three?

The article in question, http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/, was primarily intended to present the impressions of one “C.K. Amos,” “Darwin,” . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1880)

A Reader Speaks Out on the Festering Shame of the USS Liberty

A Reader Speaks Out on the Festering Shame of the USS Liberty

. . . Briefly, on a clear June 8th, 1967 afternoon in international waters off the Sinai Peninsula, the American surveillance ship was repeatedly attacked, strafed and torpedoed by the Israeli air force and navy. The Six Day War was in progress at the time and the ship was flying the U.S. colors. When the attacks were over hours later, 34 officers and seamen of the Liberty lay dead with another 174 injured and maimed. Though seriously damaged, the ship remained afloat.

Since the event, various inquiries and investigations have been conducted, testimony from eye witnesses has been taken, and various medals have been awarded but neither the Navy nor our government has ever condemned Israel for the unprovoked attack.

Some years later, after numerous denials of culpability, Israel did pay reparations while still denying responsibility. Yet, still, there were no official recriminations or even mild criticisms of Israel forthcoming.

The central issue surrounding the Liberty may be summarized as follows: Either the survivors had all conspired to lie about what they had witnessed first-hand or our navy and government had conspired to engage in a massive cover-up in order to protect Israel, ostensibly an ally, from public repercussions. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1878)

Wars and Rumors of Wars Part Two

Wars and Rumors of War Part Two

People and nations being what they are, our world has never been starved for war but rarely in history have so many wars of consequence been threatened which are contemporaneous with one another.

All wars are consequential, of course, but most are limited in scope to tribes or other small groups and many are of the civil war variety contained within a single country. The continent of Africa is a case in point.

Today we face three very hot spots any one of which could erupt into a widespread conflagration with the potential of involving various other nations if not resulting in World War III.

An overview of the threats:

Afghanistan and Iraq: The U.S. has been mired in those two interrelated hellholes for almost nine and for seven years respectively and though the president has announced plans to pack up and bug out of both, the outcomes are far from undecided.

The British were defeated by the Afghanis in the 19th century, the Russians in the 2oth. If we are seen as retreating or if we should lose the upcoming, crucial battle in the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar, it will be seen as yet another sign of weakness. In this age of terrorism, that’s not a good image to project. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1702)

Updates: Amy Bishop and Goel Ratzon

Updates: Amy Bishop and Goel Ratzon
Pure coincidence?

The old jingle, “Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don’t” may become the theme song and the only defense of accused triple murderess, Amy Bishop.

Ten days ago she certainly felt like a nut when she offed 3 colleagues and wounded 3 others at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. She then calmly called her hubby, James Anderson, a police “person of interest,” for a ride home, and denied to police that anything had happened. She swore her victims were all alive and well.

Nice premeditated construction of an insanity defense there, Ms. Amy!

Her court-appointed attorney, Roy W. Miller, is claiming Brown, a neuroscientist, is a paranoid schizophrenic who was distraught over being denied tenure at second-rate UAH after earning her PhD at top-rated Harvard: http://bit.ly/d6wJGz

(See “Amy Bishop, Leftist Oddball,” http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1508, for other exploits of the Obama-loving Amy.)

I claim that despite Bishop’s bizarre behavior over the years she’s not much nuttier than anyone else who graduates Harvard and that utilizing a legal aid lawyer is her initial ploy to have her eventual guilty verdict overturned on the basis of inadequate representation.

Nice try, Amy!

More dirt has been oozing out of Goel Ratzon’s Israel.

I confess to treating the Ratzon matter far more lightly than it should have been treated in “Sex and the Multi-Married Israeli,” http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1499.

On the surface, . . .

(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1512)