Our North Korean Allies and Our Marine Corpsemen

Our North Korean Allies and Our Marine Corpsmen

If Obama and his henchmen in the media weren’t so goldarn pathethic, they’d be deliriously hilarious.

One website speculated that our president, who also pretends to be our commander-in-chief, “was thinking of recruiting corpses from the cult movie Night of the Living Dead for the military and had walking zombies on his mind” when he invented a neologism at the last National Prayer Breakfast. Or maybe it was an attack of sheer terror at the thought of the word prayer that inspired him to say “corpseman,” not once but twice in his address, showing it was not a mere slip of the lip? Or maybe it’s just one more lie fabricated by those desparate wascally wepublicans to make the Obamassiah look fallible?

You’ve never heard of that Obama neologism, a term that describes both a coined word and the meaningless word spoken by a psychotic, you say?

One has to wonder why! After all, it was spoken–twice–by Obama in February! Still unconvinced that our brilliant “philosopher president” could say something so stupid–twice–give a look and a listen here: http://tiny.cc/jsghs

Caution! Make it a fast look and listen before the Obamians claim it never happened. They also tried to deny that he said, “I’ve now been in 57 states with I think one left to go,” a calculation which gave America 58 states which is also incorrect since he added, “Alaska and Hawaii, I wasn’t allowed to go to.” . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2814)

Limbaugh Demonizes Obama

Limbaugh Demonizes Obama

Rush Limbaugh has never been known for his subtlety nor for his reticence--and certainly not for his monogamy. As I've often said, he's an insufferable blowhard but he happens to be our insufferable blowhard, that is, a dedicated and highly influential conservative even if he engages in bombast and flame-throwing once in a while.

The bombast is always anticipated but a major flame emanated from Rush's EIB studio, his Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies on Monday which will surely ignite the bubbling venom in the bowels of his countless liberal critics when he said--sort of--that the president of the United States was a devil.

Later,in an article posted on RushLimbaugh.com titled, "Helpless Liberals Watch as Obama Switches from Messiah to Demon." those broadcast comments were published for all to see.

Limbaugh cites pictures on DrudgeReport.com and ominously says, "Folks, these pictures, they look demonic. And I don't say this lightly. There are a couple pictures, and the eyes, I'm not saying anything here, but just look. It is strange that these pictures would be released. . . It's very, very, very strange. An American president has never had facial expressions like this."

When Limbaugh says, "I'm not saying anything here," he's being grossly disingenuous because he's obviously saying a great deal there. To see where there is, to see various recent pictures of Barack Obama as demon and read Limbaugh's analysis of the Democrat Party days before the election that could change America's political landscape, click here: http://bit.ly/db91lV

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, can evil also be detected by beholders? It is said that pictures never lie, no? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2276)

Maybe Obama Really Isn't Black Enough?

Maybe Obama Really Isn't Black Enough?

Time Magazine and the LA Times, among others, posed the daunting question in February 2007, long before the junior senator from Illinois tossed his hat into the presidential ring, “Is Obama Black Enough?” The Time article concluded with the puzzling observation that “Barack Obama’s real problem isn’t that he’s too white–it’s that he’s too black.”

Granted, the biracial Obama wasn’t as black as 50 Cent or Chris Rock but so what? Too black, too white, whatever.

The questions Time and others should have been asking were, Why in God’s holy name was this guy, Barack Hussein Obama, even being considered as “presidential material” after barely a year on the national stage? Why was a woefully inexperienced and untested individual being lionized by the MSM and touted as a possible nominee for the Democrat Party’s next entry into the presidential sweepstakes?

And, the most obvious unasked question of all, Was Obama in fact being considered precisely because he was (partially) black and because he represented the best shot people of color had to win the presidency? Did his fans view his election as a way to finally and definitively expiate their nagging white guilt?

If Obama were to be nominated simply because of the color of his skin and not the content of his character, his qualifications and suitability for the presidency of the United States, wouldn’t that be racist in Martin Luther King Jr.’s lexicon?

The very reverend Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would later question Obama’s black identity and credentials but at least Joe Biden accepted him for what he was, even if he was the “first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

Wouldn’t it also be racist and blatantly discriminatory to favor any particular group or groups for special treatment because of their color? . . .
(read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2214)

Gimme That Ol' Time Religion at the White House

Gimme That Ol' Time Religion at the White House

Ya think President Barack Hussein Obama smells an election coming and knows his Dems just may suffer a historic defeat on November 2? I do.

I concluded an earlier article on Barack Obama’s new-found religiosity–and it’s NOT the Islamic religion, I’ll have you know!–with the following: ”The mainstream, the center, is the source of all good things for politicians and in that center are 225,000,000 American Christians. Obama is tracking in that direction and thinks he can go ‘a hundred miles an hour’ as long as he has his plastic Jesus on board.”

That was a reference to Obama’s semi-retreat on his earlier pronouncement to the Muslim world that America was not a Christian nation, his statement last month that the U.S. is “still predominantly Christian,” his packing up the family to attend services at St. John’s Episcopal on September 14th, and telling a New Mexico audience (71% Christian) how deeply influenced he was ”by the precepts of Jesus Christ.”

See “Barack and His Amazing Technicolor Conversion,” http://tiny.cc/auv0q

Someone should remind the president that Christ didn’t much care for lying hypocrites. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2193)

Nixon and Obama: Two Peas in Similar, Sleazey Pods

Nixon and Obama: Two Peas in Similar, Sleazey Pods

The same day the president suffered the indignity of having a book thrown at him and a streaker streak him in Phladelphia and just a few days after the presidential seal fell off the rostrum in D.C., Obama was accused of underhanded Nixonesque tactics. It’s almost as if the sky–and his facade–were falling all around Barack.

President Richard Milhaus Nixon, widely castigated and justifiably shamed out of office but now regarded as one of the better presidents of the twentieth century by objective observers had some things in common with President Barack Hussein Obama.

Oceans if not galaxies separated their political philosophies but, as men and policians, there were more similarities between them than our current leader and his supporters and idolators would dare admit.

Last week Obama visited the great state of Maryland, a state he carried two years ago but which in 2010 is somewhat less than a Democrat sure thing. His audience in Bowie, MD consisted mainly of ”thousands of African Americans who came to see the man they voted for two years ago.” His message ”was simple: Get out and vote for the Democratic ticket in next month’s mid-term elections, even though he’s not on the ballot:” http://tiny.cc/1w6vs

Nixon, a white man, never had an extrordinarily great appeal to African Americans, (he received a piddling 18% of the black vote in his ’72 landslide) but Obama garnered a whopping 93% of that vote in 2008 so, very reasonably, he said to his mostly black audience in Bowie, feigning levity, “Don’t make me look bad, now,” now being the midterm election on November 2nd.

Obama is fully aware that the election in three weeks has the potential of sinking his leaking ship and will determine the fate of his agenda over his last two years in office. He needs his black constituency to support his fellow Democrats as much this year as he did two years ago.

Nixon won election in 1968 primarily on a divisive strategy. He appealed to what came to be called “the silent majority,” that multi-million mass of Americans who were fed up with the war in Viet Nam that we were losing for political, not military, reasons, and fed up with the overall condition of the country under the less than conscientious care of a war-distracted LBJ and a disunited Democrat Party.

Likewise, Mr. Obama, who campaigned to a war-divided nation on the basis of some undefined change ostensibly planned to unite the country, to end our wars which still rage, and to launch us on an as yet undetectable economic recovery, essentially plotted just the opposite. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2171)

The Homosexual Problem with Just Cookies

The Homosexual Problem with Just Cookies

. . . Contemporaneous with gays moving into the mainstream of general American life and society has been a decided muscle-flexing as they have pushed more and more into schools and colleges to advance their agenda of insisted acceptance. That topic has been treated at great length in this space.

Encouraged by their overall success in promoting their agenda, another “push” has been in the area of promoting themselves in the commercial sector. That may be misleading since the gay strategy is more akin to forcing themselves on various businesses, “forced homosexual affirmations,” and destroying some of those enterprises in the process.

A recent instance of forcible affirmation involved a small, family-owned business in Indianapolis. “Just Cookies” had sold, what else, just cookies, (and some cupcakes), for 20 years in its store located in the city-owned City Market Building.

Americans for Truth detailed what happened when a gay group insisted on making a purchase that did not involve just cookies: ”Just Cookies was approached by some local homosexual demands group activists and asked to make a special order of cupcakes designed with homosexual rainbows for the ‘National Coming Out Day.’ This is an event sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign in Washington, DC. It exists solely to encourage homosexual behavior among students and kids.

“The owners of Just Cookies [the Stockton family] declined this special order, which required their design talents being used to embrace this controversial and morally questionable event. The activists could have purchased cookies and other items off the shelf, [or could have shopped elsewhere] but wanted something specific for their event at a local university. The homosexual demands groups saw a ‘no thank you’ as ‘discrimination’ simply because the owners didn’t want any part of promoting homosexuality among kids.

“The issue really exploded this week when this news broke and the Mayor’s office took the side of the homosexual demands . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2099)

Obama and the LCD

Obama and the LCD

I’ve omitted the ellipses in the above passage of contemporary “poetry”/rap crap from Bobby Ray Simmons’ popular rap crap group B.O.B. but all the spelling, punctuation, grammar and syntax are untouched. I think the flavor comes through loud and clear, maybe too loudly and too clearly.

B.O.B. headlined your president’s sell-out fundraiser at the Daughters of the American Revolution (D.A.R.) Constitution Hall in D.C., of all places.

The D.A.R. will have to fumigate the joint now.

Your desparate commander-in-chief, in his always classy fashion, has resorted to the LCD to stoke up his base, not a liquid crystal display but the least common denominator, rap crappers B.O.B., replete with their suggestions of the black hoodlum ghetto, degradation of girls and women, drugs, criminality and, of course, filled with obscenities and use of the N-word, deemed unsuitable for the English language and for which B.O.B. substitutes the innocuous, ”nigga.”

Very uplifting, Barack!

Actually, it was a Democratic National Committee fundraiser-concert-rally and, actually, it was very difficult to determine how many of the 3,000 young attendees attended to cheer on the president and how many were induced to show up by the prospects of seeing and hearing the equally-classy B.O.B. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2044)

Barack and His Amazing Technicolor Conversion!

Barack and His Amazing Technicolor Conversion!

Back in the old days, circa 1971 A.D., Don Imus, pre-WFAN and pre- his “nappy-headed ho’s” scandal, had a song-shtick on his morning radio show which featured the “Reverend Billy Saul Hargis,” pastor of the First Church of the Gooey Death and Discount House of Worship.

In part, the lyrics were, “Well, I don’t care if it rains or freezes/Long as I have my plastic Jesus/Riding on the dashboard of my car./ I can go a hundred miles an hour/Long as I got the almighty power/Glued up there by my pair of fuzzy dice.”

As irreverent as those lyrics were, our president may have outdone them in irreverence. He’s glued his plastic Jesus up there next to his framed picture of himself.

The same man who proclaimed to the Muslim world that America was not a Christian nation seems to have experienced a Christian epiphany comparable to that of Saul of Tarsus. Okay, Obama wasn’t knocked off his high horse and wasn’t blinded by a light but he must have had a startling epiphany nevertheless since he finally “got religion,” and the Christian religion at that!

Not one to often darken the doorways of churches since he tossed his pastor of 20 years under a Greyhound, along with the Reverend Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, Barack Obama has finally cleared the festering air as to whether he is a Muslim or a Christian: “President Obama took the issue of his faith head on Tuesday, telling residents in New Mexico that he is a ‘Christian by choice’ who came to religion later in life after being inspired by the teachings of Jesus Christ.”

Now, is that a heartfelt, sincere profession of Christian faith or what? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2029)

Are We Better Off Today than We Were Two Years Ago?

Are We Better Off Today than We Were Two Years Ago?

The Great Communicator, the nation’s last true conservative president, Ronaldus Magnus, Ronald Wilson Reagan, won the election of 1980 against Jimmy Carter in large part because he asked the nation a probing question in their last televised debate.

Reagan posed the question that cut to the essence of what Carter thought was the electorate’s malaise: ”Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

As Kyle-Anne Shiver recounts, ”That simple Reagan question reached right into my heart of hearts and transformed me from a poppycock-believing, hippie liberal to patriotic conservative in one fell swoop.”

Indeed, it was one helluva question, one which Shiver suggests should be asked over and over by Republican House and Senate candidates during these last few weeks before Election Day.

As Shiver wrote on PajamasMedia.com, ”I would start putting that same slogan on every billboard and on every post in every town square in America. I would print millions of those ‘Are you better off now than you were four years ago?’ posters for folks to put in their front yards. I would make a gazillion bumper stickers and T-shirts and coffee mugs and I would open every single speech on the campaign trail with that question: ” http://tiny.cc/fazc1

It was a question that energized the Reagan faithful, the Reagan Democrats, and the electorate as a whole to cast their votes for a former actor and governor, the nouveau leader of the conservative movement since most people didn’t feel they were better off.

That momentous election led to a landslide four years later, to eight years of almost unprecedented economic growth, a rebuilding of our national defense forces, and of regaining our position in the world. Most importantly it led to a much-needed revival of American pride and spirit when we could once again envision our destiny as that shining city on the hill, that beacon of hope for all the world to see and emulate.

To paraphrase the old Virginia Slims commercial, “We’ve come a long way, Baby” in the 21 years since Reagan left office but not along the right way. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2017)

Christians and Jews and Muslims, Oh My!

Christians and Jews and Muslims, Oh My!

“The United States of America is the only country in history to have defined itself as Judeo-Christian,” according to JewishWorldReview,com, which goes on to say, “That is why American coins feature these two messages: ‘In G-d we trust’ and ‘Liberty.’ “

I think the first statement above is untrue and the second, meant to distinguish us from Christian European nations, is a non-sequitur not logically derived from the first.

The “definition” of America as “Judeo-Christian” has a fairly recent history advanced by those who wish it were so. Trusting in a “Christian God” as well as believing in liberty were foundational concepts of our Revolution and in the establishment of our Constitution and are certainly not attributable to any Jewish influence.

Granted, the Founding Fathers were well aware of the Jewish heritage and of Christianity’s relationship to that heritage and many, including Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison, were Deists or dabblers in Deism. Deism, the popular monotheistic, religious fad of the Age of Enlightenment held that God was some detached ”Supreme Architect” of the universe rather than an involved Supreme Being, a Prime Mover not a personal God.

Point is, none of the Founders ever referred to the new nation they created as Judeo-Christian. They all knew their Bible well, both Old and New Testaments, but were, at worst, closet Christians; Jefferson even wrote The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.

This is all relevant today, two and a quarter centuries later, as our president, an ambivalent Christian at best, is suspected of being a closet Muslim. If that in fact is true, he’s covered his tracks well, getting married and having his daughters christened in an ostensibly Christian church and, when his popularity plummetted and mid-term elections loomed, actually attending a D.C. church service.

Whether his trusty teleprompter was in the repair shop or he just felt flush from his recent bamboozling of the American people, Mr. Obama went to Muslim Turkey six months after his election and disabused the Turks and the world and America’s 225 million Christians of the notion that America was any longer a Christian nation. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2003)

Scary People in the News, Part Two: Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Scary People in the News, Part Two: Nassim Nicholas Taleb

My second nominee for last week’s most scary people in the news is Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a brilliant, Lebanese-born scholar, mathematician, epistemologist, and best-selling author who is scary for reasons different from Malik Zulu Shabazz’ scariness.

Shabazz is scary because he’s a dangerous black supremacist. Taleb is scary because he validates the opinion of millions of people who believe the President of the United States hasn’t a clue as to what he’s doing.

Taleb is the author of The Black Swan, the Impact of the Highly Improbable. The Black Swan Theory” refers “to unexpected events of large magnitude and consequence and their dominant role in history.”

Taleb has concluded that Obama’s vaunted “stimulus,” the linchpin of the administration’s scheme for reviving and stimulating the American economy, the stimulus he now wants replicated, was probably the worst thing that could have been done toward that end.

Now, that’s not really news. The administration’s tried–and failed–mantra that, “Bush did it!” never did ring true since our economic mess was a bi-partisan effort caused not chiefly by GWB spending like a drunken Dem but by Democrat congresses. Bush was grossly wrong. However, for necessary perspective, it was the Dems–with Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Chris Dodd, and ACORN in the vanguard–who made a bad situation worse..

Democrats set up the housing crisis which precipitated the banking crisis by forcing lending institutions, especially but not exclusively Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, to grant mortgages to too many people who didn’t have a pot to pee in but whom Frank and Dodd magnanimously felt were entitled to the American Dream, to own a home of their own

That’s an admirable goal on its surface but pockmarked by the realities that many people aren’t prepared, financially or in practicality, to own a home.

All that aside, back to Professor Taleb who is scary mainly because he reinforces what economic conservatives have felt all along but haven’t had sufficient mainstream support to prove our contentions that Obama and his fellow hotshots, his economic gurus who believed spending gazillions of dollars, would lead the country back to prosperity if not to the land of boundless milk and honey, were and are horses’ derrieres.

It’s disconcerting to be right when being right means your country is in a financial pickle the likes of which we haven’t witnessed since the Great Depression and from which extricating ourselves will take generations, if we can succeed at all.

In a speech last week, Taleb charged that Obama and his merry band of economic clods weakened the country’s economy by seeking to foster growth instead of paying down the federal debt. That logical route to solvency was lost on Obama’s misbegotten band of inept advisors and may be in process of being phased out. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1991)

All the President's Wars

All the President's Wars

Dysfunctional, defeatist, depressing. Those adjectives are just three that describe the Obama administration’s first 20 months, according to a new book by Bob Woodward, Obama’s Wars.

In an article entitled, “Bob Woodward’s Book Details Obama Battles with Advisors over Exit Plans for Afghan War,” Steve Luxenberg of the Washington Post reveals that the book goes far beyond tactics and strategies in Afghanistan.

All in all, it doesn’t present a pretty picture of the Obama administration nor is it a flattering insight into Obama’s handling of that war.

In addition to the president’s incessant disputes with his advisors and generals. what comes across most glaringly in Obama’s Wars is Obama’s fixation, not with winning the war, but with getting out, with extricating our forces in order to fulfill his campaign pledges to the Democrat Party faithful.

To the surprise of very few people, his obsession with that “exit plan” at all costs makes the Afghan War clearly a domestic political war with concern for politics the governing force over any strategies. Our troops over there getting shot at and dying will find no comfort in that fact.

A curious facet of Woodward’s book and Luxenberg’s review is the amazing similarity between Barack Obama’s attitude toward a future terrorist attack or attacks and that expressed by Newsweek editor and CNN commentator, Fareed Zakaria.

In a 2007 Newsweek article, Zakaria proposed a policy of “resilience” in the event of terrorist nuclear attacks. He believed we should be prepared to take such attacks on our soil after which we can simply “bounce back from a disruption:” http://tiny.cc/mllpi

Resilience? Bounce back? A disruption?

Now note President Obama’s words . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1937)

Obama's Aunt Zeituni: Ingrate!

Obama's Aunt Zeituni: Ingrate!

What do you do with an auntie named Zeituni?

I posed that Maria-ish question back in February in “Zeituni’s Place in Obama’s Zeitgeist,” (http://tiny.cc/ncqdx), when President Barack Hussein Obama’s Aunt Zeituni Onyango was still awaiting a decision on her third request for asylum in the United States.

Onyango, a Kenyan, just like Obama’s father and much of his extended family, arrived on our shores in 2000, overstayed her visa–by about 10 years–went on welfare and lived in a homeless shelter.

She then was given priority treatment for public housing in Boston while seeking legal refuge here on the questionable basis that she would be in danger if she returned home to Kenya because she was the aunt of a U.S. president.

Unemployed, she still lives in South Boston on disability payments of $700. a month.

In any event, she insisted she didn’t want any special treatment from nephew Barack due to her familial status, and insists she didn’t get any.

Despite being fondly remembered in Obama’s Dreams from My Father, the president said that if she were living here as an illegal alien–which she was, and on the dole–”Dear Auntie Zeituni” should be deported. As he put it, ”If she has violated laws, then those laws have to be obeyed. We are a nation of laws.”

To his credit, I guess, Obama cuts no slack for relatives. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1917)

A "Birther" Refuter

A "Birther" Refuter

A rapid, extended–and emphatic–refutation quickly followed the posting of my article, “Of Birthers and Truthers, Part One.”

Because of the rapidity, detailed–and forceful– response and at the risk of suggesting yet another conspiracy, one has to wonder whether the commenter, “granite,” who is otherwise unidentified, is a member of a presidential Rapid Response Team assigned to shoot down any speculation as to Barack Hussein Obama’s true birthplace and eligibility for the presidency.

Please note that in that article, I didn’t take a position on the validity of the Birthers’ claims and merely tried to show that the MSM has ignored most of their allegations.

Below is the notice of “granite’s” comment and that comment verbatim. The reader should also be aware that all the issues in the article aren’t addressed and that, of the six links provided by “granite” to substantiate his case, four are broken, (”Page not found,” etc.) Make of that what you will.

Refutations of this refuter, (which, by the way, is in fact a word unlike “refudiate”), are invited. . .
(Read "granite's" full comment at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1896)

Of Birthers and Truthers, Part One

Of Birthers and Truthers, Part One

So much has been written and said about so-called “Birthers,” those people who question Barack Hussein Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen,” and so-called “Truthers,” those who question the official account of the events on September 11th, 2001, that it’s nearly impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The wheat, that is, the truth, is there, somewhere buried deep beneath all the chaff, the baloney and propaganda, but unearthing that truth is no simple matter for someone who has never subscribed to either the Birther or Truther alleged conspiracies.

Let’s immediately dispel the most common slander employed against the Birthers namely that they’re racists who cooked up the whole Obama birth controversy out of their antagonism toward the first black president in America’s history.

There is no substantive proof of a racist motivation on the part of Birthers. That charge of racism has been used from the beginning of Obama’s candidacy to dismiss virtually all who speak ill of the man, his beliefs, or his policies.

It’s an excellent, if underhanded, ploy when you think about it, deftly tossing the racist card into the campaign mix whenever someone criticized Obama. Rarely tossed overtly, it was more often implicit and probably garnered a few million white votes cast by those who wanted desparately to assure themselves and others that they weren’t racists.

It’s also more than curious that the MSM fell all over itself dismissing and ridiculing Birthers with no real effort to investigate their contentions and standpoint, much like they did with interrelated rumors that Obama was really a Muslim and as they subsequently did with regard to the Tea Party Movement.

That failure alone is reason enough to give at least some credence to the Birthers.

(Incidentally, there’s no substantive proof, either, that Birthers are a disturbed product of a resurrection of Hillary Clinton’s “vast, right wing conspiracy.”)

As a non-Birther, I figured going directly to the source was the best bet toward determining just how valid a case the Birthers made for their view that Barack Hussein Obama was a poseur not constitutionally-entitled to the presidency no matter how many votes he received . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1894)

How Obama Spent (Some) of His Summer Vacation

How Obama Spent (Some) of His Summer Vacation

“V-A-See-A-T-I-O-N, we’re on vacation, we’re gonna have a ball!” (Connie Francis)

It may be antiquated and not “with it” today but a popular back-to-school, first week assignment to get kids back to the grind used to be to have them write about how they spent their summer vacations. Most kids could write at least something on that easy topic.

If little Barry Obama were heading back to classes following summer vacation 2010, he would have a lot to write about. If he included where and how he spent this year’s vacations, to date, he could almost literally write volumes.

Compliments of IOwntheWorld.com, we present this pictorial insight into how our commander-in-chief, our president, our leader and chief bottle-washer, who had vowed, “I will not rest until everyone has a job, a good wage, and benefits,” has been spending his last vacation during this, America’s “recovery summer.”

Suffice to say, Obama, now being termed President Clark Griswold in a few quarters, has never, ever rested on his laurels nor on his vacations. Maybe he simply forgot that pledge to the American people and forgot those many millions of Americans still without a job, still without a good wage, and still without benefits.

Then, however, it would seem he has a surprisingly bad memory for such a smart dude since he’s forgotten any number of pledges and promises.

The pictures depict the president and First Lady thoroughly enjoying some ice cream during their vacation up there in the playground of the very rich and very famous, Martha’s Vineyard, where, for some very bizarre reason, GWB tee shirts were outselling BHO tee shirts. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1868)

"Obama Sucks" and Other Profound Thoughts

"Obama Sucks" and Other Profound Thoughts

The following is an admittedly ineffectual effort to come to an understanding of the meaning behind prevailing anti-Obama sentiment as revealed in two pictures. Since the pics are not visible on all websites, I’ll also attempt to provide sufficient detail about them so that the reader knows what he’s missing.

A) The first photo depicts a fairly attractive, blond woman in her thirties or forties possibly attending an anti-Obama rally while sporting a white print on a black tee shirt that clearly reflects her political feelings: It reads in bold lettering: ”OBAMA SUCKS.”

Absent a confirmed statement by the wearer, we can only guess at the precise meaning behind her cryptic tee. The graphic idea if not graphic photo appears to be an attempt by “ht/jc lady” on Iowntheworld.com to express one of two sentiments.

Either the provocative “ht/jc lady” is expressing a deep and heartfelt emotion in contemporary jargon that President Barack Hussein Obama represents the worst president in America’s long and illustrious history, that he “sucks” even worse than Fillmore, Wilson, Harding, and Carter, or ”ht/jc lady” is commenting on Obama’s sex life.

For the purpose of retaining my breakfast, I hope “Obama Sucks” relates only to his ineptitude and not in any way to his relationship with Michelle.

Tongue in cheek, IOTW comments on the photo that, “This woman is a straight up racist,” . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1864)

Impeaching Barack Hussein Obama

Impeaching Barack Hussein Obama

Another excellent reason for Republicans to regain control of the Senate and House of Representatives on November 2nd, beyond the obvious reasons of rolling back the Obama initiatives of the last 19 months and saving this country from socialism and bankruptcy, would be to impeach and bring to trial President Barack Hussein Obama.

Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution specifies that “the House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment.” Article 1, Section 3, specifies, “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.” Article 2, Section 4, specifies that “The President, Vice President and all civil officers [including federal judges and cabinet members] of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Proving charges of treason and bribery against the president would be unlikely at best but making a foolproof case for his having committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” is entirely within the realm of the possible. . .
(Read more at Another excellent reason for Republicans to regain control of the Senate and House of Representatives on November 2nd, beyond the obvious reasons of rolling back the Obama initiatives of the last 19 months and saving this country from socialism and bankruptcy, would be to impeach and bring to trial President Barack Hussein Obama.

Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution specifies that “the House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment.” Article 1, Section 3, specifies, “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.” Article 2, Section 4, specifies that “The President, Vice President and all civil officers [including federal judges and cabinet members] of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Proving charges of treason and bribery against the president would be unlikely at best but making a foolproof case for his having committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” is entirely within the realm of the possible. . .
Read more at Another excellent reason for Republicans to regain control of the Senate and House of Representatives on November 2nd, beyond the obvious reasons of rolling back the Obama initiatives of the last 19 months and saving this country from socialism and bankruptcy, would be to impeach and bring to trial President Barack Hussein Obama.

Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution specifies that “the House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment.” Article 1, Section 3, specifies, “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.” Article 2, Section 4, specifies that “The President, Vice President and all civil officers [including federal judges and cabinet members] of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Proving charges of treason and bribery against the president would be unlikely at best but making a foolproof case for his having committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” is entirely within the realm of the possible. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1837)

Boring Stimulus Facts that Will Change Our Lives

Boring Stimulus Facts that Will Change Our Lives

Ever get a big wad of unexpected cash fom somewhere? Were you conflicted as to what to do with it, whether to just go out and blow it, pay off bills, or save it for a rainy day?

The Obama administration had no such conflict, no doubts at all as to what to do with the $862 billion windfall it got its hands on as a result of the critically-needed 657 page stimulus bill last year, to which Democrats assigned the grandiose title of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Like any good drunken Democrat, they pissed it away.

The result has been no economic recovery, no “reinvestment,” (whatever that meant), and certainly no stimulus felt by the economy or the American people. Employment remains at an intolerable 9.5% a full 17 months after Obama’s stimulus package was passed by Obama’s Democrat congress and after the president promised that its passage would keep the unemployment rate at 8% or less.

One could say that we were snookered except for the fact that the snookering, as well as all the other Obamian boondoggles perpetrated on the American people, will not only affect us, the taxpayers. Our kids and grandkids will be paying off much of the tab into the next century.

And now Obama and his merry band of spendthrift Democrats want yet another “stimulus package” to piss away.

The inmates have clearly taken over the asylum.

Republicans, who also screwed up during the Bush years with their irrational exuberance for spending our and our kids’ and grandkids’ hard-earned bucks, have nothing to crow about but at least the deficits they built up during those years were believable if obscene. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1830)

Hyperbole Morphing into Reality: America's Looming Revolution?

Hyperbole Morphing into Reality: America's Looming Revolution?

It’s easy to engage in negative hyperbole in discussing the current president even if that exaggeration sometimes seems unfair.

His policies, his associations, the statutes and regulations he and his swampy congress have pushed through, the now-exposed media conspiracy to grease his way into office and cover up his gaffes and flaws, the national upheaval and divisiveness he has created naturally lend themselves, and him, to occasional, irrational overreaction.

No president has ever won the hearts and minds of 100% of the American people; even George Washington was disparaged by some former Tories. However, from his inauguration and in the campaign leading up to November 4th, 2008 when he so often slipped and tipped his hand as to his true designs on the country, this chief executive escaped general distrust.

At the inauguration he insisted on taking the oath of office using the middle name he never really used; during his run for the presidency he kept preaching but never defined “change” and slipped and admitted what should have been incriminating ideas such as his Saul Alinsky-Marxist plan to “share the wealth.”

The mass media let it all slide, never doing its job, never inquiring and investigating his reasons for suddenly invoking the name Hussein, never asking what specifically he meant by sharing the wealth and just how he would accomplish that redistribution of Americans’ hard-earned money.

The bitter fruits of his socialistic thinking and scheming are daily becoming more and more apparent so is it any surprise that people, many of whom supported and voted for him just 20 months ago, have become so disenchanted, frustrated, and furious with Barack Hussein Obama that their emotions sometimes get the best of them and they hyperbolize their feelings? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1820)