Does Bill Clinton Really HATE Barack Obama?

Does Bill Clinton Really HATE Barack Obama?

In 2008, a conservative website headlined a story, “Why Bill Clinton Hates Barack Obama AND Hillary” which posited the theory that Bill hated Obama because the latter was everything he was not and his wife because she posed a threat to his legacy.




“Hatred” and “hate” are powerful words, almost as potent as “racism.”



Did George Zimmerman hate Trayvon Martin when he shot him, or was he merely defending himself? Did Rev. Jeremiah Wright hate the United States when he screamed “God damn America,” or was he simply angry? Do investors hate Facebook for Zuckering them? Does Barack Hussein Obama hate our country, or does he just act that way?



Does Bill Clinton, deep-down, hate Barack Obama?



The effects of the word “hatred” can be mitigated by using euphemisms such as “dislike,” “antipathy,” even “disenchantment,” none of which carry the gut impact of “hatred” and none of those alternatives adequately describes the feelings of politicians who despise an adversary yet must create an aura of amity toward members of their party if they want to remain in its good graces.



Former President William Blythe Jefferson Clinton, who has expressed deep regret that he couldn’t be president for life, has frequently demonstrated his disdain for the current president, though that disdain has rarely seen the light of day in Obama’s mainstream media.



We’ll probably never know for certain Bill’s true feelings about Barry since pols are notorious hypocrites who can smile at you while plunging an 8-inch stilletto into your back and Clinton is especially adept at smiling and plunging simultaneously.



Bubba sure does seem to like Obama. After all, he publicly supported him and campaigned for him four years ago–after then-Senator Obama beat Hillary in the Democrat primaries. Following that bitterly-fought contest, Bubba uttered nary a single negative (mainstream-published) word against the new chief executive.



However, things are not always what they appear in the smarmy world of political intrigue. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=24008.)

Barack-Hillary in 2012?

Barack-Hillary in 2012?

Bill Clinton’s old Secretary of Labor, the diminutive Robert Reich with an ego the size of Monica Lewinsky, is predicting a 2012 Democrat Party ticket of Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton to oppose the yet-to-be-designated Republican nominee.

In an article appearing on BusinessInsider.com, Reich concludes, “Obama-Clinton 2012. It’s a natural.”

If that prognostication were not enough to curl conservative hairs, Reich also thinks the bumbler-in-chief, VP Joe Biden, will switch jobs with Hillary and become America’s chief diplomat, Secretary of State, in a second Obama administration.

Alice could not have experienced more bizarre scenarios in that rabbit hole.

Admitting he has no foundation except intuition for his prediction, Reich believes Hillary is needed on the national ticket “to stir the passions” of a disillusioned Democrat base and because “Clinton would help deflect attention from the bad economy and put it on foreign policy, where she and Obama have shined.”

As an added bonus, Hillary would then be on the fast track for the 2016 Dem nomination.

There are more holes in Reich’s theory and in his shining observation than there are on all the golf courses in Hawaii. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=11935.)

Hillary-Barry, in that Order

Hillary-Barry, in that Order

Many Americans consider the Barack Hussein Obama administration the worst of all American political worlds, the be-all-end-all epitome of the depths to which the nation could possibly sink, the ultimate catastrophe for our country.

It’s entirely possible that, as Andy Bachman warbled, “You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet.”

Consider this: Obama is wallowed in a well-deserved wallow of popular disapproval. He has declared his understanding that his could be a one-term presidency. He and his lovely bride have been milking his office for all it’s worth as if in anticipation that he too will be jobless after next year. He has offered no viable solutions to alleviate the nation’s unemployment issues nor for any other pressing domestic or international problems.

I think he wants out, at least for now.

So, what does Barry do?

(Obama, of course, could win next November with or without Joe Biden but for the purposes of this analysis–and my own sanity–I’m just examining his other options.)

He could simply resign his office within the next year, a very unlikely act which would put him in the Tricky Dickie class of loser presidents. He could continue on to the bitter end, be humiliated in an election landslide, and slink off into the dark pages of history, He could pull a Carter by spending the rest of his days trying to build a legacy predicated on fantasy. He could dump Biden in favor of Hillary Clinton, not a likelihood since it assumes Hil would agree to be his second banana.

And he could take the high road, claim he was acting in the best interests of the nation, appear as the consummate hero of the Democrat Party by accepting the nomination as vice president on a Hillary ticket to serve as her junior, seasoned adviser.

Unprecedented? Yes. Absurd? Not at all.

Is it any more inconceivable than the incredible absurdity of a two-year U.S. senator with precious little experience in anything other than functioning as a neighborhood organizer on Chicago’s mean streets and as an inconsequential Illinois state senator becoming president of the United States?

At 51, Obama will be a virtual babe in the woods next Election Day, far too young to retire into political oblivion. He is insatiably egotistical and ambitious but very unpopular outside his core black, socialist, union, and homosexual constituencies. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5480.)

Weiner, Hillary, and György Schwartz

Weiner, Hillary, and György Schwartz

The Chronicle of Anthony Weiner as Told in a Limerick, Posted by Dave Blount on Moonbattery.com, http://bit.ly/itc4XO:

“There once was a pervert named Weiner,/ Who had the weirdest demeanor./ He was thrown from the Hill,/ For behaving like Bill./ Now Congress is one Weiner leaner.”

(Hey! It’s a limerick! I never said it was great poetry.)

Speaking of Bill Clinton, his bride weighed in on a subject near and dear to Bubba’s heart, sex–near and dear, that is, prior to his quadruple bypass.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Mrs. Huma Abedin-Weiner’s boss, announced a diplomatic breakthrough, not with Iran’s resident fruitcake, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, nor with the object of Obama’s assassination attempts, aka the Libyan “kinetic action,” Muammar Qaddafi. The former FLOTUS broke through with “sex workers” in foreign lands.

CNSNews.com reported that Sec. Clinton said that on Monday that “meeting with ‘sex workers’ in the cause of protecting LGBT rights is an example of ‘people-to-people diplomacy at its best.’ ” She applauded “all of our diplomats and our development experts who continue to reach out to those advocating around the world in Uganda, Malawi, Russia, Turkey, China, and so many other places.” (http://bit.ly/lMlKzg)

Presumably, those Ugandans, et al. were “advocating” for the rights of homosexual ”sex workers,” (prostitutes), to peddle their wares unimpeded by discriminatory laws and national biases.

It’s good to know that the person charged with executing the foreign policy of the United States of America was so unimpeded by a chaotic world in flames that she could find time to extend support to all the gay hookers throughout the world.

Offering less solace was the recent report that the Obama administration has instituted plans to establish ties with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, another initiative announced by Sec. Clinton, a busy, busy lady. The Obamians want to insure, as they do with Libya, that Mubarak’s Muslim replacement is more anti-American and radical than Mubarak.

Reputedly affiliated with both Hamas, the fun-loving Palestinian “Islamic Resistance Movement” that gets off on rocket attacks against Israel and employing children as human shields and as soldiers and Hezbollah, the jihadist “Party of God,” which favors suicide bombings and kidnapping to achieve its ends, the Muslim Brotherhood would be a dubious ally in the nonexistent War on Islamic Terrorism.

See “Fun and the Muslim Brotherhood,” (http://bit.ly/kAzEXt)

An undeniable ally, not of the United States but of Barack Hussein Obama . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4945)

New Tidbits on OBL, BHO, HRC, GWB, and Some Repulsive Fat Guy

New Tidbits on OBL, BHO, HRC, GWB, and Some Repulsive Fat Guy

Let’s deal with the fat guy first and send him on his repulsive way. Michael Moore made an appearance on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight,” a show that actually makes Larry King look good, and continued to spout off about Osama’s passing to Allah-Land.

Moore had already characterized bin Laden’s killing as an “execution” and followed up that verdict with Morgan on Thursday by observing that “while he is glad bin Laden is gone, America ‘lost something of [its] soul’ in killing him without putting him on trial.”

He also criticized those who gathered at Ground Zero to exult over Osama’s death: “I hear a lot of people often say, what would Jesus do? I don’t think Jesus would go down to Ground Zero like a lot of people did . . . and have a party” and added that everyone had a right to a trial.

It’s questionable whether the America-hating, self-hating Moore would know a soul from a hole in the wall or be familiar with Jesus and he should be made aware that the Sunday night demonstration was much less a party than it was a reflection of the sentiment that the world had finally been cleansed of a pestilence. Feel free to view Moore’s exchange with Morgan and be one of the few who watch the show here: http://huff.to/iALSy3

Moore was also woefully wrong that everyone is entitled to a trial. According to federal statute 107-40 passed on September 18th, 2001, ”Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists,” the President has the authority to use all “necessary and appropriate force” against those determined to have ”planned, authorized, committed or aided” the 9/11 attacks or who harbored that enemy.

The joint resolution makes reference to “those acts of treacherous violence . . . which render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad . . . [and authorizes the President] “to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.”

See the full text of 107-40 here: http://bit.ly/3OvOEH

President Obama took action to protect America against terrorism and killed Terrorist Enemy Number One. Nowhere in that statute is there any provision for the right to a trial anymore than an enemy combatant has a right to a trial on the field of battle.

Ironically, Obama, who has denied that a War on Terror even exists, exercised his war powers by taking out OBL. As Rush Limbaugh has said, America didn’t kill Osama, Obama did.

Another irony emerged from America’s Left . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4381)

President Dances the Hesitation Waltz

President Dances the Hesitation Waltz

As more and more details are revealed, clarified, and denied concerning the Navy SEALs’ take-down of Osama bin Laden, it’s becoming vividly clear that America’s Commander-in-Chief is not all he pretends to be and nowhere near all he thinks he is. Obama’s refusal today to release any pictures or videos of the operation only serves to underscore this president’s ambivalence and indecisiveness.

His Sunday night announcement that agents of America’s Special Ops had finally located and killed OBL provided carefully-scripted appearances that President Barack Hussein Obama was the man in charge from the bloody start to the watery finish. Despite his self-congratulatory words and his repetitive usage of the pronoun “I,” it turns out that not only did Obama not make the call to assault bin Laden’s Abbotabad compound but in fact he was overruled, in effect a figurehead.

As usual with this president, things are not always what they appear to be or how he wants us to believe they are, not even close.

The sensitive mission was a go until Obama decided to go to bed rather than make the final call. As Britain’s Daily Mail, which is not a member of Obama’s state-controlled media, reports, ”The president stunned officials when he told a national security meeting that he wanted more time to think–and disappeared out of the room.” The Mail cites the New York Times in adding that Obama said, “I’m not going to tell you what my decision is now–I’m going to go back and think about it some more. I’m going to make a decision soon:” http://bit.ly/kHFaPX

In other words, Scarlet O’Hara Obama hadn’t the slightest notion . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4327)

Mayhem in Tucson V: Obama Talks the Talk

Mayhem in Tucson V: Obama Talks the Talk

On Wednesday, President Obama visited gravely wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in her hospital room and later revealed during his address at a memorial service for the slain and injured in Tucsonthe very good news that Giffords had opened her eyes for the first time since she was shot.

In his speech, he called for America’s healing even as his Secretary of State was preaching more divisiveness.

Obama pleaded for national healing in the aftermath of the tragedy which resulted in 6 deaths and 13 wounded, allegedly by Jared Loughner wielding a Glock 19. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton speaking in faraway Dubai was wielding her own weapon, her inflammatory rhetoric, by condemning ”an extremist in our country” and comparing Loughner to Islamic terrorists: http://tiny.cc/da9cu

Mrs. Clinton is as out of touch as she is out of the country: Loughner is a certifiable nutcase not a terrorist and to compare him to Muslims committed to worldwide chaos and destruction is as absurd as thinking Obama truly wants “healing” or believing the MSM is onboard in any process of harmonious conciliation. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3396)

The Self-Triangulation, Auto-Strangulation of a Presidency

The Self-Triangulation, Auto-Strangulation of a Presidency

It’s all over for President Barack Hussein Obama. Mark Madoff did it with a dog leash. Barack Obama did it with a picture.

As IOwntheWorld.com put it, “Sad O [that would be Obama, IOTW's less-than-affectionate sobriquet for the president] is sad to know that Bill Clinton’s definition of ‘triangulate’ means that he, Bill, and Hillary are now the 44th Presidents of the United States.” And all this while Barry thought “triangulation” just meant using 3 angles.

Barry has been triangulated, self-strangulated might also fit, not by the Clintons but by “Sad O” himself who virtually abdicated his office on Friday when he walked off the presidential stage during a presidential press briefing and turned it over to Bill Clinton. At first, in a GWB moment, Barry and Billy couldn’t open the locked door to West Wing briefing room but Chief Press Hack Robert Gibbs helped them out and the door was thrown open: http://yhoo.it/i79NYz

The president would have been better off had Gibbs hidden the key.

These 4 pictures say it all, . . .
(Read more and see the pictures at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3016)

The Case for Canning Clinton

The Case for Canning Clinton

So the title, “The Case for Canning Clinton,” does not refer to Bubba but rather to his blushing bride, presidential-ever-hopeful, now Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, laughably America’s top diplomat.

The former commodity maven who miraculously, artfully, turned a pittance of a thousand bucks into a $100,000. windfall within a year due to her speculative expertise in cattle futures, the same Hillary who, even more miraculously, said she was named after the famed Mount Everest explorer, Sir Edmund Hillary, even though she was a gleam in her daddy’s eye about 5 years before Edmund set foot on the mountain, may finally have met her Waterloo, her long overdue comeppance, thanks to WikiLeaks.

See “The WikiTsunami,” http://tiny.cc/wxv51

The case for canning Secretary of State Clinton is a simple, straightforward one and comes to us directly from the U.S. State Department website which spells out her general mission and which Hillary surely had a hand in composing.

Hillary’s own page on that site defines her duties: ”The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department and the Foreign Service of the United States.”

The website, (Hillary?), further states, “[T]his work starts at home, where we have rejected the false choice between our security and our values. It continues around the world, where human rights are always on our diplomatic and development agendas, even with nations on whose cooperation we depend for a wide range of issues. . . A lot has been said about our 21st century statecraft and our e-diplomacy, but we really believe that it’s an important additional tool for us to utilize.”

Sounding even more Hillary-esque, it goes on to say, “We must use what has been called “smart power”: the full range of tools at our disposal–diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural–picking the right tool, or combination of tools, for each situation. With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy:” http://tiny.cc/p2x62

And there you have it folks, the State Department’s cogent delineation of the bases for the removal from office of the Secretary of State: an abject failure to fulfill her assigned mission.

Thanks to the revelations of Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks, it is clear that Clinton arrogantly rejected both “our security and our values,” she incompetently misused and failed to use “the full range of tools at our disposal–diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural,” and she obviously picked the wrong tool and “combination of tools.”

In brief, since diplomats, even inept diplomats, love their briefs, Hillary Clinton authorized, ordered, our diplomats and our foreign embassies to spy on other world diplomats and even to look for dirt on U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Prostituting our worldwide diplomatic corps might better describe what Secretary Clinton mandated.

Not content to spy on enemies, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2880)

The WikiTsunami

The WikiTsunami

There are leaks and there are leaks, there are floods and there are floods, there are tsunamis and there are tsunamis and even though “WikiLeaks” flows from the tongue somewhat more fluidly that “WikiTsunamis,” what happened over the weekend can only be described as a diplomatic tsunami of epic proportions.

The chief difference between that criminal release of purloined documents and a literal tsunami was that the leak has had precedents and the United States knew it was on the way, even if it acted as if it were impotent to prevent or de-fuse it.

Without solely assigning responsibility to the Obama administration for the release of a quarter million mostly classified, some labeled “secret,” United States State Department-embassy cables, it cannot be held totally blameless either.

Sarah Palin Facebooked her thoughts which are right on the mark. She reminds that WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, is not a journalist who should be accorded journalistic privilege. He should have been treated as an anti-American terrorist, which he is, and treated as such.

Rather than preparing for damage control, as is the modus operandi of the Obama administration, after Assange’s earlier leaks, Palin believes our government should have exeerted worldwide pressure and the assistance of NATO, the EU, and other allies to pre-empt WikiLeak’s next attack: http://tiny.cc/zyw0k

Instead, led by the Ditherer-in chief, America dithered as the WikiTsunami approached and ultimately hit with full force.

WikiLeaks and its founder evidently had no regard for repurcussions of its leakage of those sensitive American documents but someone should have.

It was anything for notoriety and anti-Americanism, eh, Julian, no matter how much damage you do, how much chaos you effect, or how many deaths you cause? I would hope that you will eventually be prosecuted and, with any luck at all, be strung up by your gonads.

In no danger of that latter fate since the New York Times lacks both figurative and literal gonads, especially when it comes to resisting the urge to publish any material detrimental to the better interests of the United States, the Times has issued its rationale for publishing allegedly carefully-redacted excerpts of stolen documents.

That rationale essentially boils down to: We did it because we could. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2861)

Inside the Minds of Hillary Clinton and the TSA

Inside the Minds of Hillary Clinton and the TSA

People say that if we allow the threat of terrorism to affect how we live, the terrorists will have already won. Hillary Clinton seems to agree.

As if anyone would dare to touch the person of Hillary Rodham Clinton–or want to–our Secretary of State made it vividly clear on Sunday’s “Deface the Nation” and on “Meet the Depressed,” (sorry, Rush). that no one will get the opportunity. It’s unclear whether she included hubby Bill Clinton in that declaration, not that it would much matter to Bill.

Mouthing platitudes about the unfortunate necessity of invasive pat-downs and naked body scans at airports, the former first lady, ever hopeful of squatting in the same Oval Office as the nation’s first Presidentress where hubby Bubba was, umm, serviced by Monica Lewinsky, was actually implying the need for allegedly-unconstitutional profiling.

Hillary said that we clearly need tighter security but that ways should be found ”to limit the number of people who are going to be put through surveillance” and that she empathized with “how offensive it must be” for some people to undergo the searches. What America needs is “the right balance” in order to “get it better and less intrusive and more precise.”

She then added the non-PC kicker in response to a query as to whether she would submit to a pat-down. ”Not if I could avoid it,” she said, smiling, ”No. I mean, who would?” (http://tiny.cc/ibxtj)

Let’s do a little Hillary-Speak parsing here since, apparently, she doesn’t see the practicality of the purported, creative, very effective but explosive Israeli idea on eliminating airborne terrorist attacks–and the terrorists, themselves :http://tiny.cc/dzzav

First of all, limiting ”the number of people who are going to be put through surveillance” could only be accomplished by TSA hands-on employees drawing rational conclusions on whom to pat-down and whose naked bodies to surveil. They would have to distinguish between the swarthy or non-swarthy, between the snarling or non-snarling, between potential suicide bombers and kids, nuns, elders, and just your average travellers out to pay a final visit to grandma before she shuffles off this mortal globe.

That would be a relatively simple task for the TSA but our government forbids it. Profiling is deemed a far worse offense than humiliating the public or, for that matter, blowing the public out of the skies.

Secondly, . . .
(Read more at People say that if we allow the threat of terrorism to affect how we live, the terrorists will have already won. Hillary Clinton seems to agree.

As if anyone would dare to touch the person of Hillary Rodham Clinton–or want to–our Secretary of State made it vividly clear on Sunday’s “Deface the Nation” and on “Meet the Depressed,” (sorry, Rush). that no one will get the opportunity. It’s unclear whether she included hubby Bill Clinton in that declaration, not that it would much matter to Bill.

Mouthing platitudes about the unfortunate necessity of invasive pat-downs and naked body scans at airports, the former first lady, ever hopeful of squatting in the same Oval Office as the nation’s first Presidentress where hubby Bubba was, umm, serviced by Monica Lewinsky, was actually implying the need for allegedly-unconstitutional profiling.

Hillary said that we clearly need tighter security but that ways should be found ”to limit the number of people who are going to be put through surveillance” and that she empathized with “how offensive it must be” for some people to undergo the searches. What America needs is “the right balance” in order to “get it better and less intrusive and more precise.”

She then added the non-PC kicker in response to a query as to whether she would submit to a pat-down. ”Not if I could avoid it,” she said, smiling, ”No. I mean, who would?” (http://tiny.cc/ibxtj)

Let’s do a little Hillary-Speak parsing here since, apparently, she doesn’t see the practicality of the purported, creative, very effective but explosive Israeli idea on eliminating airborne terrorist attacks–and the terrorists, themselves :http://tiny.cc/dzzav

First of all, limiting ”the number of people who are going to be put through surveillance” could only be accomplished by TSA hands-on employees drawing rational conclusions on whom to pat-down and whose naked bodies to surveil. They would have to distinguish between the swarthy or non-swarthy, between the snarling or non-snarling, between potential suicide bombers and kids, nuns, elders, and just your average travellers out to pay a final visit to grandma before she shuffles off this mortal globe.

That would be a relatively simple task for the TSA but our government forbids it. Profiling is deemed a far worse offense than humiliating the public or, for that matter, blowing the public out of the skies.

Secondly, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2770)

Predictions: Hillary, Biden, and Children under the U.N.

Predictions: Hillary, Biden, and Children under the Auspices of the United Nations

Making predictions is a cinch job and making long-term predictions is even cinchier. Like weather predictions, the predicter can always figure his audience will forget that he said, “Cloudy with an 80% chance of rain” and we end up getting a foot deep blizzard or he can always say the snow “developed out of nowhere.”

Likewise with socio-political-economic prognostications, there the prognosticator always has the out that “unforeseen circumstances” developed that made his predictions 100% inaccurate and/or hope that people forget what he said in the first place.

With that as preface, a few very plausible predictions:

Hillary Clinton for Vice President? Washington scuttlebutt of the day is that the Secretary of State may be offered the Democrat Party’s VP slot in 2012 after Foot-in-Mouth Joe Biden gracefully bows out. The theory is that Mrs. Clinton would boost the president’s sagging hopes for re-election. It’s even being suggested that the two switch jobs and that Biden goes to State after Clinton is elected: http://tiny.cc/ae6oi

Gasp!

As comical as Old Joe can be, his gaffes are usually forgiveable since the vice presidency isn’t “worth a bucket of warm spit” or “warm piss,” as John Nance Garner actually said. As Secretary of State, Biden’s inanities would be taken seriously!

PREDICTION: No way on God’s green Earth . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1835)

Dumb, Dumber, Dumbest

. . . Dumbest: We all bite off more than we can chew once in a while but Somali pirates bit one huge mouthful when they decided to hijack and hold for ransom an American guided missile frigate, the USS Nicholas.

In the understatement of the month, British piracy expert Roger Middleton commented, “They might not always make rational decisions, and they often attack things that are bigger than they should . . . It’s also quite possible that they don’t have a full understanding of the targets they are attacking. Perhaps they just see a big ship they think is a worth a lot of money.”

No kidding, Rog! . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1606)

"Umm, Umm, Umm, Barack Hussein Obama," the Song

“Umm, Umm, Umm, Barack Hussein Obama:” The Song

Isn’t it just great hearing kids sing? I mean, there’s nothing like innocent, young voices joined in chorus singing their lil hearts out, is there?

Well, yes there is, when their sweet voices are being directed and joined together in an elementary school as part of an orchestrated attempt to indoctrinate the kidlets via song to praise of Barack Hussein Obama.

That, in fact, is part of the refrain being taught them in at least one school: “Umm, Umm, Umm, Barack Hussein Obama!” Hear it for yourself here on YouTube, http://bit.ly/18dCgk.

The 2 boys on the right in that video would have been better served by a lesson teaching them how to overcome their ADHD rather than participating in this brainwashing session.

Funny, I can’t recall any other president being the subject of a school song, but maybe I missed “Umm, Umm, Umm, George Dubya Bush,” although I can imagine “Umm, Umm, Umm, Great Joe Stalin ” being a popular ditty in the Gulag.

“The Barack Song” is all part of this administration’s pattern of indoctrinating America’s youth according to the precepts of anarchist, Saul Alinsky, and is even a facet of Obamacare.

Chuck Norris points out in a TownHall.com article that brainwashing youngsters is one of the many “dirty little secrets” secreted in Obamacare: “Obamacare is about the government’s coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development.

“It’s outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading ‘home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children.’

“The programs . . . would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills: ‘well-trained and competent staff’ would ‘provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains . . . modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices.’ ” (http://bit.ly/2kNxUe.

Well, isn’t that just peachy!

Hillary previously set the stage for this development with her ghost-written tome, It Takes a Village . . .

Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)

Saul, Saul, Why Did You Persecute Us?

Saul, Saul, Why Did You Persecute Us?

And the risen Jesus spoke to Saul of Tarsus, later St. Paul, and asked, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?”

The primary subject of this article is a different Saul, one Saul of Chicago, Saul Alinsky. Before his untimely but fortunate death in 1972, Saul Alinsky closely resembled the much earlier, pre-conversion Saul.

Our president is as much a long-term student of the Saul Alinsky slash and burn, destroy and maim political philosophy as he is an adherent of his former pastor’s, Rev. Jeremiah “God damn America” Wright’s, vile anti-American bile.

Saul of Tarsus was a hateful individual who persecuted early Christians, imprisoned them, and sought to have them put to death for their beliefs.

I don’t know if Saul Alinsky despised Christians but his hatefulness toward Americans and all that is good in America is suggestive of vile venom.

If Alinsky didn’t hate Christians, he sure as hell hated the most fundamental Christian principles.

Who Was Saul Alinsky? He was many things to many people: radical liberal, pseudo-mobster, brilliant academic, noted agitator, community organizer, committed atheist, closet Communist, successful author.

He was also the inspiration for the young Hillary Rodham and Barack Hussein Obama. As such, with Hillary Clinton now serving as Secretary of State and Barack Obama as president, Alinsky is more influential now than he was in his lifetime.

That’s not to say he didn’t have a great deal of influence when he was alive.

Born in Chicago to immigrant, Russian Jewish parents, Alinsky shared his religious heritage with Hungarian immigrant, George Soros, of MoveOn.org fame, another America-hater.

Instead of actively persecuting Christians, Saul Alinsky, like Soros, unashamedly spent most of his adult life engaged in a concerted effort to undermine America’s democratic republic traditions and our way of life.

He appropriately dedicated his book, Rules for Radicals, to “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom–Lucifer.”

It’s ironic that both Clinton and Obama were devoted students of the “Alinsky Method” and went head to head in their quests for the presidency. From an Alinsky point of view, it would have been more productive to have a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton Democratic ticket.

Either way, they would have beaten McCain-Palin, given the state of the economy, given McCain’s ineptitude, and given the idolatrous state media.

It turned out that Obama was a more astute student and effectively out-Alinskyed Clinton in the Democratic campaign for president, as pointed out in an article on AmericanThinker,com, “Obama’s Alinsky Jujitsu:” http://bit.ly/1atxQJ...
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)

A Day In Obamaland

The GITMO Dog and Pony Show: A Day in Obamaland

This is an incomplete and un-edited transcript of a conversation recorded in the Oval Office. It cannot be termed an official transcript since the recording device was somehow secreted under the carpet in the wee hours of January 19th, 2009 by a person who shall remain unidentified. As can best be determined, the participants were President Obama, (BHO), Attorney General Eric Holder, (EH), Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, (NP), and DHS Secretary, Janet Napolitano, (JN). A staff member suggested it be called, “A Day in Obamaland.” We report, you decide.

BHO: So, what do we do now, bro?

EH: I dunno, man. I told ya this was gonna cause problems. We could send them out to Murtha’s district or maybe San Quentin, Sing Sing? I just dunno. If . . .

NP: I want to say again, I was never told about that waterboarding and I refuse to discuss it any further.

BHO: Umm, Madame Speaker, that’s old news and we weren’t talking about waterboarding, anyway.

NP: Oh, we weren’t? I thought since the topic was that despicable place, Guantanamera, that . .

EH: Nancy, it’s Guantanamo, but can we just get on with this?

NP: Oh, well, if that’s how I’m to be treated, I won’t say another word!

BHO/EH/JN (in unison): Good!

JN: Mr. President, I simply don’t understand the problem. We’re only talking about people the Bushies said were bad guys but none of them have ever been convicted in a court of law. For all we know, they could be fine upstanding citizens of their various countries. Legally, we have no right to be holding them at all . . .

EH: I handle legalities, remember, Jan?

JN: Now there’s no need to be snotty, Mister Attorney General! I just thought I could interject my two cents and besides, those Right-to-Lifers and those returning vets pose a much greater threat than some alleged terrorists. I’ll have you know, those vets know quite a good bit about guns and some have actually shot and killed people.

BHO: It’s called a war, Madame Secretary.

JN: I know, but still . . .

(Knock on the Oval Office door; unknown female voice is heard.)

Unknown: I’m very sorry to interrupt, Mr. President, but Vice President Biden is still waiting. He’s been here all morning. He asked if he could come in.

BHO: Tell him, umm, ah, tell him I’m trying to fix my teleprompter.

Unknown: Sir?

BHO: He’ll get the point.

Unknown: Yes, sir, I’ll tell him.

(Muffled voice, apparently saying “I’ll be good,” then sound of door closing, gently)

BHO: Ok, people, time’s a wastin’. And, Eric, we all know Murtha shoots his mouth off and if we dumped terrorists, (sorry, Janet, suspected terrorists), on his doorstep, he’ll scream bloody murder that his district is being dumped on. He’s gonna have a hard enough time fooling those people again and getting re-elected.

EH: Good point, Barry, oops, Mr. President. And we prefer to call them “detainees.” Did you hear Mueller said it would be risky if we shipped, er, relocated any of them stateside? . . .

(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)