More Updates: Joe Arpaio and Lindsay Lohan

More Updates: Joe Arpaio and Lindsay Lohan

Along with Rush Limbaugh, the Fox News Channel, and the Drudge Report, “America’s toughest sheriff,” Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona has to be near the top of President Barack Hussein Obama’s Enemies List, that is, if the president maintains an enemies list ala Trickie Dick Nixon.




He may have a hit list, instead.



For more than two decades, Limbaugh has been the radio bane of liberal existences and Democrat presidents. Fox has handled that chore on cable television for sixteen years and Matt Drudge has been the leading internet critic of those same people for almost fifteen.



Lately, though, Sheriff Joe seems to have taken over the top slot in the pantheon of conservatives causing severe diarrhea for liberals.



In a word, libs literally hate influential conservatives for what they are, for what they say, and for what they do and Arpaio is, and says, and does what he believes is morally true and legally right. It can be a dirty job but somebody has to do it since the Obama crowd won’t.



The seventy-nine year old son of Italian immigrants, an Army vet and former D.C. and Las Vegas cop, Arpaio served 25 years with the D.E.A. and was elected five times as Maricopa County sheriff.



When it comes to law enforcement, he evidently knows whereof he speaks and that’s what bugs the hell out of the Obama adminstration and Attorney General Eric Holder.



Over the course of the last four years, Sheriff Joe and his staff have been investigated on at least five separate occasions, accused of abuse of power, bias, illegally accepting gifts, and campaign fraud.



In every instance, Arpaio was cleared and the charges were either dropped or consigned to limbo pending future efforts to bring him down one way or another.



People with experience and knowledge who follow the law tend to bother left wingers.



Sheriff Joe has been dogged with almost every charge imaginable.



Most of those charges were related to his dastardly treatment of prisoners at the Maricopa County jail.



Arpaio had the audacity to dress prisoners in pink outfits to calm them down, served them bologna sandwiches to show them jail wasn’t a Mcdonalds, housed them in tents to disillusion them if they had thought prison was a country club, and utilized volunteer chain gangs to reinforce the concept of payback to society.



In addition, Arpaio has been accused of using common sense–profiling potential miscreants and rounding them up in raids which have netted thousands of criminal, illegal aliens and saved countless Arizona lives.



He has also been the subject of death threats and a failed recall attempt but has regularly trounced anyone foolish enough to run against him.



Testimony to the depth of liberal antipathy toward Arpaio, extreme leftist George Soros has pledged $10 million to defeat him in the next election, all because of two political issues: the sheriff’s perceived unkindness toward a principal Obama constituency, Latinos, and his persistance in trying to prove–or disprove–allegations concerning the president’s eligibility to hold that office.



The good news in all this, today’s update, is that Sheriff Joe Arpaio is the odds-on favorite to win again in November and, God willing, will be able for four more years to enforce United States immigration regulations and statutes the federal government has neglected to enforce.



Of significantly less consequence than a patriot’s determination to do his duty at all costs and at the nether end of America’s societal spectrum is Lindsay Lohan who is emblematic of the state of mind that exists in America today. The ultra-confused, disturbed actress, singer, model, druggie, and ex-con can’t even figure out whether she is heterosexual, bi-sexual, or a lesbian. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=23102.)

Hollywood and Other Liberal Hypocrites

Hollywood and Other Liberal Hypocrites

Scratch a liberal often enough and you’ll always uncover a bigot–and a hypocrite.

No less a figure than George Lucas of Star Wars fame has discovered that fact of life and called out Hollywood liberals–if that’s not redundant–for its racism.

Accused of racism himself after the release of Star Wars due to the lack of inclusion of blacks, Lucas should have been prepared for the racial politics that exists in the Movie Capital of the World.

The famous film producer didn’t, couldn’t, express his feelings in those terms since he still has to work in Tinsel Town but he left no doubt what he meant during an appearance on ultra-liberal Jon Stewart’s ”Daily Show.”

The subject of Lucas’ charge concerned his film about the segregated Tuskegee Airmen in WWII, Red Tails, and Hollywood’s monumental disinterest in distributing the movie or having anything to do with it because, as he told Stewart, “It’s an all black movie. There’s no major white roles in it at all. It’s one of the first all black action pictures ever made.”

He also described Red Tails as “very patriotic, very jingoistic, very old-fashioned, corny,” which may have been another factor in Hollywood’s refusal to assist Lucas even though he financed the filming on his own.

Bigotry is acceptable in Tinsel Town but they cringe at patriotism there saying, “No. We don’t know how to market a movie like this. . . And they don’t believe there’s any foreign market for it. That’s 60 percent of their profit.”

See a brief clip from the film and Stewart’s sit-down with George Lucas here http://bit.ly/zAJ3HG.

In other words, the big wigs wouldn’t distribute Red Tails because it was all about blacks, was patriotic AND, as is typical with “black movies,”didn’t have enough profit potential to stuff their wallets.

Maybe if Lucas’ next effort involves African-Americans bad-mouthing their country, he’d get more support from Hollywood hypocrites.

Hypocrisy–and deception–are rampant in Liberal Land and the current effort to resurrect and refurbish President Barack Hussein Obama’s mentor and pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright, is probably the most blatant in Washington.

In the event no one has noticed, 2012 is an election year and the president is in the process of “pulling a Clinton,” that is, ostensibly moving to the middle of the socio-political spectrum, transforming into a “moderate,” in hopes of concealing the extremist changes and dashed hopes of the past three years.

With the economy still a mess, there’s little hope in the White House of restoring any real economic hope before November 6th so rehabilitating Obama’s radical background is one way he can forestall anticipated Republican campaign attacks on his extremist past and his far-out leftist associations.

Obama’s old buddies, the un-reconstructed revolutionary Bill Ayers is as out there as he ever was preaching revolt to the Occupy Wall Street anarchists and Rev. Michael Pfleger has never given up his message of self-hating race hatred.

However, Rev. Wright has been relatively less-incendiary–relatively–since candidate Obama disowned him under pressure in the heat of the last campaign.

Therefore, close presidential adviser and confidante, David Axelrod, figured this was a good a time as any to re-hab the good reverend so that the Republican nominee can’t beat his boss over the head with Wright. Since the mainstream media ably assisted last time around in hiding the intimate Obama-Wright connection, the MSM should be onboard again.

Notwithstanding Wright’s history of denouncing white people as congenital liars, his mindless, vicious allegations that America brought on September 11th, 2001, that we caused the AIDS virus, that America is under the control of the KKK and supports terrorism, plus a slew of other craziness, Axelrod is defending the certifiable racist nut.

Axelrod contends that all the criticism boils down to “ninety seconds of vitriol plucked from thirty years of sermons by some enterprising opposition researcher.”

Either David is smoking what his hero smoked for years, and it’s not cigarettes, or he has evolved into a bigger nutcase than Rev. Wright. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12135.)

Bristol Palin Meets Liberal Incivility

Bristol Balin Meets Liberal Incivility

Okay, so a 20 year old girl went out with some friends last Thursday to the Saddle Ranch Restaurant in West Hollywood and, being an adventurous as well as pretty young lady, she took a ride on one of those horn-less mechanical bulls intended by management to provide some rocky entertainment for the clientele.

Bodacious but innocent enough, right?

Wrong, when the rider was Bristol Palin, eldest daughter of Sarah Palin, conservative former governor of Alaska and Republican candidate for the vice presidency of the United States three years ago and when members of her audience were foul-mouthed liberals.

Subsequently identified as Stephen Hanks, a Hollywood talent agent with little talent but with a remarkably-obscene vocabulary to his credit, the liberal proceeded to verbally attack Ms. Palin after her engagement with the mechanical bull, clearly demonstrating that stuffed bulls have more brains, class, and civility than Stephen Hanks.

The rocking, twisting bull eventually threw Bristol but Hanks didn’t.

The 47 year old Hanks, seated with his buddies at the Saddle Ranch bar, courageously peppered a 20 year old girl with the most vile, vicious invective this side of Hollywood after she got up to the applause and high-fives of the crowd. She then directly confronted the talentless talent agent.

Greeted by the bald-headed Hanks with, “Your mother is the f*cking devil,” . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5548.)

Hooray for Hollywood Pedophiles?

Hooray for Hollywood Pedophiles?

The 1937 Johnny Mercer golden oldie ”Hooray for Hollywood” has long been a staple on Oscar night when movie celebs of today and yesteryear wax misty-eyed at the memorable melody, totally oblivious that Mercer’s song was composed as a satire on stardom and the young hopefuls who pursue that elusive dream.

The lyrics have since been altered to eliminate lines denigrating Tinseltown such as those describing it as a place where ”any shop girl can be a top girl/If she pleases Mister Businessman” but the amoral nature of the place hasn’t changed.

The “casting couch” may have been replaced by a mattress along the lines of a Sealy Posturepedic as Gwyneth Paltrow has noted but, if anything, Hollywood is even sleazier now than it was 74 years ago. In addition to becoming a gay-loving, leftist-liberal stronghold, it’s also devolved into a haven for rapacious pedophiles according to former child star, Corey Feldman.

Now 40 and long past his roles in “Goonies,” “Stand By Me,” and “The Lost Boys,” Feldman loosed a blockbuster charge against the “vultures” in the entertainment industry during a “Nightline” interview: ”I can tell you that the number one problem in Hollywood was, and is, and always will be pedophilia. That’s the biggest problem for children in this industry. . . it’s all done under the radar. It’s the big secret.”

If it ever were a secret, it’s a secret no more. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5223)

Handwritings on White House Walls?

Handwritings on White House Walls?

It may have foeshadowed 2012 when Obama-idolator Peter Fonda called President Barack Hussein Obama a “f*cking traitor.” It was probably said affectionately by the environmentalist/actor to get some attention from other beautiful people at the Cannes film festival for his enviro-creds but it was still exceptional.

Poor Peter, who hasn’t had a hit movie since “Easy Rider” 42 years ago, had to say something notable to grab some attention from his big sister, Hanoi Jane Fonda, and he only considers the president a “f*cking traitor” because Obama didn’t handle the Gulf oil spill very well. (http://yhoo.it/kW7NAd)

The fact that Obama hasn’t handled very much very well didn’t bother Peter but the fact that such a nasty, verbal attack by a leftist, Hollywood elitist–which is an admitted redundancy–would have been unheard of just a year ago bodes ill for the president.

Is the handwriting on the wall?

More damaging scribbling came from Obama’s mainstream media which, as per his bidding, has been remarkably quiescent for more than 3 years now when it came to vetting his background, interviewing him with other than softball questions, or citing and publicizing his frequent gaffes and misstatements.

The MSM long ago abandoned its moral and ethical responsibilities in that regard and the White House press corps–or, “corpse,” according to the president–has been most lax, according to senior members of that corps/corpse.

Those veterans, including Sander Vanocur, Sid Davis, and Haynes Johnson, believe White House correspondents are “too timid and deferential.” What’s most amazing, in addition to their being critical, is that it took them 26 months to notice.

As Vanocur observed, ”You want to know what’s wrong with the press? The press is what’s wrong with the press.” Washington Post reporter Haynes Johnson chimed in with, ”It’s all very stale, very structured, very pale.” And Sid Davis, who has covered nine presidents, went further than criticizing by resorting to sarcasm in characterizing the press and their demeanor in the president’s presence by saying, ”It looks like they are watching a funeral service at [Washington funeral firm] Joseph Gawler’s and it shouldn’t be that way.” (http://bit.ly/kEFPrA)

No kidding, Messrs. Vanocur, Johnson, and Davis! Where have you been?

More telling than their comments, and more concerning for Obama, is not what those three said, which in itself was remarkable, but that they had the audacity to say it. Lapdogs aren’t supposed to growl and bite and neither they nor their fellow correspondents would have deigned or dared to say it in the past.

More handwriting?

What will undoubtedly be viewed as less a harbinger for Obama’s future as calculated and inconsequential backbiting by evil conservatives is opposition by conservative groups to Obama’s nomination of Berkeley Law Professor Goodwin Liu to serve on the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals despite his “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association.

Berkeley is well, Berkeley, and the Ninth Court is as notoriously liberal, and the ABA tends to consider any judicial candidate well-qualified as long as he or she swings politically leftward.

The Loyal Opposition was unable to block tax cheat Tmothy Geithner from taking over as Secretary of the Treasury or such administration luminaries as homosexual activist Harry Knox as a faith counsellor, radical Cass Sunstein as Regulatory Czar, America-hater John Holdren as Obama’s chief science maven, admitted child-abuser Kevin Jennings as his man to insure safe schools, and a scary host of other leftists from taking posts in the administration but considers Liu’s nomination to be even more “ridiculous.”

Obama floated a trial balloon for Jamie Gorelick as FBI Director, the same Jamie Gorelick, aka “The Mistress of Disaster.” who made certain the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies couldn’t share information before 9/11. However, if nothing else, Gorelick had some related experience. Liu, much like the president before his election, has virtually none nor does he have trial experience on which to evaluate him as qualified to pass down judgments, a requisite heretofore for ABA endorsement. (http://bit.ly/jy0IzU)

Republicans and conservatives drawing a line with Liu may not be equivalent to Peter Fonda’s “f*cking traitor” remark or to veteran White House correspondents outing the White House . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4503)

Conservatives and Show Biz

Conservatives and Show Biz

“There’s no business like show business like no business I know . . .” (Irving Berlin)

You got that right, Irving, even if your next 2 lines, “Everything about it is appealing, everything that traffic will allow/ Nowhere could you get that happy feeling when you are stealing that extra bow,” no longer apply.

To the average American, show biz in the 21st century is far less appealing than it ever was and is less involved in projecting happy feelings than it is in proselytizing, demeaning our culture, and propagandizing.

Oh, add to that making money, BIG money.

I know that’s an overly broad and subjective allegation which must be tempered by many exceptions but it’s still difficult to refute that in A.D. 2010 the entertainment industry, show business, stage, television, and Hollywood, are more sociopolitically polarized than ever and is almost exclusively dominated by liberal-leftists engaged as deeply in outright or subconscious “educating” as in entertaining.

Consequently, show biz is a hugely challenging life for conservatives.

If a right winger dare advertise his or her politics, social views and mores, he and she are often shut out of entertainment’s inner circles and pathways to success and stardom. It becomes tempting for those wannabes with a conservative bent to either conceal their personal philosophies or to live lives of baldfaced lies.

Again, there are exceptions, there are always exceptions to general rules.

The late Charlton Heston, Clint Eastwood, Jon Voight, Kelsey Grammer, Gary Sinise, Patricia Heaton, and the good Baldwin brother, Stephen, come to mind.

However, they are generally very low key and non-combative in expressing their views–except for Voight of late–and they have earned their star status by virtue of dogged perseverence and talent that would not be denied.

Rumor has it that Robert Downey, Jr. is a closet member of that exclusive club of conservatives but he’s not talking.

Those conservatives made it, they became major and lesser celebs, not because of the welcoming arms of the show business set but in spite of oh-so-tolerant Tinseltown’s and television’s gilded doors that were closed to those who failed to hew to the leftist line. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1856)

Anti-Semitism in Tinseltown

Anti-Semitism in Tinseltown

Almost exactly four years ago, director/actor Mel Gibson was pulled over by a cop in L.A. on suspicion of driving while three sheets to the wind, an ancient nautical term for being drunk as a skunk.

Mad Mel let loose a memorable, obscene tirade almost as memorable and obscene as his taped conversations with former lover Oksana Grigorieva. Back in 2006, however, the object of his disaffection was not slutty behavior on the part of his former lover but the militaristic behavior on the part of an entire people, Jews.

“Jews are responsible for all the war in the world,” he allegedly said to a police officer among other F-word-laced, no doubt slurred comments.

Gibson subsequently apologized profusely and, if not forgiven, was dismissed as yet another anti-Semite.

It must have something to do with the weather this time of year out on the Left Coast or due to something in the water supplied by the L.A. Department of Water and Power but another Hollywood type has just ripped those same people.

This time it was a liberal darling, none other than screen writer/director/iconoclast Oliver Stone, a man who has devoted much of his career to puncturing holes in American beliefs and values. Stone went much further in ripping Jews than Gibson ever dreamed of doing in his frank remarks to the Sunday London Times. Among his gems: . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1806)

Jim Carrey and the Politics of Astigmatic Hypocrisy

Jim Carrey and the Politics of Astigmatic Hypocrisy

Actor Jim Carrey is not unlike any number of his comrades and comradettes in Hollywood: He operates under the delusion that stardom confers wisdom and that wealth bestows insight.

And Carrey, like George Clooney and Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon, is flush with celebrity wisdom and insight when it comes to political observations. Even as he rakes in $20 million a picture, he sees fit to rip “personal greed and ambition” and the capitalistic system that made him a very rich man.

Such an outlandish display of astigmatic hypocrisy!

Canadian Carrey, stand-up-comic-turned-movie-star, has made it big time via the capitalist-world of Hollywood yet feels free to attack the very economic system that made his success possible.

Compounding his muddled thought processes, Carrey’s newest flick, Disney’s PC version and “Digital Dickens” production of A Christmas Carol, had a lackluster opening.

In a decidedly negative review of Carrey and his Scrooge, S.T. Karnick wrote of Carrey’s ”political flatulence.”

He quoted the actor: . .

(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1319)

The Roman Way: The Case for and against Polanski

The Roman Way: The Case for and against Polanski

God forbid we get France miffed at us! Next time they get invaded, they may not call for a rescue!

The French are indeed miffed, and not just because being miffed at one thing or another is a national trait. They’re annoyed now since the U.S. decided to have the Swiss arrest a child rapist, one Roman Polanski, and for trying to have him extradited back to the States to face some discordant music.

Some Americans, even outside Hollywood, have also taken up Polanski’s cause giving rise to a debate as to what should be done with Roman, to either release him and send him on his merry way or hang him by his privates.

The Case for Roman:

This faction is impassioned. Look, they say, the guy’s old now, 76, his so-called “crime” happened 31 years ago, and his victim, Samantha Geimer, nee’ Gailey, has forgiven him and favors cutting him loose.

And, besides, he’s famous and suffered enough from the Nazis, with the Manson murder of his third wife, Sharon Tate, and he’s already been punished by being shut out of American movie making!

As a typical defender of this reprobate writes, “Polanski didn’t violate his victim by having sex with her without her consent, he violated American notions of childhood purity:” http://bit.ly/IXwcM.

All that amounts to nil. Polanski was 44 at the time of the crime, Samantha was 13, he pled guilty to having “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor,” aka, rape, his fame is irrelevant, and he fled the country to avoid a stiff sentence.

The only substantive basis for freeing him from his Zurich confinement is, . . .

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

Obama's Class and Smarts

Class and Smarts vs. Lack Thereof

Maybe it’s just moi, but despite the lionizing of the Obamas in Europe I think that adulation is colored far more by politics than it is by substantive reality. One French restaurateur actually was supposed to have said as Obama’s motorcade whizzed last week by that he had just seen God.

I don’t know what the French are smoking lately but not only isn’t our president God but he’s also not nearly as smart, classy, and attractive as he’s cracked up to be. In fact, he’s not even close in spite of our mass media’s efforts to glorify him.

It may be snarky, a Brit word of recent vintage meaning snide or irascible, for an American male of mere average and outdated appearance to critique the attractiveness of America’s First Couple. Therefore, I won’t, other than to say that Laura Bush is much foxier than Michelle Obama and that George W. Bush is a better looking guy than Barack H. Obama could ever hope to be.

And the Bushes have far better teeth.

I do feel free to evaluate what waiters in fine restaurants call “presentation.” The overall presentation of the Obamas is more reflective of smarmy Chicago politics than it is of the real stuff of first families of yore–as in 5 months ago and earlier.

I’ll save further reflections on the First Lady for another time.

Take the president’s speech patterns. Obama is widely lauded as the greatest orator in the history of orators, a guy who would put Demosthenes to shame, with or without pebbles in his mouth. Those lauders must suffer from major hearing losses or they idolize Barack to such an extent that they their auditory capabilities are temporarily crippled by their adulation.

When speaking extemporaneously, Obama is almost as inarticulate as Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg. Caroline is very fond of expressions such as, “ya know.” As pointed out by one college dean, Lee Thornton, Obama peppers his off-the-cuff remarks with other “vocal fillers” such as “umms,” “ahs,” and the conjunction, “and.” In addition, he has a noticeable over-reliance on one particular word, “notion:” http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/183868834.html.

The good dean only hints at the reason for the Obama-fillers, namely to collect his thoughts. I have no hesitation in saying it is more an indicator of a lack of constructive thought, a lack of surety, or a combination of both. He also likes that, “ya know,” indicating sub-consciously that he really doesn’t know.

Lapses in diction, and thought, are irrelevant to Obama-lovers, however. He did graduate Columbia and Harvard, ya know!

No media twitette has announced as yet that she wanted to award Obama with oral sex in appreciation for his stance on endorsing abortion, as Time Magazine’s classless Nina Burleigh promised Bill Clinton back in 1998, but who knows what beneficence lies down the road.

The bottomline with both Bubba and Barry is that they have as much grace as most of their voter base, meaning minimal. The chief difference is that the former was usually able to publically conceal his Arkansan roots, except on some occasions such as his infamous shorts or briefs response. The latter doesn’t bother to hide his South Side connection.

You can take the boy out of the Windy City but you can’t ever hope to take the Chicago out of the boy.

Clinton is old and bygone news but Barry is very much in the news. Take a listen and a look as to how Obama presents himself as President of the United States: http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/05/obama_you_aint_seen_nothing_ye.html.

It’s odd to hear a president acclaimed for his professorial demeanor to let loose with the line, “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet,” even if it was spoken at a Hollywood fundraiser before an audience . . .

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