Independence Day Reflections

Independence Day Reflections

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




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



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



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



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



Nominal Americans represent the antithesis of the Founders.



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

Alec Baldwin: Closet Homophobe, Classic Liberal

Alec Baldwin: Closet Homophobe, Classic Liberal

Born and reared in what was then the mostly-Republican Long Island suburb of Massapequa, affectionately-known as “Matzohpizza” due to its ethnic makeup, Alec Baldwin went on to Tinseltown and television stardom, and to become one of the most repulsive Leftists in the entertainment world.




That takes some doing considering all the competition!



Most recently in the news for, allegedly, assaulting a paparazzo in New York City, Baldwin has a long history of anti-social, anti-American, anti-family conduct which is not to say his behavior has negatively impacted his popularity among starstruck nitwits who tend to make allowances for their liberal heroes’ idiocies.



Known as one of the most outspoken of Hollywood libs, the 54 year old former husband of actress Kim Basinger, Alec Baldwin also seems to be a hateful, closet homophobe. For an iconic Democrat activist and a stalwart Obamian, that should be the kiss of liberal death.



Or, it may not.



A staunch supporter of Barack Hussein Obama and the animal-loving, people-hating PETA, back in 1992, Baldwin was incensed over what he thought was mistreatment of the horses that tow hansom cabs in and around New York’s Central Park.



Having often seen those animals, I can attest to their fine, healthy, well-fed condition, a requisite for the economic survival of their owners.



Not only was Baldwin a horse’s ass in that assessment but his characterization of the hansom drivers as “faggots” was certainly not PC, especially in view of his status as a darling of gay Hollywood.



However, no serious repercussions ensued over his “faggots” remark because, well, because it was uttered by Alec Baldwin and the incident is now two decades old, anyway.



Closer in time was the paparazzo tussle that occurred just last week outside the NYC Marriage License Bureau. Presumably, the actor had gone there to secure a license to marry his newest heartthrob, 28 year old Yoga instructor Hilaria Thomas.



Daily News photographer Marcus Santos contends Baldwin assaulted him for no reason; the actor countercharges that Santos instigated the confrontation. On Wednesday, Baldwin told a national audience on Letterman he believed beating on a paparazzo was funny.



It doesn’t appear Baldwin was joking when he reverted to homophobic form by referring to the Daily News‘ Editor in Chief, Colin Myler, as a “faggot.”



Aside from the fact . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=25846.)

The Liberal War Against the Littleist Women

The Liberal War Against the Littleist Women

In their desperate attempts to distract voters from Barack Hussein Obama’s 3 1/2 year record of abysmal failure, the president, his mainstream media, and Obama’s administration minions have resorted to every outlandish slander conceivable.




Among other lies, they have falsely claimed that Mitt Romney mistreated his dog Seamus, that Ann Romney “never worked a day in her life,” and that Republicans hate women.



As with their other pathetic strategies, all the shameless Democrat attacks have fallen flat, especially the canard that the GOP is engaged in a war against the fair sex.



Liberals seem to love wars, as evidenced by their wars against religion, against “the rich,” against anyone and anything that displeases them.



Disregarding an epidemic of attacks on women by libs, the Left focuses on conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and on specious allegations that congressional Republicans are “out to get” women.



Liberals ignore the incessant abuse of Sarah Palin, forgive Bill Maher for referring to Palin and other conservative women as c*nts, overlook Ed Schultz’ denigration of Laura Ingraham as “a right wing slut,” and excuse Keith Olbermann for saying S. E. Cupp should have been aborted.



The Left chooses to grant their resident misogynists a pass and instead have honed in on Limbaugh’s apt, if unfortunate, observation that Sandra Fluke is a slut.



There is indeed a war in progress against women, a war being waged by liberal Democrats and they’re taking no prisoners. In fact, libs are literally executing the most vulnerable and innocent females in American society, future women, the pre-born variety.



The Left regards abortion, what Ann Coulter called a liberal sacrament, as sacrosanct. They also have long endorsed, subsidized, and protected the nation’s most prolific abortionist, Planned Parenthood of America.



Apparently, killing pre-born girls (and boys) is perfectly acceptable to liberals, just as long as we protect the mysterious constitutional “right to privacy” of mothers-to-be and their unwritten right to choose if they want to give birth to girl babies as opposed to boy babies.



Whether potential moms opt for baby blue eyes over brown for their progeny or for no progeny at all, seems to be fine with the Left and for PPoA.



Neither vivid exposés of PPoA’s illegal activities–such as facilitating pimps when they want to abort the babies of their underaged prostitutes–nor Planned Parenthood’s exorbitant profits derived from murdering the pre-born, nor PPoA’s concerted efforts to seduce teenagers into accepting the normality of homosexual relations and promiscuity have deterred the Left from championing the efforts by PPoA to honor their sacrament.



Since the liberal MSM shows no interest in exposing what PPoA really does, it falls to independent sources to out the organization. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=25112.)

Rush Limbaugh's Sweet Victory

Rush Limbaugh's Sweet Victory

After the FOX News Channel, Rush Limbaugh has been the most potent voice of conservatism in America for a generation, a virtual dagger in the sides of liberals who, until the advent of FOX and the growth and popularity of talk radio, had enjoyed a decades-long monopoly on what and how news was reported and whose opinions would be heard by the public.

FOX has long been in the liberal crosshairs as has Limbaugh but, most recently, Rush has been the liberal target of choice since they believe they could more easily take down and destroy an individual than a billion dollar cable network.

As with the lib campaign to discredit Glenn Beck, who completely recovered after a concerted effort by Media Matters for America, George Soros’ MoveOn.org, and other left wing organizations to silence him, they have failed miserably in their quest to destroy Limbaugh by targeting his advertisers.

The Washington Post’s Paul Farhi admitted that the claim that over a hundred advertisers had dumped Limbaugh was a fraud and he conceded the defeat of the left’s six week boycott on those advertisers even if they haven’t yet given up the fight.

The end result of the battle? Rush lost 2 small market stations of the 600 total that carry his show and 5 advertisers, some of which have tried to return and have been told where to go, and it isn’t to Rush.

The mistake the left consistently makes is underestimating the commitment–and the intelligence–of America’s conservatives. Liberals are so devoid of . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=20689.)

"October Baby:" A Failed Abortion, A Wonderful Life

"October Baby": A Failed Abortion, A Wonderful Life

Nothing disturbs liberals more than a perceived assault on their most cherished, radical feminist sacrament, abortion.

They consider the right to murder a pre-born baby sacrosanct and inviolable and venomously attack any and all thinking to the contrary, especially when that thinking is incontrovertible.

Thus, the liberal reaction to the movie “October Baby” was entirely predictable since the film undermines their most fundamental precept that a woman’s rights supersede a baby’s right to life.

The reaction rivals the negative, leftist reception accorded the films, “Act of Valor” which, despite its violence, is an affirmation of American values and our armed forces, and ”The Passion of the Christ,” which aroused the passion of anti-Christians everywhere.

Positive affirmations of virtually anything good tend to make libs queasy.

Just released on 390 screens nationwide, “October Baby” is what Hollywood would call “a small film,” produced with minimal publicity and with major budgetary constraints.

Filmed in four weeks not in Tinseltown but in Alabama and on the Gulf Coast, ”October Baby” nevertheless garnered eighth place and an estimated $1.7 million gross for its first weekend with a per-screen average of $4,352, finishing third behind ”Hunger Games,” which debuted on 4,137 screens.

However, despite its outstanding early success at the box office, the story of “October Baby” is not about gross receipts and screens. It’s about life, understanding, and love.

Loosely based on the actual experiences of anti-abortion activist, Gianna Jessen, who was born with cerebral palsy and whose life was subsequently defined by pain, doctors, and medications, the movie focuses on Jessen’s persona, Hannah Lawson, who mistakenly believes her ”entire life is a lie.” . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=20181.)

Ripleyan News

Robert Ripley made his fortune with “Ripley’s Believe It or Not,” a newspaper and later a radio and television series which featured freaks and other oddities he presented as facts to be marvelled at by the public. The following news items may not measure up to Ripley’s weird standards but they are almost equally bizarre.

BURNING BODIES TO HEAT SWIMMING POOLS: In very liberal England, Brits hate waste and have hit upon a unique if offensive method to utilize the dead and, at the same time, to conserve energy and provide comfort to swimmers.

In a ghoulish, green proposal, Sir George Young suggested the 800 degree heat generated by crematoria be used to heat swimming pools and said he would “die a happier man” if he knew his cremation warmed a local pool.

That brilliant idea isn’t too far removed from the governmental practice of using human bodies as nutritional sustenance in the movie “Soylent Green.” Rumors that the Brits will turn to burning people alive for warmth if they run out of dead people are unconfirmed.

PETA KILLS MOST OF THE ANIMALS IT SAVES: The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals bills itself as the pre-eminent savior of all non-human animals and defends animal rights while remaining mute on ethically treating pre-born human beings.

PETA has often engaged in outrageous public displays of its disapproval of wearing clothing made from animal fur yet, when it is “protecting” animals, PETA executes more than 95% of them.

According to documents released by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed virtually all the animals it was caring for last year including 1,911 cats and dogs and, since 1998, has killed more than 27,000 animals at its Norfolk headquarters alone.

I suppose PETA can defend its actions on the basis that it is saving some of the animals from being eaten in Chinese restaurants. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=15269.)

The Myth of the Sensitive, Tolerant Liberal

The Myth of the Sensitive, Tolerant Liberal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Small Christmas Miracles

Two Small Christmas Miracles

Every once in a great while, the public education community slips up and forgets its NEA-dictated politically correct liberalism.

It happened last year at a Long Island middle school awards ceremony when a soldier just back from Iraq was honored by allowing him to present a good citizenship citation to a student.

After being introduced and before he was able to make the presentation, the soldier was showered with appreciation by the 800-strong audience. They leapt to their collective feet to offer their own award for his service, a standing ovation that went on for minutes.

Teachers and school administrators in the district, which will not be identified to protect the innocent, were belatedly embarrassed into joining in.

Well, it happened again, this time at a concert–not a Christmas concert, of course, but rather a “winter concert”–at a high school in the same district where not only were America’s armed forces honored but Chistmas melodies, including religious-themed hymns, were performed and met with comparable approbation.

When the National Education Association gets wind of that combined patriotic/religious rebellion, heads will surely roll.

In the greater scheme of political correctness, neither the military tribute nor the celebration of Christmas were earth-shaking yet both represented a radical departure from the PC norm in the Long Island neck of the national woods. They furnished irrefutable proof that there is some hope for sanity in Democrat Lawn Guyland.

After the band director asked veterans and active duty members of the Navy, Army, Marines, and Air Force to stand at the appropriate moment, the Symphonic Band offered selections from the fight songs of all four branches of America’s military.

Unprompted, the audience enthusiastically applauded both the servicemen and women and “Anchors Aweigh,” “The Caisons Go Rolling Along,” “The Marines Hymn,” and “The U.S. Air Force.”

Pacifists in the audience must have been cringing.

The Festival Chorus then sang a rendition of Vince Guaraldi’s “Christmas Time Is Here,” a cheery song about sleigh bells and snow flakes which could pass muster even with atheistic grinches. The festival choristers went overboard when they followed that innocuous holiday ditty with the gospel song, “Every Time I Feel the Spirit.”

Whatever was the chorus director thinking when he allowed public school kids to sing, “Ev’ry time I feel the spirit moving in my heart, I will pray. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=10912.)

The Complex Catholicity of Newt Gingrich

The Complex Catholicity of Newt Gingrich

As outlined in “It’s Gingrich Time!” (http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=9629), the Obamian attack machine, led in Congress by its High Priestess of Vacuity and Obama idolatress, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, has begun to mobilize against Newton Leroy Gingrich.

The carefully-designed Democrat deconstruction of the latest front-runner in the Republican sweepstakes for the nomination had Pelosi hinting at a ton of allegedly unethical dirt she was prepared to dump on Gingrich, a threatened dumping that made no mention of her own alleged ethical breaches nor of the slew of Obama administration unethical and questionably legal machinations.

Rep. Pelosi withdrew the threat the same day she made it.

As I concluded in “It’s Gringich Time!” “The worst is yet to come in the Destroy Gingrich Campaign.” This will be a long and dirty political year and one of the most reprehensible Dem tactics is already becoming apparent: Tar Newt as a religious hypocrite, a newly-baptized papist fanatic, or both.

The ploy’s success is totally dependent on how well Democrats can get away with smearing Gingrich without smearing his new religion and his new wife lest they be seen as trampling on the First Amendment and the feminine gender. They usually have to be sly about it as in the case of the NewYork Times shortly after his 2009 conversion to Catholicism.

In “Gingrich Gets (a New) Religion,” the Times commented, “But even before his conversion, Mr. Gingrich was branded a hypocrite in the blogosphere after he wrote in a recent Twitter post that President Obama had ‘anti-Catholic values’ ” after he criticized the invitation to President Obama to speak at Notre Dame.

Do note: The blogosphere, not the Times, called Gingrich a hypocrite. Still, the lambasting had begun and mostly relates to his marriages.

In “Newt Gingrich’s Religion,” Salon.com is less subtle, delineating the differences between the religion Newt had left and the one he had adopted, pointing out the basic tenets of the Baptist faith and that, ”With Gingrich’s conversion to Catholicism, he has, in effect, publicly renounced them.”

Salon not only snidely attacks Gingrich but takes digs at his wife, citing why Newt converted and casting aspersions on Callista Bisek with snide references to her immorality: “The first reason he mentions is the fact that his current wife, Callista, is a devout Catholic.”

Then Salon goes for the real dirt: ”Not so devout, however, that she minded carrying on an affair with the married Speaker of the House. The affair lasted for at least five years while Gingrich was married to his second wife.”

As we all know, ultra-moral liberals take great umbrage at such things, especially when liberals are not involved.

Sounding more envious than chagrined, Salon also threw in another shocker: “Not that it really matters, but Gingrich is 23 years older than Callista. When their affair began, she was in her late 20’s, Gingrich in his 50’s.”

If it didn’t matter, why mention it–other than to paint Mrs. Gingrich as a bimbo and her husband as an aging, hypocritical roue’?

Bill Clinton married once, Ronald Reagan twice, Newt Gingrich thrice.

By all indications, Clinton’s marriage has been something other than one made in heaven, Reagan’s first marriage to Jane Wyman ended amicably and his second to Nancy Davis was the stuff of marital legend. Gingrich’s first two weddings have been mischaracterized by the media as something akin to marriages by Jack the Ripper to his victims.

Newt’s third marriage, which has lasted eleven years, is the one that most sticks in the MSM craw.

Gingrich lately seems more than a bit happy, content, and at peace with himself and his philosophy, none of which sits well with the mainstreamers who distrust him because his father was career military and because they’re still peeved over 1994.

The stickiest issue is that Ms. Bisek is a Roman Catholic and now so is Newt and we all know how sinister those Catholics are, right? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=9752.)

War on Christmas, the Rhode Island Battlefield

War on Christmas, the Rhode Island Battlefield

Future Christmas revisionism: “It’s Beginning to Look Like the Holidays.” “Have Yourself a Merry Little Holiday.” “All I Want for the Holidays Is My Two Front Teeth.” “Holidays in Killarney.”

The annual war on Christmas has resumed and a major battle is currently being fought in The Ocean State of Rhode Island.

Perhaps what’s most remarkable about the anti-Christmas forces–and they are formidable forces– is that, despite overwhelming national sentiment in favor of saying and celebrating “Christmas” instead of the generic “holiday,” liberal politicians and their cohorts in the media and among certain segments of the general populace never let up in trying to secularize this time of year.

What’s their problem?

On the one hand, the whole controversy which has been raging for years over a word is silly.

Does it really matter if a tree in the town square is called a holiday tree instead of a Christmas tree? Does it matter if Macy’s conducts holiday sales in lieu of Christmas sales? Does it matter if we wish one another, “Happy Holiday!” and not “Merry Christmas?”

On the other hand, if it didn’t matter, why do some people persist in trying to change a long-standing, popular tradition?

A recent Rasmussen Reports survey confirms what the majority of Americans already knew. By a whopping 70%, most of us prefer to celebrate Christmas rather than meaningless holidays. More specifically, seven out of ten opt for store signs wishing shoppers a Merry Christmas and not Happy Holidays.

It shouldn’t be such a big deal, but it is, moreso for the grinches than for the traditionalists. The grinch contingent seems obsessed with the need to unnecessarily change what doesn’t need changing.

One rhetorical question is, why? Another is, why are virtually all the grinches liberals? The answers are simple: Liberals despise tradition, especially any tradition that smacks of Christianity, and they are grinchy because their philosophy is inherently devious and intolerant.

Case in point: The Associated Press is reporting that Rhode Island’s liberal governor, Lincoln D. Chafee, in defiance of a symbolic resolution passed by his state’s House of Representatives, is insisting the statehouse 17′ blue spruce scheduled to be lit on December 6th be called a holiday, not a Christmas tree . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=7944.)

The Unconscionable Lack of Liberal Conscience

The Unconscionable Lack of Liberal Conscience

“Let your conscience be your guide” is an outdated axiom for Catholics in the Democrat Party, as is the concept of moral and ethical conduct as they apply to their religion.

True and unfortunately, morality and ethics are antithetical constructs in any political context and “ethics committees” seem out of place in political bodies and largely exist as pro-forma charades to satisfy a gullible public but many liberal Catholic Dems go further by overtly flaunting their contempt for ethical behavior.

Of course, relativists reject the idea of any absolutes in life, which is a nifty excuse for avoiding condemnation for violating established societal norms of decency since they absolutely disagree with those dictates.

Thus, Catholic and non-Catholic Democrats alike are able to campaign against what reasonable individuals understand intuitively, the existence of living, human life in the womb, on the bases of debatable claims that it is not a human life, that it’s not viable, that a woman’s right to privacy takes precedence over pre-born life.

The moral-ethical relativists absolutely believe all that and, though I think their beliefs are absurd, I can consider the source and accept them. If their faiths condone the murder of innocent pre-borns, who am I to disagree? The prudent approach of opting for sparing lives when there is any doubt as to when life begins in-utero is inapplicable to relativists.

You see, it’s all relative, whatever that means.

What I find totally unacceptable are politicians, especially ostensibly-Catholic politicians, who preach civil rights yet advocate in favor of denying the most fundamental civil entitlement, the constitutionally-guaranteed “right to life” through abortion. When they complain about Catholic consciences inhibiting their unorthodox views, they are hypocrites verging on apostasy.

Dozens of current Catholic politicians have been lectured . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=6647.)

Why They Fear and Hate Herman Cain

Why They Fear and Hate Herman Cain

They came for Donald Trump and buried him under a birth certificate. They went after Tim Pawlenty and ridiculed him as Mr. Milquetoast. They attacked ignored Ron Paul into a nonentity. They abused Michelle Bachmann for virtually everything she said or did. They convinced Chris Christie he was too fat to be president.

Because of his race, Herman Cain presented a very sensitive target to openly castigate so they mostly just called a black man anti-African-American and a token stooge for the Republicans, all the while concealing the fact they both feared and hated him.

“They,” the Democrat establishment, the Democrat mainstream media, their flacks, hacks, and lackeys in the news and entertainment world, were terrified to the core by this phenomenon, an independent, conservative, pro-life, pro-business, self-reliant Republican black man who threatened to turn their liberal world upside down.

They hate him for the threat he poses.

They hate Herman Cain because he represents a clear and present danger to the very foundations of today’s Democrat Party, to the class warfare Democrats have chosen as their primary campaign strategy, to the racial divide they have carefully constructed, to the parasitic dependency they have created, to their lock on African-American and other minority constituencies.

They fear and hate Herman Cain because he exposes Democrats for what are.

For the most part, Cain’s fellow African-Americans were delegated the task to smear him. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5889.)

Obama's Zuccotti Gamble

Obama's Zuccotti Gamble

Perhaps feeling they have little to lose at this stage of his failed presidency, Barack Hussein Obama and his band of merry mutilators of the American Dream have decided to risk everything and throw their lot in with the people who most closely represent the president’s political and social philosophies.

No, it’s not the labor unions whose support is in the bag as long as this administration endorses salary and benefits in lieu of fiscal sanity. No, it’s not African-Americans who though outwardly disenchanted with the president will still cast over 70% of their ballots for him next year. And no, it’s not his other core constituencies, the homosexuals, hispanics, Jews, and the Wall Street moneybaggers.

Obama knows that gays are still giddy over the repeal of DADT, hispanics are aware his failure to put legalizing illegals on the front burner is a ploy to be remedied in his second term, many Jews think he doesn’t really hate Israel, and that enough of the people he called “fat cats” will open their fat wallets sufficiently wide to enable him to fill his billion dollar campaign war chest.

Still, the Dems are taking a terrific gamble.

It may be that the dogmatic Obama and his ideologically-driven advisers are so consumed by their arrogant sense of Alinskyite superiority that they have been blinded to the folly of offering tacit approval and advocating for the nihilism of America’s nouveau hippies, the twenty-first century’s version of Woodstock, the so-called “Occupy Wall Street” crowd.

Dems are so confused over the protestors that pols such as Vice President Biden have compared them to the conservative Tea Party movement. Such a comparison only holds water if they somehow see similarities between the slovenly, insurrectionist, nihilistic Occupiers and the clean, respectful, patriotic Tea Partiers who wave American flags while the protestors wave dirty underwear.

Nevertheless, I hope the Obamians hang in there with their support. Their backing of the anarchic groups who have infested Zuccotti Park in New York City for weeks and their compatriots throughout the country is a virtual endorsement of next year’s Republican ticket.

Tuesday’s march movin’ on uptown to the deluxe pads of the rich in the sky won’t get them a piece of George Jefferson’s pie but should provide further insight into the extremist motives of the protestors and another boost to GOP prospects.

To be sure, the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators have some valid gripes; no society is perfect and any conscious human being has at least a few complaints, valid grievances over something or other. In a democratic republic, bellyaching is properly addressed at the ballot box.

The illegitimacy of the Occupiers’ complaints is best illustrated . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5696.)

Joe Biden and Cornell Belcher, Liberal Desperados

Joe Biden and Cornell Belcher, Liberal Desperados

Desperate people have a tendency to say desperate things to conceal their desperation but don’t tell the Obamians their desperation is showing. It’s becoming increasingly difficult, though, not to get exasperated over their disregard for truth and their ruthless invective.

Liberals are getting more anxious by the day as their hopes for four more years of Obamamania diminish with every downtick in their leader’s approval ratings, every uptick in the unemployment numbers, every news item revealing the multiple scandals and disarray enveloping their hero’s administration, and evidence the president is becoming isolated and withdrawn.

Still, the extremes to which liberals have been going lately and the outlandish rhetoric they employ suggest a serious disconnect from reality that should be disturbing to liberals and rational people alike.

Vice President Joe Biden and Obama adviser Cornell Belcher are two cases in point of liberals and their thought processes sliding into a dark hole of bleak desperation.

Never at a loss for words, always at a loss for rationality, Biden let slip another doozey last week during his ongoing push for passage of Obama’s ”jobs bill,” which even his Democrat Senate refuses to consider, as he trashed about for excuses for an economy in the toilet.

He is now blaming the Chinese.

More specifically, during an interview with NBC’s David Gregory, America’s clown prince attributed the nation’s worsening economy at least in part to Chinese real estate. He might just as well have blamed the price of tea in the Middle Kingdom. As Biden explained, “There are roughly, depending on the estimate, 30 to 50 million apartment units in China that are vacant and people are worried about the real estate bubble there.”

So, vacant apartments in China are hurting America’s economy? I’m no more an economist than Clueless Joe but attributing any degree of our mess to a Chinese bubble of any sort borders on madness, or Bidenness.

Biden went on to define the cure for what ails us: passage of Obama’s American Jobs Act which would add up to 2 million new jobs to America’s work force. If true and based on previous exaggerations it isn’t, CNS.com points out they would be mostly government jobs, anyway, and the cost of the legislation would probably outweigh its benefits. (http://bit.ly/rtMXwy)

For his part, interviewer Gregory showed a marked lack of inquisitiveness by letting Biden get away with his claims. Had the interviewee been G.W. Bush a few years ago, Gregory and his MSM coterie would have verbally beaten Bush over the head and shoulders for such outlandishness.

Last month, Obama lackey Cornell Belcher showed an even greater disregard for common sense than Biden when he, an African-American, charged GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain, an African-American, with being a racist bigot toward African-Americans. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5688.)

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.)

Fox and Pew and You

Fox and Pew and You

An old friend who perceives himself a quasi-liberal since he and his family members have been labor unionists for generations once said to me, “Well, you get all your news from Fox News.” He had previously blamed Republicans for the election of Barack Hussein Obama because the GOP nominated lame John McCain.

That old union friend was wrong on the first count but probably right on the second.

The only rational explanation for Obama’s election in 2008 is no viable competition but when I do watch television news I split my time pretty equally with the left wing networks and Fox. Like they say, keep your friends close but your enemies closer, an aphorism which could be extended to the much less catchy but equivalently-insightful, Watch the truth compliments of your friends and keep your eye on the prevaricators.

As reported by the Fox News Channel in article titled, “Pew: Fox News Channel America’s No. 1 Source for TV News,” a survey conducted in July by the highly-reputable Pew Research Center revealed that 19% of respondents indicated they learned what’s going on in the nation and the world from the FNC. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5541.)

Guns Kill People Yet Curettes Don't Kill Fetuses?

Guns Kill People Yet Curettes Don't Kill Fetuses?

The gross hypocrisy of the liberal mentality is no better demonstrated by the seemingly-unrelated issues of gun control and abortion, both of which are strongly supported by libs even though the issues are antithetical: Control of guns is endorsed in the interests of preserving human life, abortion by definition destroys human life and is considered a virtual liberal sacrament.

Liberals can be awfully confusing.

Following yet another bloody weekend in New York City, the pro-abortion, imperial Mayor Michael Bloomberg trotted out the tired, old liberal mantra, regarding guns not abortions.

In reaction to 52 shootings in the city between Friday and Labor Day, including a shoot-out at the festive West Indian parade on Monday in Crown Heights that left 3 people dead, Bloomberg again resorted to the tried and true shibolleth that people don’t kill people, guns kill people.

He didn’t phrase his explanation of the mayhem in quite those terms since it’s been logically and statistically shown that guns aren’t the cause of gun violence and that people are the cause. It’s also been proven in Florida and other states that guns–in the hands of law-abiding people–actually deter criminals. Instead, the mayor invoked the more popular if less catchy line of the anti-gun lobby by blaming the shootings on illegal guns.

Memo to Bloomberg: Legal or illegal, firearms don’t usually discharge themselves.

None of this is meant to suggest that the ubiquity of weapons on the mean streets of New York, in predominantly black Crown Heights or anywhere else, isn’t a serious problem.

Nor is it meant to imply that accidents involving legal guns never happen. They do, although those occurrences are usually attributable to carelessness and are rarities even if the media blows them out of proportion when they do occur–in the interests of promoting gun safety–and the liberal agenda of denying Second Amendment rights to Americans.

The sad truth–as illustrated by New York City which has the most stringent gun possession laws in the nation and also has, per capita, the most illegal weapons in the nation and is undergoing a rapidly rising violent crime rate–is that “gun control” doesn’t work, except to the advantage of criminal elements.

Nevertheless, Bloomberg stuck to the liberal script and ignored reality by nasally intoning, This is ”what happens when elected officials in Washington fail to take the problem of illegal guns seriously.”

Those damned guns. They keep shooting and killing people, an implicit and ridiculous claim that serves to absolve the shooters and killers of individual responsibility for their actions.

The high priest of the liberal church and most-enthusiastically anti-gun and pro-abortion president in America’s history, President Barack Hussein Obama, has said little about guns or babies lately. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5372.)

Updates on Thomas Jefferson and the MSM

Updates on Thomas Jefferson and the MSM

With news evolving at warp speed today, it’s challenging to keep up but I can do it, at least if the news relates to developments of some significance. When the news involves Thomas Jefferson and the mainstream media, it’s definitely in need of updating.

For example, contrary to popular African-American belief, the principal author of America’s Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, may not have authored children by his slave, Sally Hemings, and she may have been the concubine of Tom’s allegedly randy younger brother, the much less distinguished Randolph Jefferson.

No doubt the debatable Jeffersonian DNA evidence will cause widespread consternation among America’s African-American community which has claimed a Jefferson connection for a decade now, a Thomas Jefferson, not a Randolph Jefferson connection, and has to deflate their genetic pretensions.

The only definite link established by the 1998 DNA match between one of Sally Hemings’ six children, Eston Hemings, and a Jefferson was merely that, a male Jefferson match, not necessarily the Jefferson link.

Robert F. Turner, former University of Virginia professor and Chairman of the Scholars Commission, announced the release of his new book which exposes fallacies in the theory that America’s third president fathered Eston, fallacies largely predicated on circumstantial evidence.

Predictably, the new claims by 12 of the 13 members of Turner’s commission are disputed by various parties with a dog in the Jefferson paternity fight, groups and individuals with a vested interest in the matter.

Leslie G. Bowman, president of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, objectively noted that, “Like the scholars commission . . . the foundation acknowledges there is no way to fully prove or disprove the issue. Our evidence is the same as their evidence–our interpretation of it is different.”

Absent testimony by Sally, Thomas, and Randolph, we will never know the truth.

The truth about the MSM–that it is dominated by liberals, leftists, Democrats, and Obamalovers–is indisputable even as most of the mainstream media continue their absurd pretense of journalistic integrity and objectivity.

Led by the “Old, Grey Lady,” the New York Times which gets greyer and more partisan by the day and which prints all the news it sees fit to print, Obama’s media antedated Obama in their decades-long campaigns to distort news in favor of liberals and liberal points of view at the same time they disparaged, ridiculed, and denounced Republicans and conservatives.

As far back as Dwight Eisenhower whom the media often depicted as a militaristic dolt, through Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, both of whom were customarily characterized as nincompoops–and worse–the media portrayed anyone who didn’t tow the leftist line as serving far above their pay grade.

Richard Nixon and George H. W. Bush 41 escaped those characterizations, Nixon because he carried so much other baggage that attacks on his intelligence would be superfluous, Bush 41 because he was a war hero and a closet liberal. Ironically, those presidents the MSM delighted most in attacking, Ike, Ronaldus Magnus, and GWB, all won second terms.

Dutifully serving as Barack Hussein Obama’s election vanguard, the so-called mainstreamers trotted out their expected salvos early and often in their efforts to decimate Republican contenders for the presidency of every stripe before they could mount a viable threat to their tainted hero. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5329.)

Obama's Hopeless, Liberal Change

Obama's Hopeless, Liberal Change

There are liberals and there were liberals.

I’m talking here about American libs, not the British types who are a whole different set who have evolved from beliefs in classical liberalism to free thinkers, whatever that means, to what the new Brit PM calls his “conservative liberal” party, whatever that means.

Until relatively recently, British libs and American libs had one value in common: Without qualification, they cared for the well-being of their respective countries above all else, a sentiment absent today from the philosophy of America’s new liberals as epitomized by Barack Hussein Obama.

President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a liberal. So, too, were the Happy Warrior, Hubert Horatio Humphrey, and a whole slew of other Democrats in the past half century, not inclusive of Lyndon Baines Johnson who governed by consensus until Dems turned against him for waging the Vietnamese War and conservatives rebelled because he refused to win that war.

Liberals in days gone by differed in many respects from their more conservative, Republican, opponents but they shared with that opposition a fundamental patriotism, a love of country which superseded base partisanship and the opportunings of special interests groups whose demands were contrary to the best interests of the country.

Not anymore.

That idyllic era came to an abrupt conclusion with Barack Hussein Obama although the end was presaged by Jimmy Carter’s inept politics of malaise and fearsome attack rabbits and Bill Clinton’s governing from the vantage points of what Dick Morris advised would best get him re-elected and how Monica Lewinsky could best service him.

Today, our president, elected despite his dubious credential of being the most liberal senator in the United States Senate during his remarkably brief two-year tenure in that august body, is locked in a death struggle.

His is certainly not a personal death struggle, to be sure, since he will no doubt outlive most of us thanks to his penchants for repetitive relaxation excursions to golf links, a multiplicity of family vacations in opulent locales, and a studied nonchalance as to the domestic and foreign perils the nation faces.

Obama’s stuggle primarily relates to the questions of whether to succumb to his instincts to abjectly cater to the insistent demands of his most restless constituencies or to head to the middle and again sucker a majority of 2012 voters into thinking he isn’t as radically liberal as he actually is.

He has many choices on his overflowing plate, including:

. Should he stay his economic course and promote additional monetary stimuli which fail to stimulate, advance job programs which only increase government employment, add even more regulatory constraints which strangle businesses, and allow the EPA to cripple any recovery with its mindless obsession with inconsequential environmental issues?

. Should he strive to win what he called the Afghanistan ”war of necessity” or bug out and abandon that country to Taliban repression and a return it to a terrorist haven? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5252)

Bill Maher on Retardation, Sexism, and Bill Maher

Bill Maher on Retardation, Sexism, and Bill Maher

. . . That depraved indifference escaped the castigation or attention of other libs, just as Maher’s attack on Christianity as the cause of all sexism either escaped Nolte, or met with his full concurrence.

Were Bill Maher were the only member of the liberal-leftist-progressive-Democrat community to demonstrate a marked absence of the most fundamental civility, he could almost be forgiven. Unfortunately, he is not, as shown by equally uncivil and vitriolic viciousness of such people as MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, et al.

Maher will probably be quietly feted and lionized by his lib cohorts despite his sexism and for his soul-less abuse of a defenseless, retarded child since Trig Palin was born to Sarah Palin, a conservative, “bimbo” ”t*at.”

(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5046)