Considering Islam, Obamacare Ruling Is the Least of Our Problems

Considering Islam, Obamacare Ruling Is the Least of Our Problems

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ defection to the dark side on the issue of Obamacare was startling and incredibly disappointing.




Nevertheless, there are noteworthy positives associated with his decision to join the ranks of extreme Leftists on SCOTUS, one of whom should have recused herself had she possessed a shred of integrity, and opt to support a law that was foisted on the American people by the Democrat Party.



For one, Roberts’ vote demonstrated that an ardent conservative can sometimes stray from the consevative path, unlike liberals on the Court and elsewhere who would rather swallow their shoes than voice disagreements with leftist ideology.



For another, declaring Obamacare constitutional offered Mitt Romney the opportunity to gain millions of votes from the majority of Americans who believe the concept of British-style socialized medicine stinks.



For yet another, mandating Obamacare once again outed President Barack Hussein Obama as a liar since the 5-4 split decesion essentially imposes a huge tax increase, a tax the president has repeatedly and emphatically vowed would never happen.



In any event, when Obama is thrown out of office in November and Republicans sweep House and Senate races, Obamacare will be methodically dismantled. Only the good features of the Unaffordable Care Act, such as elimination of lifetime dollar limits on policies and elimination of co-pays for preventive care, will be retained.



More importantly, the entire brouhaha over Obamacare and unduly stressing over a SCOTUS ruling may be moot and a foolish disregard for geopolitical realities–the dire threat to the nation posed by Islam and Muslim extremists intent not on merely destroying America’s health care system but on destroying America itself.



Among the president’s many other flaws is his ignorant obliviousness of the fundamental evil that is Islam. And that evil is not confined to Muslim countries. It is speading rapidly to the West, to America’s shores, and even to our military.



Read the story of British journalist Natasha Smith who, last year, was ecstatic over the glorious, popular upheaval of the Arab Spring. This spring Ms. Smith came face to face with the true nature of Islam in Cairo’s Tahir Square.



She described her not unprecedented experience (remember CBS New’s Lara Logan?) after the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Corsi’s visit to Obama’s White House and his victory in Egypt’s presidential election.



Smith graphically wrote on her blog: “Men began to rip off my clothes. I was stripped naked. Their insatiable appetite to hurt me heightened. These men, hundreds of them, had turned from humans to animals.



“Hundreds of men pulled my limbs apart and threw me around. They were scratching and clenching my breasts and forcing their fingers inside me in every possible way. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=26055.)

Leaking SCOTUS, Sinking Obamacare

Leaking SCOTUS, Sinking Obamacare

(Late Tuesday, Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals demanded that the Department of Justice immediately produce a letter of explanation regarding the president’s recent criticism of the United State Supreme Court “stating specifically, and in detailed reference to those statements, what the authority is in the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review.” He added, “The letter needs to be at least three pages, single-spaced and it needs to be specific.” The demand was reported by Fox News and on ABC’s blog but nowhere else in the mainstream media.)

There’s only one rationale for President Barack Hussein Obama using the occasion of a visit by heads of state to try to intimidate the Supreme Court into deciding that Obamacare is constitutional: He got a tip that the Court will trash the Individual Mandate, if not the entire 2700 page mess that is the “Affordable Care Act.”

Canada’s Stephan Harper and Mexico’s Felipe Calderon attended a presser at the White House on Monday to discuss NAFTA, trade, security, etc. and were treated to an exhibition of Chicago-style bullying against the highest court in the land by their “constitutional scholar” host. It must have made them think Obama had gone off the deep end when he launched into a pre-emptive attack on SCOTUS’ authority and integrity.

The president’s salvo was replete with distortions and outright lies comparable to the distortions and lies that have surrounded the ACA ever since the law was first proposed and narrowly passed by a highly partisan Democrat Party.

The bill was pushed through the Senate on Christmas Eve, December 24, 2009, 60–39, with every Democrat voting in favor and every Republican voting against, and passed the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, 219–212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting nay.

Based on the president’s Monday bullying, you would think Obamacare had passed in a landslide vote and that the American people loved the legislation when the precise opposite is the truth.

As Obama said, “Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

“Confident?” Not bloody likely or he would have kept his mouth shut! ”Unprecedented?” SCOTUS overturns unconstitutional laws every session! “Strong majority?” The bill squeaked through the House and passed in the Senate only because Senate Democrats marched in lock-step with Obama after heavy-handed cajoling and bribery!

Obama went on to another major distortion, alleging that conservatives had been arguing for years over the “unelected” Supreme Court’s judicial activism, i.e., making rather than interpreting laws. In the Obamacare matter, SCOTUS is doing just that–interpreting, not making law.

In a tone remniscent of the Chicago politics . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=20605.)

The Jurists Are Out On Obamacare

The Jurists Are Out On Obamacare

Speculation is ripe on how the United States Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of the Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010, the ultimate title of what most Americans know as Obamacare.

Signed by President Barack Hussein Obama on June 25th, 2010 after extensive late-night machinations, bribes, and add-ons, the bill was originally titled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by the Democrat Senate. It was apparently changed in view of the fact there were few patient protections in the 2700 page monstrosity.

Obamacare is not affordable by either patients or the nation but they had to call it something palatable. It’s not known whether any Dems ever read it before they passed it.

Anyway, nine individuals–six men and three women, (six Roman Catholics, three Jews, no Protestants)–are now empowered to secretly decide the fate of a law which applies to almost everyone in a nation of 313,274,338 souls, comprised of 51% protestants, 25% Catholics, 1.7% Mormons, 1.2% Jews, and 21% of other persuasions including Muslims and atheists.

Without suggesting that either the personal faith or gender of the justices will dictate their decision, the religion of the justices is cited here in light of the legislation’s already-obvious impact on religious beliefs of Catholics and other Christians and the widespread discussion of a presidential candidate’s religion for the first time since 1960.

Gender is relevant because the statistical reality is that far more women seek health care than do men and the new law will directly impact the practice of abortion in the country.

Not all of us are affected by Obamacare, however. It won’t be fully implemented until 2014, by design, long after this year’s election. Millions of “exemptions” have been doled out to favored special interests groups, labor unions etc., which didn’t like the legislation anymore than the rest of us but had the political pull to opt out.

Federal government employees, including the president, his family, and Congress, are also exempted, a fact which says a great deal about Obamacare, none of it good. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=20091.)

To Recuse or not to Recuse?

To Recuse or not to Recuse

At long last, the Supreme Court of the United States has officially announced that it will review the constitutionality of President Barack Hussein signature legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.

More specifically, SCOTUS will decide the merits of a lawsuit brought by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business that contends Congress exceeded its power by imposing an annual penalty of $95 or 1% of gross income, whichever is greater, on individuals who do not secure insurance by 2014. The penalty is scheduled to rise to $695, or 2.5%, by 2016 with a family limit of $2,085.

The limit was indeed benevolent of Democrats who rammed the PPACA through Congress with no assistance from Republicans and now it would be fair of them to insist that Obama’s Justice Elena Kagan recuse herself from the case.

Rare on the SCOTUS level, recusals refer to situations in which a judge or prosecutor is removed or voluntarily steps down from a legal case, most often when the judge or prosecutor has a conflict of interest.

Justice Kagan clearly has a major conflict of interest in determining the constitutionality of the PPACA and should recuse herself from deliberations and a decision on the matter, or be forcibly removed from the bench and be seated in the court along with other known proponents of Obamacare.

Those scenarios, however, are as likely as Democrats admitting that seizure by the federal government of Americans’ health care and one-sixth of the national economy was a screwball, socialistic idea in the first place.

Kagan’s job prior to being confirmed to the Supreme Court was service as Obama’s Solicitor General in which position she was charged with representing the Executive Branch in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and acting as the chief courtroom lawyer for the government, preparing legal briefs and making oral arguments in that court.

At Kagan’s 2010 confirmation hearings, she dodged key questions and swore she played no part in crafting government responses to anticipated lawsuits contesting the legality of the newly-passed Obamacare legislation, swearing under oath that she merely ”attended a meeting where the cases were discussed, but that she wasn’t involved in the government’s filings.” (http://tiny.cc/p2njk)

If you believe that whopper, the Brooklyn Bridge is unavailable but I can make you a very good deal on the Queensboro.

In a just-released email exchange between the Solicitor General and Justice Department attorney Lawrence Tribe, they discussed the pending legislation and in one Elena exclaimed, “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.”

What’s even more amazing is that Solicitor General Kagan was able to dissociate herself . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5968.)

The Madness of Queen Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama

The Madness of Queen Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama

Sorry to disillusion anyone but things aren’t always what they seem to be and are rarely what some people wish to be. That sad note of enlightenment applies especially to Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama.

All those fat kids out there whom the FLOTUS has been weaning off burgers and fries and turning on to kale wraps and grilled hummus will be disillusioned. All those kids who knocked on the door at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on Halloween and were given raisins and dried fruit by President Barack Hussein Obama’s wife will be disheartened.

Nevertheless, truth must be told: Michelle Obama isn’t a very nice person and I know, I know, it’s ungentlemanly and rude to say such a thing.

Likewise, it’s unladylike to trash the nation that accorded you the opportunity to feel special by saying, a mere three years ago, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country” and telling Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, the bride of the president of the French Republic, a few months later what she thought of her First Lady job: “Don’t ask! It’s hell. I can’t stand it!”

Harry S Truman once said, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!” I would say, if you’re a malcontent, go back to Chicago!

I somehow doubt Mrs. Obama visits the White House kitchen very often except maybe to tell the chefs to be sure to check calorie counts on meals they prepare for the president–even as she gobbled up (1500 calorie, 141 grams of fat) braised short ribs while on one of her many vacations at Vail Village, Colorado and downed 1565 calories (cheeseburger, fries, chocolate shake,) on her July visit to D.C.’s Shake Shack.

LiveStrong.com described the ribs meal as “decadent.” They don’t know the half of Michellian decadence, and hypocrisy.

When any woman, any man, repetitively and publicly demonstrates a distaste for his or her country and her position, brazenly milks that unelected post for all it’s worth, and preaches one thing while practicing another, her class, her integrity, and her ”ladyhood” as well as her patrioism are called into question.

Michelle LaVaughn Robinson began life in modest surroundings as the daughter of a civil servant and a secretary. She rode that modesty to Princeton where she truly blossomed–into the closet radical she is today, a fact she hides admirably well.

However, try as she did, she couldn’t hide her senior thesis and her racially-charged praise for the Black Panthers, her endorsement of “the need for Blacks to separate themselves from White society in order to strengthen the Black community,” and assailed the “white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society.”

Never heard that? That’s not surprising but feel free to peruse “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community–A Thesis” here: http://tiny.cc/bnmtc and “Michelle in Hell” here http://tiny.cc/2pmw0

Michelle LaVaughn Robinson graduated Princeton and went on to wed Barack Hussein Obama and the rest is history, her history of bad-mouthing our country, of electioneering at Chicago voting venues, of hostessing lavish White House birthday bashes for her hubby, of poetry readings featuring black racists like “Common,” and of establishing records for profligate vacationing during lean times.

The thing is, Queen Michelle doesn’t give a damn about discretion or public perceptions of her conduct because she is confident Barack’s MSM will cover for her, which it has, again admirably.

Still, as an ostensible Christian, she must be at least minimally burdened by her behavior, a factor . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5868.)

Obamacare, the Stealth Abomination

Obamacare, the Stealth Abomination

A Democrat friend, (yes, I do have a few of them), said to me yesterday, “Well, I’ll at least be able to keep my own insurance when Obamacare kicks in, right?”

Her question demonstrated what is one of the slickest aspects of the intentionally-mislabeled Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 which few in Congress read before voting on it and passing it: Few Americans outside Congress know what’s in it, either.

The very questionable constitutionality of the PPACA will, hopefully, soon be settled by the United States Supreme Court. The issues on SCOTUS’ docket include but are not limited to whether our federal government can legally–forget morally–order citizens to purchase health insurance or be subjected to financial penalties.

Constitutionality aside, assuming Associate Justice Elena Kagan fails to recuse herself in the proceedings and the Court decides in favor of President Barack Hussein’s signature statute designed to seize control over one-sixth of the nation’s economy, another issue becomes almost as significant, my friend’s and millions of others’ ignorance of PPACA’s provisions.

Justice Kagan has as little integrity as the president and despite having labored on behalf of Obamacare during her employment as Solicitor General is unlikely to choose honor over Democrat loyalty by recusing herself.

To bolster her anticipated non-recusal and the unethical Obama administration, Democrats launched a smokescreen pre-emptive attack on the financial ethics of the lone African-American (conservative) member of the Supremes, Clarence Thomas, but that’s a whole other story.

Back to my friend.

She’s not a stupid person, despite being a Democrat . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5621.)

Jeremiah Wright and Elana Kagan--"Progressives"

Jeremiah Wright and Elena Kagan--"Progressives"

. . . Rev. Wright is anything except slow. He knows well how to stir up his mostly-black audiences: Castigate the white man, not for purposes of instigating hatred of whites, mind you. He simply tries to educate African-Americans in the finer points of history, which he ably accomplished last week in a speech to the First African Baptist Church in Savannah.

Addressing a “Youth Explosion” conference, the reverend repeatedly called whites liars to the delighted assemblage who hooted and howled in approbation as he recounted the history of white lies, not little white lies either. See and hear Rev. Wright trace the history of white liars lying about everyone from Columbus to Osama bin Laden . . .

The House members contend that Kagan in her previous role as Obama’s Solicitor General Kagan “actively participated with her Obama Administration colleagues in formulating a defense of PPACA” and offer documents just obtained from the Justice Department as proof.

Said documents had to be pried loose from the DoJ via a Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, request by CNSNews.com. Not unexpectedly, a very uncooperative DoJ is now seeking to block release of any additional information.

After all, freedom and dissemination of information . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4960)

The Disunited State of the Union

The Disunited State of the Union

. . . A good question is, Why are members of SCOTUS even expected to attend SotU addresses? The justices may very well be asked to pass judgement on the constitutionality of what the president and congress do. Should they be in attendance when those political plans are outlined? Should they be expected to acquiesce to that with which they disagree? Should they just stay home?

The president, the vice president, and, of course, congress en masse, will be in attendance but this year, in another unprecedented–and politically-inspired–move, Democrat Senator Mark Udall has proposed a SotU innovation: http://tiny.cc/2jttv

Rather than have congresspeople seated as usual in the House chamber helter skelter but according to political party, Udall has suggested that everyone be integrated into one, big, unified group, a proposal never brought to the fore when Democrats dominated both houses but which now strikes Democrat Udall as an outstanding change. The potential impact on the television audience of witnessing the loyal Republican opposition seated united in that opposition is an absolute irrelevancy to the senator.

In the wake of the president’s call for national healing and an end to divisiveness and vicious invective following the Tucson massacre, a plea that has yet to reach either the hearts or ears of his supporters, the idea of that demonstration of non-partisanship has attracted a number of Republicans such as Sen. John McCain who are forgetful that when they have reached across the aisle in the past to Democrats the Dems have devoured their arms up to the armpit.

However, things have changed and all is good now. Everything is beautiful and everyone is happy, joyful, and non-partisan–until a Republican president next delivers a State of the Union message or Democrats next control both houses of congress.
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3432)

Of Uteri and Privacy

Of Uteri and Privacy

Leftist pro-abortionists, an admitted redundancy, are all verklempt over last Tuesday’s election results.

It seems that along with the coming influx of fiscal conservatives in the new Republican House of Representatives in January, America will be blessed with far too many of that “ilk” who are social conservatives as well, meaning that most take deep personal, moral, and national offense at the liberal sacrament of abortion, the all-too-popular practice of murdering the pre-born.

Lori Ziganto addresses that issue in her article, “Pro-Aborts Screech Stay Out Of My Uterus! Unless They Want To Brag About Abortions On Twitter” which appears on Monday’s pages of IOwntheWorld.com.

Ms. Ziganto focuses on the Constitution’s alleged provision for a woman’s “right to privacy,” a right non-existent in our Constitution which was discovered and incorporated into that document by the United States Supreme Court in 1973 with its decision on Roe v. Wade.

There was, of course, precedent for that incorporation, that re-writing of the Constitution, in another SCOTUS decision in 1857 when Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s court determined that Dred Scott and all African Americans “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it.”

In brief, SCOTUS had made grievous errors in the past and therefore was entitled to make another one in 1973 and so-called feminists rejoiced in their new-found right to privacy.

Apparently, 37 years later, they feel so strongly in their right to privacy that many of them are now proudly advertising their abortions by twittering on Twitter.com. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2570)

Elena Kagan, Political Softball

Elena Kagan, Political Softball

An old and suggestive Clairol commercial asked the age-old question: “Does she or doesn’t she? Only her hair-dresser knows for sure.”

Ostensibly, Clairol was implying that the beautiful damsel with flowing, glistening tresses in the ad may be using Clairol hair dye to color those locks but no one will ever know.

We also may never know for sure whether Obama’s solicitor general is or is not a closet lesbian yet that question seems to be consuming the blogosphere, if not the mainstream media. Granted she looks and acts like a lesbian and even batted from the left side of the plate during her softball years. If it quacks like a duck, etc. it must be a duck, no?

Point is, so what if Kagan is gay? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1686)

Jews, Catholics and SCOTUS

Jews, Catholics and SCOTUS

It’s long past time for America to consider the heretical idea of amending the Constitution and make new openings on the Supreme Court term-limited if not elective offices.

When the Founding Fathers devised the Constitution in the late eighteenth century, life expectancy at birth, thanks to rampant diseases, was a mere 24 years although, depending on where one lived, it could range up to 60 in New England, 45 in the Middle Colonies and 35 in the South. Those figures are according to Encyclopedia.com.

Averaging the 3 locales, a person could expect to live 46.7 years, with a little bit of luck. Today, thanks to the marvels of modern science and medicine, Americans can reasonably expect to live well into their seventies and beyond and late eighties and nineties are no longer unusual.

There is no possible way that James Madison . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1683)

Elena Kagan, Gay Justice?

Elena Kagan, Gay Justice?

Just as it was with Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan as replacement for SCOTUS Associate Justice John Paul Stevens was a done deal as soon as President Obama nominated her. Kagan, a Janet Napolitano lookalike, is a shoo-in.

The Democrat Party’s 59 seat Senate majority insures it. Republicans would need an unlikely unanimous agreement of its 41 members to filibuster her nomination.

In addition, Sotomayor was a woman and a Hispanic, Kagan is a woman and, apparently, a lesbian. What else did they need going for them? It was payback time in both instances. Two prime Obamian constituencies were in line for some recognition, the Hispanic-Latino community and the gay-lesbian community, and they’ve now gotten it.

However, why the White House became all exercised over a CBS online story that outed Kagan as “the first openly gay justice” was baffling when it hit the fan three weeks ago: Then she was only on the list of possible nominees and not yet even on the short list but why all the perturbation?

Did the Obamians consider open or hidden lesbianism a negative? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1674)

Abortion, the Bottom Line

Abortion, the Bottom Line

Much has been said and written about abortion rights, too much in fact.

The right of a woman and, as it has evolved, the right of a pubescent girl, to terminate a pregnancy was decided in 1973 by the United States Supreme Court in its landmark Roe V. Wade decision. It thereby became the law of the land. The matter was settled.

Well, not really. The case may have been settled, but the matter was far from settled. It hadn’t been settled any more than the decision of the Supreme Court in 1857, in the matter of Dred Scott v. Sandford, settled that particular matter. The Court then concluded that Dred Scott was a man “of inferior order” and hence should not be accorded the rights of citizenship.

Of course, today the Dred Scott Decision is regarded as odious, predicated on the sentiment of some at the time and a usurpation of the rights of another human being on the basis of his African heritage. It took a Civil War and a number of amendments to our Constitution to right that grievously wrong decision of the Supreme Court. Likewise, with Roe v. Wade, . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1663)