Ronaldus Magnus' Past Words Nailed America's Future

Ronaldus Magnus' Past Words Nailed America's Future

 

Love him or hate him, America’s 40th president Ronald Wilson Reagan possessed an uncanny ability to unite a people in disarray at the same time he was capable of capturing the essence of the most dangerous threats to our nation’s future prosperity and very existence.

To be sure, those and Reagan’s other major achievements didn’t come easily since his many foes in the Democrat Party and their mainstream media marshaled all their considerable forces to ridicule and defeat him so that they could continue to foster the same policies that had driven America to the brink of economic, moral, and social collapse by 1980.

That scenario and its consequences are being replicated today mainly because we failed to really listen to and understand his common sense warnings.

For example, long before America’s streets devolved into violent cesspools, long before our national defenses became farcical excuses national security, long before our health systems care deteriorated into pale imitations of what health care used to be, long before our public schools and colleges turned into institutions of political-correctness, and even long before President Barack Hussein Obama began to rapidly accelerate our decline, Ronald Reagan foretold what lay ahead for us as a nation and as a unified people.
And, again, few people cared enough to pay attention.
Breitbart.com has listed some but far from all of the more significant views Reagan held and predicted about America: . . .  (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=39229.)

The Stat-Spangled Banner and the Dearth of American Patriotism

The Star-Spangled Banner and the Dearth of American Patriotism

 

The title of this essay refers to the “dearth” not the “death” of American patriotism; patriotism is far from dead in our country even if it is under deadly, unrelenting assault.

For example, in a failed effort to appear objective, Brown University historian Ted Widmer doesn’t precisely say he detests America’s  National Anthem but instead cites everything wrong about “The Star-Spangled Banner,” strictly for the purposes of historical accuracy , of course.  
 
After all, what would it look like for a renowned American historian to overly and overtly criticize his own country’s  most sacred patriotic song?
\
In “Is It Time to Ditch the Star-Spangled Banner,” Widmer correctly points out some valid issues with “The Star-Spangled Banner” like its high notes that few can render satisfactorily but devotes most of his attention to the seedy background of the music.
As most people know, the lyrics of the four stanzas of America’s future National Anthem were originally written as a 4-stanza poem by Francis Scott Key describing his anxiety over watching the massive shelling of Fort McHenry by British forces on the night of Sept. 13-14, 1814 during the War of 1812.
When Key saw the American flag was still proudly flying on the 14th despite the bombardment, he wrote and published the “Defence of Fort  M’Henry,” which was eventually re-titled “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

However, historian Widmer doesn’t focus as much on Key’s lyrics as he does on the fact the music is derived from London’s “back alleys” and “drunken” ditties and he felt compelled to point out that the third stanza “considerably weakens the song’s claim to celebrate ‘the land of the free’” since Key fails to mention “the presence of [unspecified] significant numbers of African-Americans, fighting with the British in hopes of finding a personal freedom they had no chance of securing in  the United States.”
 
The relevance of that omission to Widmer’s call for ditching our National Anthem somehow eludes me since it, along with the American flag, doesn’t bear at all on the necessity of retaining “The Star-Spangled Banner.” 

However, his emphasis on that single, two-line excerpt in a thirty-two line poem as a supposed blemish combined with his overall negative tone toward our future anthem shows a clear antipathy, if not antagonism, toward the patriotic fervor of Key’s words.

Patriotism has gotten bunches of bad press over the course of the last few decades . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=39066.)

Let's Forget 9/11, For Now

Let's Forget 9/11, For Now

 

As the thirteenth anniversary of 9/11 approaches, Americans would have thought and hoped that all questions regarding that day of infamy visited upon America by Islamic extremists, its causes, circumstances, and perpetrators, would have been resolved.

Amazingly, while the United States impotently awaits the next Muslim attack presaged by dire warnings from our government that increased Internet chatter is indicative that even worse, deadlier destruction lurks on the near horizon than we witnessed in 2001, we still don’t fully understand everything concerning about how and why 9/11 happened.

And, as critical as the answers may be, we probably will never know all the answers.

As with the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln a century and a half ago, Pearl Harbor in 1941, and the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy fifty-one years ago, nagging doubts, confusion, and conspiratorial suspicions about 9/11 still abound.

Who knew what and when did they know it?

Did President Bill Clinton miss multiple opportunities to kill Usama bin Laden?  Was President George W. Bush aware of the severity of al-Qaeda’s threats yet allowed the attacks?  Did WTC Building 7 implode as a result of pre-planted explosives and not from shock waves from the nearby impacts of fuel-laden airliners?  Were Israelis gleefully and safely watching from a rooftop as the disaster unfolded?  Why did the North American Aerospace Defense Command fighter jets not respond in time?  Why did the 9/11 Commission neglect to interview pertinent witnesses? 

Was the whole sickening event actually orchestrated by maniacs in our government intent on instigating a national panic?

The causes of national tragedies tend to take on lives of their own but, in the case of the most horrific assault ever on American soil, there would seem to be little reason for the continuing debate on 9/11 since it has been exhaustively investigated like no other.

Based on the fact previous national tragedies have yet to be fully explained, at this point in time, none of that is relevant today . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=38731.)

Ebola Spreading Uncontrollably

Ebola Spreading Uncontrollably

 

If anyone really believes the Ebola virus that is spreading rapidly throughout areas of Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and now in parts of Nigeria will be confined to those western and central African states, they must also believe such epidemics can be readily controlled and eradicated today thanks to modern, medical technological advances.

That’s called wishful thinking.

By their insidious nature, viruses tend to change, mutate into different forms and sometimes with varying symptoms, a fact evident with Ebola which consequently make their outbreaks much more difficult to diagnose and treat. 

As a consequence, despite international interventions in Africa by countries equipped with all the latest medical technology, Ebola’s progress has yet to be prevented from spreading.

To suggest the Ebola virus could very well and not in the very distant future, reach and infect perhaps millions in America may be unnecessarily alarmist but such a suggestion could also reflect a reasonable doubt that Ebola researchers and physicians completely grasp its dangers or, for that matter, whether information as to its proliferation would even be publicized to suppress panic.

According to the United Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO), the Ebola death toll has already exceeded 1,900 as opposed to 1,552 dead less than a week ago and more people have now died than in all previous outbreaks of the virus combined, according to WHO’s director general Margaret Chan. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=38871.)

America Goes to Pot

America Goes to Pot

 

When liberal-leftist comedienne/actress Sarah Silverman surprisingly won an Emmy Monday night and in front of millions of viewers including children, she brazenly displayed the vaporizer pen she uses for smoking marijuana and later told an NBC reporter it contained liquified pot.

 

An open aficionado of the drug, Silverman, who told an interviewer last year that, “I have very few vivid memories because I smoke a lot of pot,” unfortunately is not an exception among the entertainment set but rather serves in the vanguard of a radical movement in our country to intentionally or unintentionally make us forget how we got here. 

 

Led by our Pothead-in-Chief, America is rapidly and inexorably becoming the world’s foremost exemplar of the social, legal, and medical repercussions that legalized marijuana is capable of wreaking on a nation.

Sure, other countries are way ahead of us in making weed legally available to the masses–think the Netherlands, for example–but what other country is able to boast that its head of state, the person who should be a role model for his people, started out in life as a pothead?

In his supposed memoir, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance,” Barack Hussein Obama proudly conceded he was a heavy pot smoker in his misbegotten youth in Hawaii as well as a member, indeed, a leader, of law-breakers known as the “Choom Gang,” choom referring to smoking weed. 

According to David Maraniss’ “Barack Obama: The Story,” then-Barry Obama popularized a new, pot-smoking trend known as “TA” (“total absorption”) and “roof hits,” (smoking joints with car windows rolled up to keep any smoke escaping), and he often cut the choom line when a joint was being passed around yelling “interception.”

In 2004, President Obama sent a mixed message when he declared, “I think the War on Drugs has been an utter failure . . . but I’m not somebody who believes in the legalization of marijuana.”  In other words, the War on Drugs has been a total travesty, thereby suggesting that marijuana and other drug laws were somehow flawed, at the same time he indicated he fully supported their enforcement.

To his credit, and he deserves precious little credit for anything, . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=38750.)

Ending Islam's Endless War on America

Ending Islam's Endless War on America 

 

Whatever Americans think and feel about the country and its people, few of us would argue that the Jewish state of Israel is not totally justified in retaliating against Hamas in Gaza. 

In “Brave New World,” Aldous Huxley wrote of that totalitarian world’s dictum that, “Ending is better than mending.”  Mending the rifts between Israel and Hamas, healing the enmity between Israel and its Islamic enemies is as beyond rational expectation as mending the senseless rift between America and Islam. 

Muslim leaders contend that 9/11, and the attacks which preceded it–the first bombing of the WTC in 1993, the bombings of our embassies and the USS Cole as well as all the subsequent threats–were perpetrated by Islamic extremists, jihadists not representative of the world’s 1.2 billion followers of Muhammad and the Koran.  Yet, no Islamic state has ever unequivocally denounced those extremists or taken forceful actions to rein them in. 

Like people, nations are known by the company they keep.

Try to imagine tens of thousands of deadly rockets raining down on American cities, everywhere from Oregon to Nebraska to Alabama to New York, and hundreds of millions of us hiding in bomb shelters in the hope we and our families could avoid being blown to bits.  That grisly scene is replicated daily on a smaller scale in Israel and its population of six million as contrasted with our 314,000,000 residents.

Now, try to visualize the United States of America, the last standing superpower on the planet, arguably the most powerful nation in the world and the home of the supposed leader of the Free World, patiently sitting, waiting, and dawdling, insanely anticipating the next crazed Islamic attack on our homeland as if we were nothing more than a banana republic awaiting another revolution.

We’ve deceived ourselves into thinking that we’ve done all that’s humanly possible to forestall another 9-11, or worse, even as we prepare for the worst.  Even liberal-leftists such as Sen. Diane Feinstein concede we are no safer now than we were thirteen years ago.

What’s absent from that terrifying picture is the reality that there is no need for Americans to hunker down and prep for catastrophe if only we would demand our country assert its unrivaled power and threaten to decimate not only known Islamic terrorists but every last remnant of their enclaves and, if and when the unthinkable happens, if we are attacked again, following through on our warning by returning Muslim lands to the seventh century, a time which many of them never left.

Is that solution brutal and merciless?  Yes, it is.  Is it potentially ruinous of America’s reputation in the world?  It could be.  Is it unprecedented?  In scope, perhaps.

However, consider a few salient realities. . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=38478.)

Israel or Hamas? Pick Just One!

Israel or Hamas?  Pick Just One!

 

Picking sides in the latest Israeli-Islamic conflict in Gaza should not be a difficult choice for Americans. 

Or is it?

On the one hand, we have Hamas, the “Islamic Resistance Movement”, a Sunni Islamic group which has governed the Gaza Strip for eight years and has been designated a terrorist organization by Israel, the U.S., the E. U., Japan, and by a few Mideastern nations although Iran, Russia, Turkey, China, and most Arab countries strongly differ on that designation.

On the other hand, there’s beleagured Israel, a nation manufactured by the victorious allies following World War Two and which has been embroiled in bloody conflicts with its Arab neighbors ever since.  With the help of America, Israel repeatedly defeated its Muslim enemies and accomplished what can only be called a miracle in the desert over the course of its brief existence.

So, who to pick today as the Arabs and the Israelis go at it once again? 

Consider:

—Hamas is vastly outgunned and outnumbered by Israel; but the Hamas terrorists are well financed and otherwise supported by millions of fellow Arabs who want Israel obliterated from the face of the Earth.

—Hamas has been hurling thousands of rockets at Israel for weeks though inflicting minimal damage and few casualties; the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) retaliated by reducing huge sections of Gaza to rubble and killing over a thousand residents, many of them children. . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=38353.)

Boobs and Babies, Guns and Death

Boobs and Babies, Guns and Death

 

I’ve long suspected that those adamantly opposed to the constitutionally-guaranteed right of Americans under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms for both the protection of themselves and their families and for protection from and resistance against a tyranical government were foolish and ignorant.

In a word, I felt they were boobs.

That feeling was reinforced at a recent demonstration for gun control during which a fanatical opponent of that fundamental right displayed her breasts poorly masked by a placard declaring, “Boobs feed babies and bring joy and comfort.  Guns only bring death.  More boobs, less guns.”

Well, that’s not exactly true although the unidentified fanatic did accomplish one thing: She proved her cup size far exceeded her intelligence quotient.

Aside from her grammatical faux pas, (the correct usage would be “fewer”, not “less” guns), Ms. Boobie also clearly demonstrated her obliviousness of reality with regard to how, when, and why guns are used in America and how many lives they have saved.

As frequently documented here, guns are not only legally used by millions of Americans for hunting and then consuming the products of their hunts but they have been used far more often to save and protect lives than for criminal purposes.

Though it’s incontrovertible that firearms are often indiscriminately used to commit crimes and kill, Ms. B.’s exhibitionism and placard fail to factor in the reality that those crimes and killings are largely confined to ghetto areas and, when they occur outside those areas, are mostly committed by residents of those ghettos engaged in murderous rampages outside their communities.

However, the MSM prefers to focus on gun atrocities which are anomalies rather than the norm.  When mentally disturbed people such as Adam Lanza slaughter school children and other innocents, the mainstreamers invariably ramp up their gun control campaign as if guns and not the mentally disturbed and criminal miscreants are the problem. 

Obsessed with the idea that guns are evil, . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=38335.)

America's Alien Future in Pictures

America's Alien Future in Pictures

 

These are just a few photos taken of some of the millions of criminals to whom President Barack Hussein Obama is planning to grant amnesty and work visas, give them Social Security cards, free public education, drivers’ licenses, and American citizenship as a reward for violating our laws by invading our country.

These “undocumented immigrants,” more precisely “illegal aliens,” will take jobs away from America’s workers, overflow our schools and medical facilities, destroy the Social Security system and, based on the fact many of them are MS-13 gang members and worse reprobates, clog our courts and overstuff our already crowded prisons.

True, many of them are children brazenly sent by their parents–and governments–to put their lives at risk in order to live the good life in America because their parents and governments are unable to parent and govern and in the expectation we will take them in and clothe, feed, house, and educate them.

After all, they say, we are a nation of immigrants and should accept these poor, political pawns since they are refugees and America has always been a safe haven for refugees. 

However, none are really refugees. . . (See the pics and read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=38323.)

America's Future under Obama

America's Future under Obama

 

Now that various polls have indicated many Americans believe Barack Hussein Obama is the worst president since World War II, if not the worst president in America’s history, facts many of us have known for five and a half years, the question still remains as to where this proven lawless leader of the Free World will lead our country over the course of the next 30 months.

 

By all objective indications, our prospects are bleak, at least for those of us who love this country and who genuinely fear this president’s true motivations and hidden intentions.

Setting aside the obvious, his proven incompetence on the economy, in international relations, in securing our borders and, his most flagrant failure, in defending and preserving the Constitution, the former neighborhood organizer, a euphemism for local agitator, Obama still has miles to go before accomplishing his grandest goal, the dissolution of the United States as we now know it and re-establishing this nation as an entity little different from the Third World. 

And, it’s not as if he didn’t warn us of his plans in advance.

In his unscripted contention that Americans should share our wealth and in his stated dedication to the principle of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” (October 2008, Columbia, Mo), candidate Obama had laid out the blueprint for his vision of our future. 

After his handlers got ahold of him, Obama retracted his insistence on fundamentally changing a country not needing such major change, but he has never retracted his commitment to wealth-sharing nor his belief that America was no more exceptional than any other country on the planet, nor his obsession with the ghost of white racism and feigned ignorance of pandemic black, criminal racism.

Lately, too, he has been showing clear signs of his paranoia, (“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black president”), an unsettling mental adjunct to his known egotistical nature.

This all constitutes a damning reflection on the democratic process in that so many Americans were apparently not listening to his words, failed to understand their import, or didn’t give a damn either way.

So, where do we go from here, deep into Obama’s second and, constitutionally, final term? . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=38079.)

Dinesh D'Souza Imagines a World Without America

Dinesh D'Souza Imagines a World Without America

 

The liberal-leftist reviews are in on Dinesh D’Souza’s political documentary, “America: Imagine a World Without Her” and, as expected, they’re not good.  TheWrap.com and John Rocchi were typical of the knee jerk reactions from the same people who got our great country into the sickening mess it is today.

Eager to pan D’Souza and his 103 minute film, The Wrap immediately got to its biased point in the title, “‘America’ Review: Another Dinesh D’Souza Doc That’s Easy to Mock” and reviewer Rocchi’s opening sentence, ”The deceptive evidence and straw-man arguments of this conservative ‘filmmaker’ would go down easier if the actual filmmaking wasn’t so inept,” only served to reinforce the venom in that malicious title.

Foolish me!  I thought film critics exercised at least a modicum of objectivity!

Reeking with sarcasm, Rocchi ripped not only D’Souza and “America” but also the writer-director-producer’s 2012 smash success, “2016: Obama’s America” which was widely acclaimed by audiences, if not by critics, and became the second most successful political documentary in American film history.

Rocchi writes, ”Author, filmmaker, and convicted felon Dinesh D’Souza returns to movies with ‘America,’ based on his best-seller of the same title, a follow-up to the screechy, slapdash “2016: Obama’s America.”  “America” is D’Sousa [sic] and co-director John Sullivan’s love letter to America–or rather, to their version of America, where superior conservative ideas and narratives America’s divinely-provided greatness are constantly under attack from what he calls a liberal ‘narrative of shame’ about this country.” 

Having just seen D’Souza’s new movie, I would have to agree with Rocchi that “America” is indeed tantamount to a “love letter” to D’Souza’s adopted nation and that it does display “superior conservative ideas and narratives” as well as the idea that our “divinely-provided greatness are constantly under attack” by a liberal ‘narrative of shame’ about this country.”

However, unlike Rocchi, I mean those comments sincerely and believe those who fail to concur are as guilty of ignorance as they are guilty of being traitorous ingrates who prefer Barack Hussein Obama’s shamefully negative and atheistic views of America to D’Souza’s hopeful and loving documentary. 

D’Souza sees our history through the prism of what America has accomplished and the immense benefits we have contributed to the world rather than focusing on the supposed shame and guilt we should feel for what we have accomplished and contributed.

That said, “America: Imagine a World Without Her” lacks the impact of “2016: Obama’s America” precisely because it is far too gentle toward the “liberal ‘narrative of shame” . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=37974.)

Ending the America We Know and Love (Part Two)

Ending the America We Know and Love (Part Two)

 

We have been conditioned by our progressive president and his lap dog, mainstream media to believe that the massive explosion of black violence is really an illusion concocted by white racists. 

Although it is difficult tell from most media, those often savage attacks are on the rise in America and, along with the acceptance of rampant homosexuality and legalized abortion, are unmistakable evidence of the moral decay now destroying our country.

In truth, the only illusion regarding black rampaging has been created by liberal-leftist progressives who have colluded in denying and covering up the existence of that violence ostensibly in the interests of maintaining what remains of civil order.

A newsflash for those progressives: Your appeasement isn’t even close to working.

Editors at the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, and the Chicago Tribune have publicly conceded that they deliberately censor information about black crime for political reasons.

In June 2011, in an attempt to defend that censorship to its readers following an explosion of black-on-white mob violence in Downtown Chicago, the Tribune’s Gerould Kern disingenuously admitted that his ”newspaper” conceals and downplays black crime in order to “guard against subjecting an entire group of people to suspicion.”

He elaborated by lying, “We do not reference race unless it is a fact that is central to telling the story. By all indication, these attacks were motivated by theft, not race.  Further, there is no evidence to suggest that the victims were singled out because of their race. Therefore we did not include racial descriptions in our initial news reports.”

Kern wrapped up his cover-up of a cover-up by adding another falsehood: “There are circumstances when race may be relevant, such as describing a criminal suspect being sought by police.”

First of all, in a city with a 30% white population where only white people were attacked, ardent liberal-leftist Kern actually suggested that the color of the victims’ skin was coincidental at best? 

Secondly, his reference to Tribune’s identifying the race of assailants when it’s “relevant” borders on the comical; his paper and the rest of Obama’s mainstreamers rarely, if ever, report the race of criminals unless, that is, the criminal happened to be white.

Gerould Kern’s twisted mindset is not unique any more than that particular incident was unique.  Unfortunately for all of us, both his lies concerning rampant black mayhem and the incidents have mushroomed in the last few years, coincidentally with Obama’s first election.

When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed in 1963 that his “four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” could he have dreamt that within less than three generations his now-grown kids would live in a nation which has absolutely no regard for the content of African-American character and not only overlooks their sins but viciously abuses his fellow African-Americans should they stray from the Gerould Kern mold?

(In fact, as I’ve already documented, the sainted Dr. King probably did dream that and worse for our nation!)

Meanwhile, outstanding African-Americans such as black conservatives Ward Connerly, Ken Hamblin, Niger Innis, Alan Keyes, Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, et al. are regularly condemned by race agitators as “Uncle Toms” and worse for their recognition of the reality that most racist assaults in America are committed by blacks. 

Thanks to Obama and his minions who deny its very existence, the ignored mayhem goes on and on as demonstrated by the increasingly popular and brutal “knockout game” . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=37022.) 

America, Polluted Pot Paradise

America, Polluted Pot Paradise

 

When the truth finally got out that President Barack Hussein Obama had been both a marijuana and “blow” (cocaine/heroin) aficionado during his high school years, it was only a matter of time before his government would start winking at drug use in America, to the

detriment of the health and safety of druggies and the public alike.

Of course, that truth had long been out there thanks to his confessions in his 1995 memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” about using marijuana and “maybe a little blow” during his high school days in Hawaii, a memoir that soared to best seller lists after he began to make noises regarding running for the presidency before he had served even two years in the U.S. Senate.

It seemed that no one had really read his “Dreams” or really cared.  

As his biographer David Maraniss wrote, not only was the future leader of the Free World a heavy pot-smoker but a leader in the “Choom Gang,” slang for a group of potheads with a “Choomwagon, he was also a drug innovator “known for starting a few pot-smoking trends.”  Those innovations included “Total Absorption” or “TA” involving restricting exhaling; “you were assessed a penalty and your turn was skipped the next time the joint came around” because, “Wasting good bud smoke was not tolerated.”

Maraniss added that Obama was even known for his “Interceptions,” i.e., when he “elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted ‘Intercepted!,’ and took an extra hit.”

Evidently, the future president was more than your average pothead though, unfortunately, he was never arrested.  Evidently, too, Obama helped create the aura of today’s drug culture as surely as fellow Democrat Bill Clinton contributed to the popularity of oral sex practices especially among young people who felt, Hey, if they can do it, why can’t we?

Flash forward a few decades to Obama in the White House when he bemoaned the fact young African-Americans are incarcerated for minor drug offenses, like pot smoking, at 10 times the rate of whites.  That stat was due to the other fact that blacks commit 10 times the number of crimes whites do, although he failed to mention that. . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=36807.)