Obama Kills the Internet

Obama Kills the Internet

 

It’s still unclear whether President Barack Hussein Obama asked for Al Gore’s permission to effectively kill the Internet but he certainly should have since Gore invented it, or so he has said repeatedly.
It’s far more significant that Obama, a proud globalist who believes it is fair and just that Americans not only should share their personal, hard-won wealth with those who haven’t done a damned thing to deserve it but also believes we should not just share the Internet, totally relinquish any control we have, and surrender it to such nations as Communist China and Putin Russia or any other autocratic nation drooling over the opportunity to censor what people say and think.

America’s socialist president has always been keen on surrendering and sharing and has often attempted to extend federal control over the Internet, no doubt in preparation for his latest ploy to destroy the greatest vehicle for free expression and political dissent since Johannes Gutenberg invented an improved movable type in 1450.

To implement that destruction, in March, the Obama administration announced plans to voluntarily abandon America’s sole jurisdiction over the Internet in 2015 and shift that weighty responsibility to countries like free speech-challenged, freedom-challenged Russia and China.

Obama’s designated mouthpiece, the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information’s Lawrence E. Strickling provided the administration’s rationale for abdicating America’s responsibility: . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=37140.)

Liberal-Leftist Hatred

Liberal-Leftist Hatred

 

Since they are often subjectively applied, the words “hate” and “hatred” have been deemed among the most volatile and combative terms in English language usage, exceeded in their volatility and hostility only by the newly popular “racist” and “racism” epithets.

Certain words can be almost as hateful as certain actions and a few select words such as “nigger” and, most recently, “retard” and ”retarded,” have been judged so offensive that the judges want them banned entirely and want those accused of violating the latest hot button issue, “bullying,”  persecuted and prosecuted as criminals.

There is certainly merit in voluntary restrictions on the use of objectively hateful terminology and actions.  However, unofficially proscribing and officially criminalizing them smacks of censorship, thought crime, which was condoned in George Orwell’s Airstrip One but is hardly acceptable in currently free America.

Ironically, the chief proponents of banning disturbing language, usually characterized as racist “hate speech,” and of prosecuting bulliers, commonly those who allegedly harass homosexuals, are precisely the same individuals and groups that, with relative impunity, practice the most egregious forms of hate speech and commit the worst hate crimes, namely liberal-leftists and the people they are supposedly protecting.

Also ironic is the lib-left’s successful propagandizing, a success attributable to the complicity of Barack Hussein Obama and his mainstream media.

They have convinced millions of Americans that they are benevolent sorts who only wish the best for people, that they love all mankind, that they merely want to change the world into a socialistic paradise where everyone is happy and content with their lots in life, that they are “liberal” in every way whereas in actuality their philosophy is an oft-proved social and economic failure which demeans and de-humanizes rather than benefits its hapless victims.

At the same time they push their benevolence, etc., liberal-leftists spew the least loving, most illiberal, and most hateful speech imaginable in civilized society–and they get away with it!

America’s lib-left must not have gotten Obama’s insincere 2011 message of national healing and peace and  civility in Tucson anymore than he got his own message.

Let Sarah Palin espouse family values. and they are all over her calling her a troll.  Let Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker balance the state’s budget, with a surplus, and he is denounced and his life and the lives of his family are threatened.  Let conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia support prayers at town meetings and “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance or “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency, and the brilliant jurist is condemned as an ignorant reactionary.

And those are among the most civil observations.

Calling what they rant “free speech” instead of what it clearly is, hate speech, Obama’s acolytes on television and in the entertainment world tend to vomit the most vile invective, oftentimes involving the death of their conservative targets. 

A few examples . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=37108.)

Chelsea, Hillary, Kids, and Boko Haram

Chelsea, Hillary, Kids, and Boko Haram

 

Large segments of Barack Hussein Obama’s mainstream media have been all agog of late not nearly so much over the horrors of Benghazi, the multiplicity of scandals in the president’s administration, or even the potentiality of  World War III beginning in Ukraine but rather in the imminent grandmotherhood of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As a grandfather of five, and counting, I can semi-share the excitement over the birth of Chelsea Victoria Clinton Mezvinsky’s new baby who will become the first grandchild of the former president and his very accomplished wife.

Thirty-four year old Chelsea rarely if ever uses her married name, Mezvinsky, but I’m certain her husband of four years, investment banker Marc Mezvinsky, is even more thrilled than I over the upcoming, blessed event especially since his wife has ostensibly been chosen to be the Democrat Party standard bearer down the line which could make their baby a lady or gentleman-in-waiting for that honor.

It’s often been suggested in Obama’s media, previously the Clinton media, that Mrs. Clinton-Mezvinsky is being carefully groomed as a future Democrat candidate for the presidency despite the reality that, at this point in her life, she has fewer qualifications for that position than Barack Obama had.

Aside from an ineffectual stint as a campaigner for her mother in 2008, she has had little involvement in public life unless serving as co-chairperson for her father’s Clinton Foundation, board member on the School of American Ballet, and as a lackluster reporter on “Rock Center” and “NBC Nightly News” qualify.

As Tim Graham, a director at the Media Research Center, said of Chelsea, “She doesn’t have the charisma” to make it big in politics.  Also, she once surprisingly and insensitively told a child reporter, “I’m sorry, I don’t talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately, even though I think you’re cute.”

Wasn’t overflowing sensitivity one of Bill “I feel your pain” Clinton’s hallmarks?

However, far more indicative of both Chelsea’s and Hillary’s characters is their evident disregard for human life, although  Hillary does care deeply for those unfortunate Nigerian girls and their kidnappers, an Islamic, al Qaeda-affiliated group of terrorist thugs that calls itself Boko Haram, loosely meaning “Western education is a sin.”

In 2013, the US belatedly listed Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, a listing delayed due to Mrs. Clinton’s State Department’s refusal to accept that designation although she finally signed on to the condemnation of Boko Haram following the kidnapping and threatened enslavement of the girls. 

In retrospect, as she prepared another run for the highest office in the land, Hillary has now characterized the kidnapping as “an act of terrorism [that] really merits the fullest response possible.”

Really?  So, Boko Haram’s years-long history of violence and murder, its bombings and assassinations, its militant commitment to establishing an Islamic state as a recruiting ground for jihadis, and its dedication to the idea that women are the property of husbands and mere instruments of reproduction, didn’t merit any response from your State Department? 

Obviously not.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton’s response to the issue of extinguishing pre-born human lives has never been ambivalent . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=37069.)

Contemptible Smidgen, Lois Lerner

Contemptible Smidgen, Lois Lerner

 

When President Barack Hussein Obama declared in a February interview with Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly that not only did his administration not mislead the public on the murders in Benghazi but that there existed “not even a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS conservative targeting scandal, he told two more baldfaced lies to add to the list of literally hundreds of other falsifications he has told the American people.

Barring successful Democrat obstructionism and unethical conduct, already launched by Minority Whip Steny Hoyer who had announced that the Democrat leadership would oppose “political messaging,” those lies are about to hit the fan and some  Dems, hopefully, might be headed for prison.

Last week, Speaker of the House John Boehner announced plans to create a Special Committee to investigate the 2012 attacks in Benghazi; the House Rules Committee is prepared to vote Thursday on Boehner’s proposal.

Wednesday evening, the House of Representatives voted 231-187 for a resolution to hold former, senior IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress for her refusal to testify about her role in improperly scrutinizing and harassing Tea Party groups and voted to call for a special prosecutor to investigate Lerner and the IRS, 250-168.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a vociferous opponent of the investigation, was not in attendance for either vote, opting instead to participate with Obama and fellow liberal-leftist stalwarts in a Hollywood fundraiser. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=37051.)

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.) 

The Continuing Shame of Notre Dame

The Continuing Shame of Notre Dame

 

The University of Notre Dame du Lac, (“Our Lady of the Lake” referring to the Virgin Mary), near South Bend, Indiana, more commonly known as Notre Dame, has long been considered the shining crown  jewel of Catholic higher education in America.

Despite a long 172 year history of producing some of the most illustrious graduates in the nation, including former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Nobel Prize winner Eric F. Wieschaus, as well as lesser lights such as talk show hosts Regis Philbin and Phil Donahue and  sports legends like Knute Rockne, Joe Theisman, and a multitude of others, Notre Dame is failing in its mission, failing its alumni, and failing as a Catholic institution.

Precisely when this once-outstanding Catholic university began devolving into a secular bastion of politically correctness is unclear.

It may have begun when Notre Dame turned over effective control of the school to a Board of Trustees in 1967 instead of by the continued leadership of the Congregation of Holy Cross.  It may have begun when it went co-educational in 1972 and admitted women for the first time.  It may have been when they simply decided that it was time they join their fellow liberal leftists by subverting principle in a misguided quest for national acceptance and prestige.

(Not incidentally, Notre Dame trustees include Barack Obama fundraisers, contributors to his campaign, recipients of Obama earmarks, pro-abortionist judges, indicted frauds, embryonic stem cell researchers, and bank recipients of government bailouts.)

Whenever the change began, when Father John I. Jenkins assumed the Notre Dame presidency nine years ago and proclaimed his unwavering  commitment to “making the university a leader in research that recognizes ethics and building the connection between faith and studies” and a commitment to research leadership, many of the university’s troubles ballooned.

Father Jenkins may have achieved his goal of transforming Notre Dame into something other than just the home of “Fighting Irish” football but he failed miserably in achieving that ethical “connection between faith and studies.”  He evidently forgot the words of its founder, Rev. Edward Sorin, CSC who said, “This college will be one of the most powerful means for doing good in this country.”

Perhaps the first clear indication that the school had lost its way and had become less interested in doing good than in doing what served Father Jenkins’ secular purposes, that he had surrendered Notre Dame’s guiding values and had subserviently succumbed to political correctness at the cost of Catholic ethics came in 2009.

That year, after suing him in federal court for violating their First Amendment rights, the university outrageously invited President Barack Hussein Obama to be its principal Commencement speaker. 

Father Jenkins gleefully escorted his guest into the Joyce Center and introduced him as “President Barack H. Obama,” omitting the full middle name Obama had used at his inauguration. 

He lauded the president and gushed over his reciprocated, laudatory remarks, and awarded a man who endorses partial birth abortions, legalized infanticide, an honorary Notre Dame Doctor of Laws degree.

During the process of heaping accolades on the most pro-abortion president in America’s history, Father Jenkins ignored the written protests of thousands of alumni, the hundreds of protestors outside the gates, 37 of whom were arrested when they dared to enter the campus, and the graduates who chose principle over spectacle by gathering at the grotto in Notre Dame, the one place on campus reserved for reflection and prayer.

Another clear indicator of the abandonment of Catholic values at Notre Dame . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=36971.)

The Rotten Core of the Common Core: Part Eleven

The Rotten Core of the Common Core: Part Eleven

 

Our daughter and our two teenaged granddaughters shared Easter dinner with us a few weeks back.  Both Abigail, the elder teen at 16, and Madeline, 14, were a delight to talk with, especially over dessert when we learned something upcloseandpersonal about the Common Core State Standards Initiative, aka the Common Core, aka the Rotten Core.

(Yes, teenie girls can be delightful even to their grandparents–once they’re fed, relaxed, and mature enough to engage in intelligent discussions of  current events.)

Anyway, we’re very proud of both Abbie, a pretty and ultra-busy high school junior and Maddie, a pretty and equally active 8th grader, for their many accomplishments in life so far, for their remarkably high grades, for just being who they are.

However, we feel a little sorry for our Madster.

You see, with only sixteen months or so away from semi-adulthood and college, Abbie will pretty much escape most of the onerous dictates of the Common Core while Maddie will have to endure them for four more years, assuming that misguided brainchild of the liberal-left survives that long.

Over dessert, I asked their mother and the girls what they thought of the Common Core curriculum.  Our daughter was emphatic in her distaste, Abbie was typically ambivalent, and Maddie nothing short of disgusted, especially over being forced to read–as a 14 year old eighth grader–”So Far from the Bamboo Grove.”

Set in the waning days of World War Two in Nanam, now part of Communist North Korea, and in Seoul, Pusan, and finally in the protagonist’s homeland of  Japan, the book is a semi-autobiographical, war novel by Japanese-American writer Yoko Kawashima Watkins, originally published in the United States in 1986.

Banned by the government of South Korea soon after its publication there in 2005, Korean-Americans subsequently campaigned for its removal from school curricula and reading lists in America, and succeeded in large part, until the book was resurrected by Common Core zealots and deemed worth reading by kids aged 12 and up despite its excessively unsavory scenes and one-sided, negative depictions of Koreans.

Prior to that campaign, the author had been presented with the Literary Lights for Children Award by the Boston Public Library and the Courage of Conscience Award by the Peace Abbey and a Japanese version of “So Far from the Bamboo Grove” soared to the top of Amazon’s “Best Sellers in Books in Japan”.

The Peace Abbey is a non-denominational organization in Sherborn, MA which in its own words is “dedicated to creating innovative models for society that empower individuals on the paths of nonviolence, peacemaking, and cruelty-free living [that seeks to] inspire and encourage one to speak out and act on issues of peace and social justice. Faith in action is the cornerstone of our fellowship and activist pacifism is our creed.”

(Cynics have suggested that the Peace Abbey is nothing more than a radical leftist group posing as a semi-religious organization solely for tax purposes, which would explain its enthused endorsement of Watkins’ “So Far from the Bamboo Grove.”) . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=36946.)