Anti-Easterites

Anti-Easterites

 

Atheistic liberal-leftists have been warring on religion, God, Christianity, and Christmas for decades and, having succeeded in large part in banning God from public discourse, in mocking Christianity, and in desecrating Christmas, they’ve lately been focusing on attacking Easter.

Christians celebrate Easter Sunday as the central feast of Christianity, the day of the resurrection of Jesus Christ which in Western Christianity marks the end of Lent, a 40-day period of fasting and penance in preparation for Easter.  Eggs, bonnets, parades, and bunnies long ago supplanted the true significance of the Easter observance but the atheists are hardly finished with their efforts to destroy Christian traditions.

As with most radicals, lib-leftists know to start with small fires in anticipation of igniting greater sociological conflagrations in the future. 

Thus, to cite just two of many absurdities, the little town of Munson, Ohio was forced by agitators to scrap its “Easter Egg Hunt” in favor of a more politically correct  “Spring Egg Hunt” and a sophomore in Seattle was forbidden to call little plastic eggs filled with jellybeans she wanted to present to third graders “Easter eggs” unless she re-named them “spring spheres.”

However, the concerted attack on Easter isn’t simply a name-game and the forces of atheistic negativism are now taking their war down to whole, new levels.

On Wednesday, while insisting he was not comparing Barack Hussein Obama to Jesus Christ, the reliably ridiculous Reverend Al Sharpton did just that on the “Tom Joyner Morning Show.”

Sharpton, who has been aptly described as ”a racial arsonist”, oddly related President Obama to the meaning of Easter by saying, “I think that the message is, no matter what the world may do to unfairly [sic], no matter how your crucified, nailed to the cross at home, or in your personal relationships, or on the job that you can rise if you don’t lose yourself during the hard times and the challenges.”
T
he reverend with no known flock aside from his fellow black racists went on to nonsensically explain, “The story of Jesus on the cross, no matter what they humiliated him with, no matter how they mocked him he took it, because he knew he could rise. And the story of Easter and my message for this Easter session is no matter what unearned suffering you go through, that if you know you can rise above it, don’t become like the diseases that you fight.”

He added that, (not in any way drawing a Jesus comparison!), “President Obama . . . he’s been able to rise politically again.”

Equally unsubtle in her denigration of Easter, the FLOTUS, Michelle Obama, is turning this year’s White House Easter Egg Roll into a political extravaganza . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=36688.)

A Bitch, a Lunatic, and a Nuke

A Bitch, a Lunatic, and a Nuke

 

The following are pertinent updates on articles recently posted regarding Michelle Obama, Mireille Miller-Young, and nuclear war.

— “Nouveaux Riches–the Obamas” dealt with the disgusting abuse of American taxpayers by our Royal Couple who, as nouveaux riches, believe they are somehow entitled to brazenly milk the strapped U.S. treasury for all it used to be worth with their royal extravagances.

It now turns out that Michelle Obama can be as much a bitch at home as she and her mother have been in China.

While diplomatically hedging his language in a New Republic article, former White House assistant press secretary Reid Cherlin wrote that working for the FLOTUS is “confining, frustrating, even miserable” due to her “exacting but often ambivalent  leadership style” in a White House where “Jealousy and discontentment have festered, as courtiers squabble over the allocation of responsibility and access to Mrs. Obama, both of which can be aggravatingly scarce.” 

With an eye toward his future in the Democrat Party, Cherlin never actually calls Michelle a bitch and even compliments her to a degree but you don’t have to read between his lines to understand he thinks she’s harridan to work for.

— “Tolerating Intolerance” outlined the case of Mireille Miller-Young, a pro-abortion professor of Feminist Studies at UC Santa Barbara specializing in pornography, queer theory, and black film study who stole a sign, assaulted a 16 year old, and incited an angry mob because the young girl was participating in a peaceful pro-life demonstration on campus–within the university’s designated “free speech area.”

Police responded and investigated but made no arrests at the time.  However, nine days later, after reviewing the girl’s videotaped recording of the attack, the intolerant prof was charged with criminal battery, vandalism, and robbery.  Miller-Young claimed she was morally justified . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=36491.)

Lady O's Fat Fury

Lady O's Fat Fury

 

Many of America’s First Ladies have chosen causes they feel so passionate about as to make them their legacies.

Dolley Madison actively supported various charities to help orphans.  Mary Todd Lincoln promoted efforts to provide care to Union soldiers and helped organize relief services for freed former slaves and injured soldiers.  Eleanor Roosevelt fought for equal rights.

More recently, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy helped restore the White House, Lady Bird Johnson advocated for the “beautification” of the nation,  Rosalynn Carter contributed to her husband’s failed presidency by sitting in on his Cabinet meetings, Nancy Reagan became almost synonymous with her anti-drug “Just Say No” campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton pushed for a misbegotten health care system, and Laura Bush primarily concerned herself with children, education, and women’s health.

Our current First “Lady,” Michelle Robinson LaVaughn Obama, could have chosen to lead by example or campaign against something more substantive such as curing the black crime epidemic but instead became obsessed with the idea of forcing fat kids to get thinner and growing vegetables at the White House. 

Not only are kids not slimming down but the veggies in the garden she rarely tends have often gone to rot.

Lady O’s cause of curing child obesity, if not her raison d’etre, her reason for being, was at least planned to be her legacy, a legacy that has gone down the tubes even faster than her hubby’s . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=36398.)

Abolish Black History Month!

Abolish Black History Month!

 

America doesn't celebrate White History Month nor do we celebrate Yellow History Month–or a Tan or Pink History Month, for that matter–but for some reason we do celebrate Black History Month.
Black History Month, aka African-American Month, was instituted in 1976 and is attended by ceremonies, speeches, school projects and, according to the Library of Congress, pays “tribute to the generations of African Americans who struggled with adversity to achieve full citizenship in American society,” an admirable goal, indeed, even if the Library of Congress thereby suggests that non-Blacks such as the Irish, the Italians, Latinos, et al. never had to struggle with adversity which belies our history. 

However, regardless of the propriety of devoting any month to any particular race to the exclusion of other, month-less, races, many blacks have complained for the last 38 years that officially dedicating February to commemorate black achievement is discriminatory because it just happens to be the shortest month of the year.

The whole concept of a Black History Month is more than a tad exclusionary and divisive in a nation and society committed, rightly or wrongly, to multiculturalism.  “Multicultural” implies a diverse blending of disparate demographics, not a singling out of one race from another, and not a history month implying one race is so distinctive that it merits a month dedicated in its honor.

Still, some blacks feel they deserve a month since they say the rest of the year is focused on white history.  That view may have had a degree of validity prior to the Civil Rights Movement but is as incongruous and anachronistic as Jim Crow laws are today since African-Americans are now represented in many fields in numbers hugely disproportionate to their 13% of our population. 

Perhaps inspired by Michelle LaVaughn Robinson’s senior thesis at Princeton in which the future Mrs. Barack Hussein Obama advocated for black separatism, the history of Black History Month has been one of increasing agitation for that cause and even for revolution against their presumed white oppressors. 

From the New Black Panther Party to the Nation of Islam to such race-mongers as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, there has been a concerted effort to divide rather than unite America, and they seem to be succeeding.

Suspicions that black activists are much less concerned with integration, multiculturalism, and assimilation than with divisiveness were recently reinforced in Portland, Oregon.

As an incentive to build an outlet, the Portland Development Commission was on the verge of awarding Trader Joe’s grocery chain an enticing discount on a vacant lot in a blighted black neighborhood, until the Portland African American Leadership Forum (PAALF) strenuously objected.

In a strongly-worded letter sent to Portland’s city fathers, the group alleged that the plan would price residents out of the area, a bewildering charge in view of the facts the property in question was vacant and no one seemed to be clamoring to relocate anywhere nearby.

That bewilderment was cleared up when the PAALF added that they were “opposed to any development in North/Northeast Portland that does not primarily benefit the black community.” . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=35670.)

JFK vs. BHO--Somewhat Similar, Mostly Different (Part Four)

JFK vs. BHO--Somewhat Similar, Mostly Different (Part Four)

 

Attempting to compare and contrast JFK and BHO without referencing their better halves, First Ladies Jacqueline Lee “Jackie” Bouvier Kennedy and Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama, would be a futile exercise since Jackie and Michelle were significant influences and major players in the lives and administrations of their husbands. 

The chief difference was that Jackie made her influence felt behind her private screen and Michelle has overtly exhibited her involvement in every facet of the Obama administration.
Unique in many ways, no two First Ladies could have been more different. 

One was truly a first class lady, the other not so much.  


Few other First Ladies in American presidential history better combined classic beauty, charismatic charm, and educated savoir-faire than Mrs. Kennedy. 

Of Irish-French ancestry, Jackie was born to wealth and privilege like her husband yet never publicly flaunted her privileged status either before or after her marriage to the president of the United States and never intruded into the seamy world of politics.  She had graduated from George Washington University in D.C. with a B.A. in French literature, co-authored the autobiographical, One Special Summer, with her sister, and later worked as an inquiring photographer.

Jackie may have unwittingly become a fashion icon but she always discreetly stayed in the political background and appropriately kept her political opinions to herself. 

Fluent in Spanish and French, she could speak in Italian and Polish and on foreign trips comported herself with the same sense of chic dignity she exhibited at home.  She devoted her free time to organizing White House social events and directing the beautification of the presidential mansion.

More importantly, Mrs. Kennedy studiously avoided controversy at all times and ultimately became one of the most beloved and most popular presidential wives of the twentieth century. 

On the other hand, no other First Lady in American history combined such a seething, racist anger toward America, such an insatiable lust for publicity, and such affection for traveling on taxpayers’ meager dimes than Michelle Obama. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=34191.)