Obama Could Learn Plenty About Patriotism, Old Glory from Jim Broussard

American Hero Jim Broussard does the right thing!


By John W. Lillpop

To the best of my knowledge, veteran Jim Broussard has never been, and is not now, a candidate for the U.S. presidency. I have no idea if Broussard is a Democrat, Republican, or Independent, or if he is even registered to vote.

Nonetheless, one thing is certain about the Reno, Nevada citizen: He has more understanding of, and respect for, patriotism and the American flag than Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Brousaard is the patriotic veteran who, upon learning that a Reno bar was flying a Mexican flag above Old Glory, took matters into his own hands. The U.S. vet drove to the bar in question, the Cantina El Jaripeo, and cut down the banners in front of a stunned group of Hispanic patrons.

This American hero left the Mexican flag on the ground and, with the U.S. flag in hand, made the following statement:

"I'm Jim Broussard," he said, "and I took this flag down in honor of my country with … a knife from the United States Army. I'm a veteran, I'm not going to see this done to my country. If they want to fight us, then they need to be men, and they need to come and fight us. But I want somebody to fight me for this flag. They're not going to get it back."

Word Net Daily: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57960

If only President Bush, Democrats, and RINOs had .00000099 of a percent of Broussard's common sense and patriotic spunk, America might not be overrun with 20-30 million illegal aliens who are bankrupting the nation and placing the safety and security of the American people in grave peril.

Without question, Jim Broussard deserves recognition as a genuine national hero.

About the time that Jim Broussard was showing proper respect and esteem for the American flag, Democrat Barack Obama was making big flag news as well, although Obama's action did not exactly add to the esteem of Old Glory.

Obviously, no one can know for sure exactly what is in the heart of Obama.

However, we do know that Obama has decided that wearing a lapel pin featuring the American flag is not cool. Obama muddled the situation with the following explanation:

''The truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin,'' Obama said. ''Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security."



With this naive action and garbled statement, Obama appears to think that honoring Old Glory is unpatriotic, or inspired by false patriotism.

His actions and words also serve to cement the image of liberals as unpatriotic, anti-American traitors who hate America and those who love her.

In that vein, one cannot help but wonder about how Barack Obama would have reacted to the flag travesty in Reno, Nevada.

Because Obama is a brain washed liberal, it is safe to assume that he would not have taken the courageous action that Jim Broussard did.

It seems far more likely that Obama would have snatched the American flag from that flagpole and left Old Glory languishing on the ground while honoring the Mexican flag with a respectful salute.


Most tragic is the fact that Barack Obama appears to be supported by large numbers of American voters.

Why Did Democrats Lie About Saddam's WMD?

By John W. Lillpop

Democrats are still smarting from the election defeats handed them in 2000 and 2004 by a man they consider stupid.

The obvious question: If W is so stupid, how was he able to defeat Democrats so handily in 2000 and 2004? What does that say about Democrat candiadates?

Democrats have never recovered from those electoral losses, they seem to have suffered permanent emotional scars. Their hatred of George W. Bush has caused Democrats to do everything in their power to assure that America does not prevail in the war on terror.

A favorite mantra on the retarded left is that "Bush lied" about WMD so as to lead America into war.

Quite apart from the fact that such a lie would make no logical sense, many Democrats have made public statements in the past proclaiming their belief that Saddam did indeed have WMD.

The Democrats quoted below inlude the following luminaries:
Ted Kennedy, John Rockefeller, Al Gore, Carl Levin, Patty Murray, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Liberman, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Wesley Clark, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton,William Cohen(Defense Secretary under Clinton), Tom Daschle, John Edwards, Dick Gephart, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, Tom Larkin, Harry Ford, Diane Feinstein.

That is hardly a directory of names from the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!

The exact quotes of these stars follow.

Did they all lie?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002


"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003




"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002


What caused all of those Democrats to lie?

Harry Reid Takes on America's REAL Enemy: El Rushbo!

Satire By John W. Lillpop


Say what you will about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, one fact remains beyond dispute: The senator from Searchlight, Nevada has an uncanny ability to "connect the dots" in matters of grave national importance.

For instance, while most politicians were still debating about strategies for winning the war on terror in Iraq, Senator Reid took it on himself to sift through all of the details in order to find truth.

Based on an objective and disciplined review of all pertinent facts, Reid's scholarly work produced a finding that rocked U.S. military leaders, the commander-in-chief, and all those brave American men and women in harm's way on the ground in Iraq.

Reid's conclusion: The war is lost!

These days, most congress critters waste time worrying about Islamofacism, illegal immigration, solvency issues confronting social security and Medicare, global warming, and deterioration of the U.S. dollar.

Senator Reid, on the other hand, has the vision and intelligence to see through all that and focus on the real problem facing America in 2007.

Specifically, according to Reid, the United States Senate needs to concern itself with the broadcasting studios of EIB, where Rush Limbaugh uses a microphone and talent on loan from God to educate liberals.

And, according to Reid, to abuse the U.S. military.

The Hill: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-go-after-limbaugh-2007-10-01.html

Reid even went so far as to write Mark Mays, CEO of the network that runs the Limbaugh radio show. In a blistering letter lacking the tolerance one would expect from a deranged liberal renegade, Reid blasted El Rushbo and demanded that Mays force the talk show host to apologize.

“We trust you will agree that not a single one of our sons, daughters, neighbors and friends serving overseas is a ‘phony soldier,’ Reid advised Mays in an extraordinary attempt to silence America's most popular radio icon.

Harry Reid's meltdown confirms the awesome power and influence of Rush Limbaugh!

Think about it: For the past 40 years, the Democrat party has opposed the U.S. military and all efforts to establish a strong national defense, at every opportunity.

Even during time of war, Democrats have refused to support the commander-in-chief and have attempted to impose timelines and other conditions that would cripple America's ability to win the war.

Democrats have consistently derided and ridiculed U.S. military personnel, including their recent gang assault on General David Petraeus.

How ironic, then, that the party of white flags, surrender at all costs, and anti-American everything, has switched sides and is now advocating for American troops.

Well done, El Rushbo!

Are Americans Obligated To Elect a Woman to the Presidency?

By John W. Lillpop

Now that Hillary Clinton is the presumptive favorite to become the presidential nominee of the Democrat Party in 2008, she and her Democrat colleagues must confront the fact that nearly 50 percent of voters are unfavorably disposed toward her candidacy.

Clinton and her team of political professionals will need to convert at least some of those voters in order for her campaign to have even a remote chance of succeeding.

Which is why feminists and those who advocate for Clinton are already playing the "Sexist" card in order to shame voters into electing a member of the weaker sex.

The idea is to convince voters that because a woman has never been elected to the presidency, We the People have violated the U.S. Constitutional promise of equal opportunity.

In effect, We the people have discriminated against one half of our population for being born female.

With a bit of luck and a few hundred million dollars in campaign funds dredged up from unsavory sources by Norman Hsu, the Democrats hope to convince people to vote for Hillary for one overwhelming reason: She is a woman.

Kook to see blatantly sexist slogans like "After 230 Years, America Needs A Woman President," and "Bring America Into the 21st Century--Send a Woman to the White House!" to clog the airwaves, print media and broadband venues over the next fourteen months.

Mind you, I am not opposed to a woman serving as U.S. President.

However, when deciding which level to pull, or which Chad to hang, intelligent voters should avoid supporting a candidate solely on the basis of his or her gender. That is decidedly "old school!"

As we Americans have learned over the past six plus years, the world is incredibly complex and dangerous. We need a knowledgeable and credible chief executive to navigate the United States through the most difficult time in our nation's history.
Thus, before voting the prudent question should be "Who is the most qualified candidate?" Reproductive piping should be irrelevant.

In order to earn my vote, a candidate should reflect the following values, background and positions:

* High integrity and morals.

* Protector of traditional American family values.

* Knowledgeable of world affairs, leaders, and political nuances.

* Capable of earning the respect of American men and women in uniform and leading same as commander-in-chief.

* Dedicated to the national defense and homeland security.

* Patriotic, to a fault.

* An unabashed "America First" zealot.

* Obsessed with the rule of law, enforcement of all laws.

* Not smitten with the notion that he/she is above the law.

* Uses competence rather than diversity when making staffing decisions.

* Fiscally prudent. Believes in low taxes, small government.

* Strong proponent of American sovereignty, culture and language.

* Dedicated to ending and reversing illegal immigration.


With all of those attributes, or most of them, a candidate would be well equipped to serve America with honor and success--regardless of which sex one happened to be born into!

So the answer to my original question is: Having a woman president would be terrific, provided she possessed the capabilities and qualities needed to succeed in office AND provided that she was the most qualified candidate.

What could be more fair?

Does America Need Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Words of Wisdom?

By John W. Lillpop

Wouldn't it be comforting to know that America's institutions of higher learning are clamoring for the opportunity to explain free speech, basic human rights, equal rights for women and minorities,democracy, and other western concepts to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Unfortunately, the leftist goons at Columbia University are hosting the terrorist leader with quite another objective in mind.

Specifically, the intellectual moonbats at Columbia see the Ahmadinejad visit as an opportunity for American students to learn the truth about the middle east, American military aggression, the illegal occupation of Iraq, and the evil nature of President George W. Bush.

In other words, Ahmadinejad owns the higher moral hand. America is the real terrorist state as well as the greatest threat to humanity on the globe.

We Americans need to listen to Ahmadinejad for enlightenment, say the Columbia U. crowd.

For his part, President Ahmadinejad stated that the American people are eager for different opinions about the world, and he is looking forward to providing them with "correct and clear information."

AP: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RPV2AO0&show_article=1

An urgent message needs to be delivered to both President Ahmadinejad and the leftist buffoons running Columbia University:

Wiping Israel off the face of the globe and murdering millions of Jews only because they are Jewish are not new ideas or opinions. America fought and won a world war to defeat those hateful concepts and the murderous thugs who killed six million Jews in the Holocaust.

The Holocaust, by the way, is a fact of history that Ahmadinejad refuses to admit, but apparently would like to emulate.

Bottom Line: Americans do not need to hear from Ahmadinejad or Columbia University to have "correct and clear information."

If Hillary Is Elected---

Satire By John Lillpop

Should the American people be foolish enough to elect Hillary Clinton to the presidency in 2008, the following events will surely ensue:

The 44th president of the United States will take the Oath of Office at the UN. She will place her left hand on the Koran, while swearing (in Spanish) at the U.S. Constitution, free markets, and Republicans.

Presidential Inaugural Balls will be held in Moscow, Paris, Havana, San Francisco, and other venues with large populations of known anti-American leftists, feminists, atheists, and other anarchists.

Burning the American flag will no longer be a crime, unless Al Gore decides that the smoke from smoldering flags causes global warming.

Bill Clinton will be pardoned for all crimes past and future, excepting sexual infidelity missteps that will surely take place in the Oval Office and adjoining rooms.

Marriage will be redefined as a union between two or more consenting men, women, animals, insects, and plants, or any combination thereof.

Government-paid day care will be an inalienable right of American women, rooted somewhere in an undisclosed location in the privacy bowels of the U.S. Constitution.

Speaking English to Hispanics obviously in America illegally will be regarded as harassment, a crime subject to severe civil and criminal penalties.

All citizens will be automatically covered by universal health care insurance at birth; illegal aliens will be covered only after registering as Democrats.

An "Excess Initiative Tax" will be paid by households with annual incomes exceeding $200,000.

A "Global Warming Tax" will be levied on SUVs and luxury cars registered to Republicans.

Proving that one has seen Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" at least twice within an election cycle will be required in order to vote Republican.

Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger will be appointed Director of Homeland Security.

Unleaded gasoline will be outlawed.

The Iraq war will be officially declared a "Hate Crime" against Islam.

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, General Petraeus, and Donald Rumsfeld will be sent to Guantánamo Bay for their roles in the Iraq war.

Terrorists held at Guantánamo Bay will be set free to make room for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, General Petraeus, and Donald Rumsfeld.

Income tax rates will be trebled for white, Christian Republicans.

Mothers Day will be replaced by Women's Emancipation Day, which will be celebrated on January 22, date of Roe V. Wade.

Norman Hsu will be pardoned and appointed to head the Hillary 2012 Fundraising Bonanza and Reelection Campaign.

Memorial Day will be recognized as a holiday that places far too much emphasis on American military victories and war. Instead, America will holiday on August 14 to commemorate the birth of Fidel Castro.

Christianity will be declared the refuge of "Superstitious Pagans," and more dangerous to one's health than trans fats, cigarettes, cholesterol, sugar, salt, alcoholism, illegal drugs, global warming, and Islamic terrorists combined.

Washington, D.C., will be declared a "Sanctuary City" for illegal aliens, terrorists and would be terrorists, sexually confused members of the U.S. Senate, gay, lesbians, and transvestites.

Reading the 2nd Amendment in public and owning guns of any type will be considered acts of treason, the only crimes for which the death penalty is allowed.

The military draft will be reinstated to obligate all people between the ages of 18 and 50 to four years of national service, except those with 666 stamped on their foreheads by Howard Dean and authorized minions at the DNC.

Dick Cheney's birthday will be declared an official day of mourning, with all flags ordered to fly at half-mast.

Columbus Day will be declared "Old School" and replaced by March 31, birthday of Cesar Chavez.

O.J. Arrest Proves America Still Blatantly Racist

Satire By John Lillpop


As a red blooded patriotic American, I am distressed at the news breaking from Las Vegas concerning the arrest of OJ Simpson on multiple felony charges.

Do we Caucasians never learn from our mistakes and sins?

Just 14 years ago, racist law enforcement authorities in Los Angeles did every thing within their power to nail OJ with the murders of his former wife Nicole and a nice Jewish boy named Ron Goldman.

Los Angeles police used every trick in the book to harm this innocent African-American hero, including a tawdry attempt by super racist Mark Fuhrman to plant incriminating evidence on OJ's property.

This rotten maneuver was smoked out by the jury, a collection of scholars, students, and rebellious intellectuals who saw through Fuhrman and his corrupt ways.

Despite their best efforts, California was stymied in it's attempt to conduct a high technology lynching of Simpson on live television. This ruse was particularly embarrassing, coming as close as it did to the failed attempt by the U.S. Senate to hang Clarence Thomas using the Black Widow, also known as Anita Hill.

And now Las Vegas police drum up these phony charges and have arrested OJ once again. Why do Las Vegas police refuse to accept OJ's story that he entered that hotel room only to recover artifacts of his career that had been stolen from him?

As OJ put it, he orchestrated a "sting" operation against evil doers to get his own property back. How can that be against the law, or even objectionable?

Let us hope and pray that OJ will ultimately be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to turn over every item of recovered memorabilia to Ron Goldman's father. OJ is obviously dedicated to paying every nickel still owed the Goldmans pursuant to that rigged civil judgment.

When will America finally discard the shame of racism and treat minority heroes like OJ Simpson with respect?

Whom Do You Trust? General Petraeus or Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?

John W. Lillpop

After listening to President Bush and the Democrats rehash the same old lines about Iraq once again, it seems as though the matter really boils down to this:

Whom do you trust to keep America safe? General David Petraeus or Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid

The choice is clear and unambiguous.

On the one hand, we have a highly decorated military professional who has spent most of 2007 'on the ground' in Iraq, managing coalition forces.

General Petraeus is a man of such obvious intellect, integrity, and stature that he was confirmed unanimously by the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate in February.

On the other hand, we have a flighty leftist from San Francisco, a city dominated by liberals who actually believe that the U.S. military is not needed to defend America.

That of course is none other than the Speaker of the U.S. House, Nancy Pelosi.

This misguided, botox-addicted grandmother celebrated her new power early in 2007 by rushing off to visit Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Not content with simply patronizing a terrorist nation against the expressed wishes of the President of the United States during a time of war, Speaker Pelosi also managed to completely bungle a simple message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Pelosi's first (and hopefully last!) attempt at Granny Diplomacy is still being sorted out by professionals in the State Department.

At the exact same time that Speaker Pelosi was wreaking havoc in diplomatic circles in the middle east, General Petraeus was on the ground in Iraq, fighting and killing Al-Quaeda and other terrorists intent on preventing democracy and freedom from taking hold there.

Of course Speaker Pelosi is joined in her political malpractice by Harry Reid, the flamboyant and charismatic majority leader of the U.S. Senate.

Senator Reid claims to be able to see into the future, which is why the senator declared that the "war is lost," well before the surge had been given a reasonable chance.

As with all losers, Reid does not take kindly to being proven wrong, which is why he rejected General Petraeus's plan even before hearing what the general had to say.

Instead, Reid formed his views based on that outrageous MoveOn.Org attack ad against General Petraeus in the New York Times.

Again, the bottom line is:

Whom Do You Trust? General Petraeus or Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?

Some Unholy Questions About Osama's 'Caravan of Martyrs'

By John W. Lillpop

As a right wing Christian wacko and card-holding infidel, I fully appreciate the fact that Osama bin Laden's call for a 'caravan of martyrs' was not directed at me or those like me.

His target audience was obviously young Muslim men who speak Arabic, are devoted to Islam, and are willing to blow themselves into pizza topping in order to win the company of 72 virgins in the sexual paradise sure to follow.

Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=480444&in_page_id=1811

Although I am not a candidate for Osama's Jihad, I do have some good old fashioned common sense questions that all young Muslim men should ask before signing up for Osama's suicide brigade.

First and foremost:

If ramming an airplane carrying 10,000 gallons of jet fuel into a New York skyscraper is a heroic act of martyrdom that will please Allah and bring boundless glory to Islam, why in the Hell has Osama bin Laden not made that sacrifice himself?

Why has OBL not turned himself into a smoldering piece of charcoal, for the good of Islam? Or for the good of Osama, for that matter, if the martyr's earned reward is really 72 voluptuous virgins?

Think about it.

Six years ago, Mohamned Atta and eighteen other Muslim brothers followed Osama's orders and were vaporized in hell fire so intense that it melted steel.

Nineteen smudges of burning human DNA are all that remained of Mohamned Atta et.al, following their OBL-ordered murders of September 11, 2001.

And what of the personal fortunes of Osama bin Laden himself since 911?

Six years later, this seven-foot cowardly terrorist is still servicing his various and sundry harems in air conditioned, upscale caves in Pakistan and showing no signs of slowing down.

So while the vaporized blobs that used to be Mohamned Atta et al., are buried under tons and tons of infidel ruins in America, this bearded weasel is busy making self-promoting videos and babies instead of suicide explosions featuring his own corrupt self.

Self-respecting Muslim men, awaken!

Osama bin Laden's latest recruitment for a 'Caravan of martyrs' should be answered with the following challenge: After you, Osama!

MoveOn.Org Attack on General Petraeus Backfires

By John W. Lillpop

Anti-war liberals at MoveOn.Org, in conspiracy with anti-American forces at the New York Times, thought they were being clever with that subversive ad that accused General Petraeus of being 'General Betray Us.'

Ad: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/story?id=3581727&page=1

However, MoveOn.Org and the New York Times appear to have outsmarted themselves with this particular smear, published before Petraeus even arrived on Capitol Hill to deliver his testimony before the U.S. House.

In that testimony, General Petraeus came across as a cool and collected military professional, totally dedicated to completing the "Mission" in Iraq.

That 'Mission', despite the best efforts of Tom Lantos, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other leftists in the U.S. Congress, remains Victory in Iraq.

Lest Democrats forget, that means Victory FOR AMERICA!

With his powerful and compelling testimony, General Petraeus made it clear that he intends to win the war on terror for the American people, unless prevented from doing so by Democrats blinded by partisan politics and in a crazed heat precipitated by an election cycle.

Petraeus is a man of obvious intellect, courage, and integrity, qualities completely absent in sniveling fools like those at MoveOn.Org.

Clearly, this man is 'For Us,' and any suggestion to the contrary is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of communists, socialists, and liberal Democrats.

In evaluating the Petraeus testimony, each American should ask himself or herself the following question

Whom do you trust more to defend America? General Petraeus or Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?

And the question that really needs to be asked:

Whom is more guilty of betraying America? General Petraeus or MoveOn.Org and the New York Times?

Is the "Intent" of Larry Craig Good Enough?

By John W. Lillpop

Perhaps I am too cynical, but Senator Craig's resignation speech seems to reflect a smidgen of uncertainty.

After all, Craig did say that it is his "intent" to resign. Does that not suggest that the issue is still open, if ever so slightly, and is tentative?

Example: It is my intent to play center field for the Los Angeles Dodgers and to hit a grand slam home run in the bottom of the ninth inning to win the World Series for the bums.

However, there may be a problem reconciling my intent with reality given my weight, age, lack of eye- hand coordination, and the refusal of the Dodgers' front office to accept my collect calls so that we can talk contract, bonus money, and the like.

It is also my intent to win the Power Ball lottery the next time the jackpot hits $300 million. Again, reality may get in the way of my intent.

But back to the United States Senator from Idaho. Why is this just your "intent," Senator?

Why not say:

"I hereby resign my position as Senator of Idaho. To allow for an orderly transition of responsibility to my replacement and to assure effective coverage for the great people of Idaho, I shall work in the senate through September 30, 2007.

Thank you.

By the way, did I mention that I am not gay?"

That would have been the perfect good bye with yet another "I am not gay" thrown in just to make Craig's point again.

Or is being nebulous and a bit iffy exactly what this Senator had in mind?

Was Senator Craig deliberately being vaguely specific, or is it a case of the senator being specifically vague?

Time to Foreclose on America's Sub-prime President and Congress?

By John W. Lillpop

On a scale of 1 to 10, President Bush scored a resounding "F" with his pep talk on the sub-prime loan crisis. F, as in foreclosure!

To begin with, tweaking FHA rules slightly will do precious little because loan amounts are capped at around $360,000. In northern California, that amount of money will buy you a nice mobile home on leased land.

Likewise, refinancing adjustable rate mortgages through FHA sounds terrific. The reality, however, is that people caught in the sub-prime disaster are there because of poor credit history and or inadequate income which means that refinancing through FHA is unlikely.

Providing tax relief for those required to declare debt forgiveness as income could be helpful, but how long will it take to get that codified into the tax code?

Again, this is not likely to be of much help to those who do not have the money needed to make that mortgage payment due tomorrow and on each subsequent first day of the month.

Philosophically, both the president and congress are operating under the misguided notion that home ownership, AKA The American Dream, is an entitlement owed to the great unwashed masses by a socialist government obsessed with providing nanny services.

However, in a capitalistic society, the dream of home ownership should be viewed as an objective, an opportunity available to those with the determination, prudence, smarts, and work ethic to succeed.

Just as not all people are meant to be college graduates, so it is that not all people are sufficiently capable and responsible to qualify for home ownership. Those facts are not within the prerogative of government to change, regardless of how well intentioned and compassionate.

Affirmative action has been shown to be unworkable in education and employment for years.

President Bush and congress need to understand that it will not work in housing either.

Growing Weary of Fred Thompson's Announcement Marathon

By John W. Lillpop

Fred Thompson may be precisely what America needs in our next president. He may be more conservative than Ronald Reagan, as aggressive on terrorism as Rudy Giuliani, as unyielding on illegal immigration as Tom Tancredo, and as strong on family values as Mitt Romney.

But when it comes to actually announcing his candidacy for the presidency, Fred Thompson seems overwhelmed, bewildered, and over matched.

Remember July 4th? That was supposed to be the day when Thompson would throw his hat into the ring and end conservative insomnia.

Well Independence Day has come and gone and conservatives are still having nightmares about a Hillary Clinton presidency. Or even worse, a Clinton-Obama ticket.

So where in the Hades is Fred?

With the media and most of the civilized world waiting to hear from the Law and Order candidate, Fred Thompson finally delivered the goods on August 30. Sort of.

No, he did not actually announce his candidacy.

But he did announce that he would make an announcement on September 6.

Why is Thompson unable to simply say yea or nay, one way or the other? Why wait until September 6? What is with all this pontificating?

If Thompson is struggling this much with trying to initiate and manage a campaign, should America trust him with the awesome responsibilities involved in actually running the nation, especially in an increasingly complex and hostile world?

“Do You Speak any Foreign Language?” “Only English!”

Satire By John W Lillpop

Philip Yaffe hit the nail on the head with his insightful column (HSN, August 7) about the linguistic challengers of working abroad.

However, one need not work overseas, thousands of miles from home, to encounter significant language challenges. Indeed, English speaking citizens living in Northern California face a non-stop struggle to understand and be understood right here in America.

For example, a simple chore like shopping for groceries can turn into a diversity nightmare for anyone with the arrogance to have been born in America and who speaks English—and only English.

Ask a store employee where kidney beans are, for instance, and the barely intelligible response will usher you off to the meat department. There I found swine kidneys, on sale at $3.44 a pound.

What a great buy, that is! Except I wanted kidney beans for a chili, and can barely stomach the idea of eating the kidney of a swine, or the kidney of any dead critter for that matter.

Whizzing right along, one encounters shopper after shopper glued to cell phones, many shouting very loudly in Arabic or Spanish. The strangest, and most frightening, shoppers are those who shout alternatively in Arabic and Spanish.

Obviously, I look forward to checking out my groceries and returning home as quickly as possible.

But, alas, the checker is blathering on and on into her cell phone in Spanish, pausing every few seconds or so to scan an item or two. At each pause, the checker glares intently at we shoppers; she is obviously miffed that all these inconsiderate mall freaks are interrupting her life or death telephone conversation.

Things get a little better with the next shopper because he speaks Spanish, so he is in and out in short order.

Just before I reach the head of the line, a young man who speaks perfect English replaces the Spanish-speaking checker. “Victory,” say I under my breath.

Score one for the Queen's English!

My victory celebration is short-lived, however, because the shopper right in front of me is an older man who speaks very broken English, that monster language created by the influx of illegal aliens into California from Mexico.

So, the young checker with perfect English has the formidable task of trying to explain to a Mexican alien that one cannot use food stamps to purchase liquor. And as that comedic exchange takes place, the line of anxious shoppers grows and grows.

It all works out, finally, and as I relax in my favorite recliner, I praise God that I am safe at home where good English communication is still possible.

At that moment the phone rings and I smartly answer “Good evening. This is John Lillpop speaking.”

My heart sinks in despair at the response. “Que?” asks the caller.

“Do you speak any foreign languages?” she asks.

“Only English, my dear, only English!”

Dubya Dallies, Liberal Democrat Rescues Ramos and Compean

By John W. Lillpop

It is tragic enough that George W. Bush has refused to act on behalf on former border patrol agents Ramos and Compean while moving at the speed of light to keep Scooter Libby out of jail.

Now insult has been added to injury by a liberal Democrat senator from California who has taken the lead on an issue that should have been addressed by the Republican president six months ago!

That liberal is Senator Diane Feinstein who, unlike our clueless president, has shown that common sense and dignity are not entirely dead in Washington D.C.

After a hearing on Ramos and Compean on July 17, Senator Feinstein asked Bush to pardon the two defenders of America.

God bless you, Senator Feinstein!

Two big questions remain for our retarded president:

Does Bush really want the borders to be secure in order to keep invaders out?

Does Bush give a damn about the fact that two former border patrol agents have had their lives ruined because they acted to defend America from invasion?

Why doesn't this foolish man just resign and spare the nation eighteen more months of grief and leadership failure?





John Lillpop is a recovering liberal.

Would America Be Better off Under Sharia Law?

By John W. Lillpop

In yet another instance of egregious Muslim misbehavior, several thousand devotees of the "Religion of Peace" gathered in London and declared that Islam will soon have sovereignty over both the United Kingdom and the United States.

In prophesying such an eventuality, one of the Muslim leaders, Anjem Choudary, envisions an Islamic takeover of the White House and the rule of the Quran in America. "Democracy, hypocrisy," Choudary chanted as the crowd echoed him. "Tony Blair, terrorist! Tony Blair, murderer! Queen Elizabeth, go to hell!"

WND:

New video messages from Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, when added to Choudary's ranting and ravings, leave the distinct impression that Islamofascists are serious about taking over the world and about installing Islam as the only authorized law and religion.

Before jumping to conclusions, perhaps one should seek to answer the question: Would America be better off under Sharia law?
Let us first consider America as currently constituted.

America is without question the grandest and most inspiring success story in human history. Freedoms, liberties, and opportunities unimaginable in most other cultures flourish here, and are vital to what it means to be an American.

Just what makes America so great and this land and its people so special?

Credit our founding fathers with establishing a framework of moral and social values that have endured for more than 220 years. Those values have resulted in unprecedented opportunities and prosperity for hundreds of millions of people.

Boundless opportunity and freedom are uniquely American and are correctly celebrated as the "American Dream."

Which is not to say that our nation has been perfect or without grave shortcomings over the course of 220 years.

To begin with, it took nearly 90 years before the bane of slavery unsettled the moral consciousness of enough Americans to eradicate that barbaric practice from these United States.

Once slavery was identified as immoral and contradictory to the American spirit as found in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, a bitter civil war was waged in order to remove that hideous blemish from the innocent young face of the fair maiden known to the world as America.

Without question, it took far too long but Americans eventually rose to the moral occasion and did the right thing. After all, our founding fathers had been rather emphatic about "all men being created equal," the antithesis of which would be involuntary servitude and slavery.

The point is that enormous social, political, economic, and legal change was brought about because of the moral infrastructure handed down by our founders. Slavery was wrong, Americans recognized that fact, and corrected the problem.

Other major injustices have violated our system of values over the course of U.S. history. Among the more egregious are discrimination against women and minorities in employment, housing, and education, internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, and Jim Crow laws in Southern and border states between 1876 and 1965.

Jim Crow laws were particularly grievous because these laws required that public schools, public places and public transportation, like trains and buses, have separate facilities for whites and blacks. "Separate but equal" was the delusional litany of those who favored segregation based on race.

But once again, the American spirit of fairness and true equality ultimately prevailed. With the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Jim Crow laws joined slavery in the dustbin of regrettable and sad moments in American history.


And yet another ugly blemish was removed the face of the beautiful maiden who is now universally recognized as the best and brightest hope for all of human kind.

Moreover, America has dealt the same way with discrimination, racism, child labor abuse, corporate irresponsibility, unlawful confinement of American citizens, and other travesties. All have been have been, or are in the process of being, eradicated from the American experience.

By contrast, the basic tenets of the Muslim faith as set forth in the Quran specifically require adherents to practice discrimination, abuse, murder, and inhumane punishments. The faith provides zero tolerance for non-believers.

Specifically, Sharia law would result in the following changes in American life and deviations from the moral and constitutional framework upon which this marvelous nation was founded:

There would be no religious freedom. Islam would be the only religion permitted and "infidels" would be subject to severe punishment, including death.

Muslim leaders would command offensive, aggressive, and unjust Jihads

Unmarried fornicators would be whipped and adulterers stoned to death

Husbands would be allowed to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear aggressiveness from their wives

Homosexuals would be executed

Muslim critics of Muhammad, the Quran, and even Sharia would be put to death

Highway robbers would be crucified or mutilated

An injured plaintiff would be allowed to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye

Thieves (male or female) would have a hand cut off

Drinkers and gamblers would be whipped

Adoption of Sharia law would take America back several centuries and wipe out all progress in the areas of human right, equality, and tolerance.

In short, there is no moral underpinning to Islam.

Sharia law: America and the world can live most effectively without it!

Cardinal Mahony: Hiding Behind the Cross to Serve Beelzebub

By John W. Lillpop

Cardinal Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles, is "blessed" with an uncanny ability to triangulate moral decadence, spiritual fraud, and craven greed into anti-American political activism.

Even more distressing is the cardinal's gall in anointing himself as a moral and spiritual beacon, while working non-stop to protect pedophiles and perverts who serve at the will and pleasure of Beelzebub.

Hypocrisy is seldom as blatant as is the case with this meddling old man who touts himself as spiritually and morally superior, yet who has nothing but affection for 12-30 million criminals who have invaded America and who are squatting here illegally.

Being the out of touch elitist that he is, Mahony has little time or regard for those who believe in homeland security, fortified borders, rule of law, and preservation of American sovereignty, language, and culture.

Given his druthers, Mahony would legalize each and every one of the criminal invaders, and would place all of them on a fast track path to citizenship as well.

And what is the root cause behind Cardinal Mahony's blatant disregard for America, and Americans, and benevolent deference to invading criminals from the third world?

Spiritual concern for the poor and downtrodden? Compassion for new comers simply looking for a better life? Healing and unity through forgiveness and assimilation?

Actually, his hollowness and the church he represents are motivated by an unholy obsession with green--as in cold, hard cash.

That obsession intensified dramatically with the recent disclosure that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles has agreed to pay the tidy sum of $660 million dollars in order to settle sex abuse law suits filed by victims/parishioners.

MYWAY:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070715/D8QD0BDO0.html


Turns out that hundreds of innocent people were allegedly abused by priests whose crimes were then covered up by powerful church officials.

Which means that Cardinal Mahony and his minions will have to write a check for nearly two thirds of a billion dollars to drive away the scandals wrought by corrupt "Fathers," acting in the name of God, and their gutless and immoral leaders.

The total amount paid out by the U.S. church since 1950 is more than $2 billion, with about a quarter of that coming from the Los Angeles archdiocese.

With increasing regularity, intelligent American parishioners are leaving the church to escape the clutches of pedophiles and perverts who prey on the young and defenseless under the guise of being "men of the cloth."

As the number of American parishioners decline, illegal aliens are desperately needed to replace those departing parishioners, and to bolster the church's dwindling cash flow.

The bottom line: Cardinal Mahony's bleeding heart foolishness in support of illegal aliens is much more about cash debits and credits, than right and wrong.

But given the contemptible record of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles when it comes to morality and decency, Cardinal Mahony would be well advised to just shut up!

Why Is It Impossible To Deport Illegal Aliens, Mr. President?

By John W. Lillpop

President George W. Bush has undertaken the onerous task of converting Muslim dictatorships and theocracies in the Middle East into enlightened democracies.

The president apparently believes that America can, and should, determine the form of government that more than a billion Muslims live under.

But while our commander-in-chief is downright eager to impose American ideology on Muslims in nations thousands of miles removed from our shores, he is downright squeamish when it comes to defending America's own borders and enforcing our immigration laws.

Most distressing is Bush's assertion that deportation of millions of illegal aliens is “impossible.”

How in the world can it be “impossible” for the most powerful and technologically advanced nation in the world to remove criminals who have invaded our nation at time of war?

Surely the greatest hope for the civilized world in the global “war on terror” is not helpless when it comes to criminals inside its own borders? Some of who are most likely terrorists?

If America is really that impotent, Osama bin Laden and other Islamofascists will see that as great news, and a source of inspiration for continuing their Jihad on the civilized world.

Moreover, if America is unable, or unwilling, to control who enters and who stays here, victory for terrorism and world domination by Islamic extremists are all but assured.

Is that really the message you wish to convey to the world, Mr. President?

The great-unanswered question in all of this is:

Why does President Bush always act on behalf of illegal aliens, rather than America?

Why does he arrogantly and foolishly deny the truth?

Namely, illegal aliens:


* Feed at the public trough for health care, education, food, housing and other vital services to which they were not entitled.

* Overwhelm American hospitals, medical clinics, and emergency rooms and refuse to pay for medical services received.

* Force medical facilities into bankruptcy, resulting in the loss of vital medical services for American citizens.

* Manage to send $30-40 billion a year back to Mexico while dumping their medical bills on the backs on U.S. taxpayers..

* Refuse to learn English, and demand that America provide services in Spanish at considerable cost to American citizens.

* Impede the education of American children because of language and cultural issues.

* Demand driver’s licenses despite being in America illegally, and demand that driver instruction and testing materials be in Spanish.

* Demand reduced tuition rates offered to American students here legally.

* Vote in U.S. elections and alter election results.

* Overwhelm America's penal system, making it impossible to deal effectively with the citizen inmate population.

* Engage in wholesale forgery of vital public documents and commit identity theft in order to secure employment, education, credit, and access to public services.

* Take to the streets to protest pending legislation that would tighten border security and enforce the nation’s immigration laws

* Wave the Mexican flag and scream “Yes, we can!” and “We are America" in Spanish as they march to protest the rule of law in America

* Cry “racism” every time they are criticized for being in America illegally or challenged to learn English and assimilate into American society.

In other words, this corrupt bunch of third-world banditos is under the misguided notion that America has no sovereign rights or borders, and that our great nation should be open to every Mexican peasant that decides unilaterally to squat in America.

And the government of Mexico has violated the sovereignty and borders of America by encouraging millions of illiterate peasants to invade America.

Again, the unanswered question: Why does U.S. President George W. Bush consistently side with Mexico and illegal aliens, instead of fighting on behalf of Americans?


John Lillpop is a recovering liberal

Does George W. Bush Even Remember 9/11?

By John W. Lillpop

Seems a rather rude question, I admit. But think about it.

In the name of full disclosure, I confess to voting for George W. Bush in 2000.

To my discredit, I was unaware of his pro-illegal immigration position. I bought the ‘conservative’ label and just assumed that, if elected, President Bush would be reasonable on immigration.

If nothing else, I expected a Republican President from the deep south to enforce existing laws.

Wrong on both counts, as it turns out. Bush is neither reasonable on immigration nor has he even intended to enforce existing laws.

My mistake in voting for Bush was, or should have been, rendered moot by the events of 9/11. Indeed, who would imagine that our very own borders would remain unprotected nearly six full years after that awful day?

Who would imagine that America would send 150,000 troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, but leave our own borders open to anyone wishing to invade America, for whatever purpose? Including those dedicated to killing millions, of innocent Americans?

Who would imagine that the precious lives of more than 3,600 innocent Americans would be lost 8,000 miles from home--sacrifices that will be in vain if a terrorist(s) gains access to America via our unsecured border with Mexico?

Who would imagine that our commander-in-chief would spend $500 billion of taxpayer treasure to fight wars in the Middle East, while refusing to fill border patrol positions authorized by congress?

The deliberate and protracted neglect of border security and immigration enforcement leads one to an inescapable conclusion:

George W. Bush no longer even remembers the events of 9/11!

Time for Conservatives to "Cut and Run" from Bush

By John W. Lillpop


According to a new poll sure to put a damper on birthday festivities at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, nearly half of the American people want impeachment proceedings to begin against President Bush.

BREITBART: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070706195925.rdm9h3ci&show_article=1

With the Bush approval numbers hovering around 29 percent, the stage is being set for an unprecedented, and most forgettable, moment in American history: That is,the impeachment of consecutive presidents.

Clearly this was not the birthday present GW Bush was expecting in honor of his sixty-first.

And if that news were not distressing enough, Bush suffered another major Republican defection from his Iraq war policy when Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico called for an immediate change in U.S. strategy that could end combat operations by spring 2008.

Bostoncom: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/07/06/domenici_parts_ways_with_bush_on_iraq_war

Domenici joins Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio and Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana as recent GOP converts who have abandoned Bush on his signature issue.

With the 2008 elections just over one year away, Bush is likely to find himself more and more isolated on the Iraq war, immigration, and other crucial issues that GOP candidates running for office will have to explain in order to gain voter support.

To the chagrin of those who have supported Bush through thick and thin for six plus years, the president seems oblivious to the fate of his fellow Republicans and the party in general.

More distressing still, the president seems more concerned with his personal legacy than with the future of America, the nation's sovereignty, and preservation of American culture and language.

As the days of summer pass, look for more and more Republicans to desert GW Bush in much the same way he has deserted conservatives time and time again.

As autumn leaves start to fall, one can only hope that a few gutsy and patriotic GOP leaders will stage a "conservative revolution" by working to dump Mel Martinez as RNC Chairman, and by making official their disengagement from GW Bush, worst president in American history.

Unless such a revolution is forthcoming, and soon, the Republican party is doomed to join GW Bush in the dustbin of history as a complete failure.

Scooter Libby Could Have Gotten a Much Better Deal!

Satire By John W. Lillpop

Within hours after a federal appeals court refused to allow Scooter to remain free pending the appeal of his perjury conviction, President Bush rushed forward to commute the jail sentence of the former aid to Vice President Cheney.

Although Bush kept Scooter from spending the 4th of July in the slammer, the president let stand Libby's felony conviction, the $250,000 fine, and a two-year probation period.

Most distressing, of course, is the felony conviction.

That means that, in order to vote, Scooter will have to register as a Democrat, America's "big tent" party for the deceased, those here illegally, and felons.

Howard Dean calls it "inclusive politics," however; federal and state authorities classify it as voter fraud.

Raising $250,000 should be relatively easy.

All Libby needs to do is contact a liberal publisher (aren't they ALL?) and mention that he would like to write an expose about Dick Cheney from an "insider's" perspective.

You know, reveal dirty little secrets about Cheney's wonky heart (he doesn't actually have one!). The truth about shooting that lawyer in Texas (it was NOT an accident!).

How W wanted Cheney's daughter Mary to abort her pregnancy until the president learned that the father was an illegal alien from Mexico who needed an "anchor baby" to avoid deportation!

On and on. Make the manuscript crude enough, Scooter, and you could be on the New York Times Best Seller List before summer's end.

Even better still: Announce that you are going to include a chapter or so about the personal life of W, and you might see a full blown pardon coming your way before you get around to firing up your word processor!

In reality, Scooter Libby could have avoided prison and made a small fortune if he had played his cards differently.

Next time, Scooter, follow this strategery.

To begin with, right after your conviction, change your name to Jose` Libbernandez and assume a Spanish accent. A fake ID, including Social Security number and drivers license, can be purchased directly from Ted Kennedy out of his office on Capitol Hill.

Next, scurry down to Mexico and secure a respectable amount of marijuana, cocaine, and heroine, and steal across the border into the U.S. at a location where you are most likely to be spotted by Border Patrol agents.

When spotted by Border Patrol, make a U-turn and started running back towards Mexico.

At that point, because they are racist pigs, the Border Patrol will chase you and most probably shoot you in the butt.

Do not panic: Your ship has finally come in!

After the Border Patrol has arrested you, Jose` Libbernandez, you will be allowed one call.

Use this call wisely by contacting the nearest ACLU office, and tell them you are an illegal alien who has been shot in the ass by the Border Patrol on the American side of the border.

Be sure to mention that you were shot while smuggling drugs into the U.S.

Within 10 minutes or so, an ACLU lawyer will arrive at your cell to greet and comfort you. He or she will immediately begin working on your behalf, and will text message Attorney General Gonzalez to inform him of your plight.

Before you are actually booked, the Gonzalez goons, in concert with the ACLU, will have bailed you out of jail and arrested all of the offending Border Patrol agents to take your place.

You will then be granted immunity from any and all crimes in exchange for your testimony against the criminals, those punks who until two hours ago were Border Patrol agents.

Early next morning, your ACLU lawyer will visit you in your executive suite at the finest hotel in town (paid for by the DOJ) and get you to sign documents needed to sue the former Border Patrol agents, the U.S. government, and all conservative radio talk show hosts and columnists.

Provided the ACLU can find the right leftist judge and a rigged jury, you could be rewarded for your troubles with a five million-dollar judgment!

That is nearly what you would have hauled in by selling all those drugs, Scooter!

What's that, Scooter? You are worried that you might be turned over to American authorities and prosecuted?

Forget it!

Remember, you are Jose` Libbernandez, a good hearted, hard working peasant who just came here to do work that Americans will not do! You are now part of a protected class, a man to who rule of law does not apply.

Welcome home!

Speaker Pelosi's Six-Month Victory Lap!

Satire by John W Lillpop

Don't you just love Nancy Pelosi? For a feminist, she sure has robust cajones!

There she was last Friday afternoon, front and center, wearing a grin wide enough to convince naive liberals that she was delighted to be standing before them in order to be held accountable for her performance as Speaker of the House.

Here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/06/30/MNGSCQOVNF1.DTL


Flashing the V sign all around, as if she had just captured Osama bin Laden, disabled all 1,000 of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's uranium centrifuges, pulled the plug on North Korea's nuclear program, and ended the war in Iraq with a victory for America, all by her lonesome.

And, she would add, despite the presence of an "incompetent" George W. Bush and obstructionist Republicans in both chambers.

Pelosi started her C-Span Performance Review by commenting how "coincidental" it was that the six-month anniversary of the Democratic takeover of congress, which started January 5, comes so close to July 4th.

Coincidental?

When in hell was she expecting the six-month anniversary of January 5 to fall? Early October? Spring 2008, perhaps?

Someone PLEASE explain how calendars work to this very troubled sixty-six year old grandma with a dangerous addiction to botox!

After congratulating Democrats for all of their wonderful achievements, which she did not bother to detail, Speaker Pelosi admitted that some issues did not go exactly as she would have preferred.

Like the amnesty bill in the senate, for example. Never one to be deterred by reason or fact, Pelosi blamed the failure of that dilly on those Senate Republicans and that 60-vote thing!

She was referring to cloture, of course.

And of course there are not sixty Republicans in the U.S. Senate. If there were, Harry Reid would back in Utah running real estate scams and accepting bribes from promoters with legislation pending before the most deliberative body in the world, instead of working 24/7 to move the Mexican border somewhere north of Minneapolis, Minnesota!

Still, most people who can stomach more than 20 seconds of Pelosi are die hard liberals who could not care less about the truth.

To most liberals, blaming George W. Bush and Republicans is in their DNA, and is an automatic, reflexive action.

Indeed, blaming George W. Bush for everything has a soothing and therapeutic effect on unsteady liberal minds.

Caution: Look for all heck to break loose on January 20, 2009 when W officially leaves office and throws the entire Democrat party into a massive depression akin to the "Empty Nest" syndrome that parents face when the last child marches off to university.

Prozac and Vodka cocktails will reign supreme in the homes and offices of liberals so very desperate for mental relief.

When asked about the 14 percent approval rating that Congress is currently saddled with, Pelosi did not bat an eye. Instead, she glanced over at Harry Reid and snidely remarked, "I'm not happy with Congress, either."

Touché, Harry!

Were it not for the senate, Pelosi seemed to infer, Congress would be way up there in approval ratings--perhaps even as high as 23 percent, which is where President Bush is quacking these days.

Pelosi concluded the event by reminding her audience that the Democrats had promised America a "new direction," and that they had made considerable progress toward meeting that objective.

Will the person who is going to explain calendars to Pelosi also remind her that most Americans expected the "new direction" to be forward--rather than stuck in reverse, as is now the case under Democrat leadership!

Democracy and Freedom: Blessings from Angry, White, Christian Males!

By John W. Lillpop

Although liberal politicians, aided and abetted by a dysfunctional and non-objective mainstream media, rarely miss an opportunity to tear down white Christian males, the truth is that that demographic has done more to benefit humanity than any other group in human history.

After all, it was a courageous band of angry white Christian men who offered all of humanity a glimmer of hope for freedom when, on July 4, 1776, the following Declaration poured forth from the hearts of those angry white Christian males:


IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America


When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Complete Text:

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm


Despite a complete lack of diversity, our Founding Fathers created a formula for self-governance and freedom that has endured for 232 years and made America the envy of the entire world.

They did so with no women, no Hispanics and other people of color, no gays or lesbians, and no atheists and non-Christians in their midst.

Faith and courage, rather than state-mandated diversity and affirmative action, lead our founders to bless America with the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Our Founding Fathers needed but one language--English--to deliver their message to the world, a message of hope that still reverberates through the globe.

Those who persist with a mindless and never ending crusade to discredit our Founding Fathers need to replace the anti-white, anti-Christian, and anti-male rhetoric with a measure of thankfulness.

Again,that demographic has produced and perfected the most successful and prosperous society in human history.

They genuinely deserve the respect and undying gratitude of all Americans-- be they white, brown, black, red, or yellow!

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!

Liberals and the "American Dream"

Satire by John W. Lillpop

Most people understand that liberals are slow learners, probably because of birth defects that cause them to live in constant denial, self-delusion, and deceit.

But even wonky DNA and flawed genetics can not explain some of the wretched excesses that are consuming liberal candidates for the presidency these days.

Example: Just two days after the American people kicked the president and U.S. Senate in the teeth over a proposed amnesty scheme, all of the Democrat presidential candidates vowed to push through legislation that would defy the will of the people and legalize illegal aliens and gift them with a path to citizenship.

Azstarnet http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/news/189975.php

The following comment from Barack Obama is particularly revealing:

"As president, I will sign comprehensive immigration reform. I want my daughters to be raised in a community in which all people, and not just some, are considered part of the American dream."

By ALL, we assume that the senator from Illinois means 12-30 million criminal invaders, including rapists, murderers, bank robbers, terrorists, drug and human smugglers, drunk drivers, and all other felons likely to vote a straight Democrat ticket for the next 50 years!

Or, even worse, did Obama mean ALL six billion people on the planet?

But fret not, American patriots. Science is working full time on a cure for liberalism.

Ultrasound technology now used to determine the gender of an unborn fetus may soon be sophisticated enough to alert public health officials when a fetus is infested with the defect that causes liberalism.

Armed with such knowledge, medical science will then be able to administer vaccines, antibiotics, and other treatments to prevent newborn children from degenerating into full-blown liberals.

Until that happy day arrives, we must all remain diligent and do our damnedest to prevent liberals from being elected to any position of authority involving local, state, and federal governments, national security, money, education at all levels, infrastructure, law and order, terrorism, marriage, children, food, automobiles, Christmas, Easter, organized religion, television, the Internet, the U.S. military, foreign relations, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, illegal aliens, and the starting pitching for the Los Angeles Dodgers.

It would also help to keep known liberals confined to their own neighborhoods so as to prevent cross breeding with normal people.

Such cross breeding could, if uncontrolled, lead to a pandemic of affirmative action, gay rights, diversity workshops, abortions on demand, higher taxes, addiction to global warming, ungodly fairness doctrines, open borders, and other human calamities.

How Do You Say "Equal Time" In Spanish?

By John W. Lillpop

Liberal politicians keen on reinstating a "Fairness Doctrine" clearly have their sights set on Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and other right-wing luminaries.

But once liberals open that particular can of worms, they may be less than thrilled at what comes crawling out.

For instance, Mexican DJ and former illegal alien Eddie "Piolín" Sotelo, native of Mexico, broadcasts from a Spanish language radio station in Los Angeles and is a strong advocate for illegal aliens.

Not satisfied with merely invading America himself, Piolín apparently believes that any Hispanic/Latino/Mexican who unilaterally decides to come to America should be entitled to do so without regard to U.S. borders and immigration laws.

The fact that all other peoples of the world are required to wait their turn in line and jump through hoops in order to come here legally is irrelevant to Piolín.

His attitude, and that of La Raza, seems to be "Because of their ethnicity, Hispanics/Latinos/Mexicans are above the rule of law and borders!"

Activists looking to eradicate racism and bigotry should start with the likes of Piolín and La Raza, rather than disparaging patriotic Americans who demand that existing laws be enforced, even when it comes to "The Race."

Piolín's disdain for the rule of law even motivated him to travel from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., in order to deliver what were alleged to be one million letters from amnesty supporters. Unfortunately for the politically naive DJ, the letters were all signed by illegal aliens and were in Spanish.

Even more embarrassing for Piolín, many of the boxes containing the "one million letters" he boasted so proudly of turned out to be empty.

After S 1639 was defeated in the U.S. Senate on June 28, Piolín's distress was palpable, leading the DJ to shed alligator tears from behind his live microphone while on the air.

The impact of Piolín's on-air histrionics with his base audience (mostly illegal aliens) is unclear.

However, it is obvious that he did provide scores of millions of patriotic, English speaking American citizens with a round of belly laughs and material for party toasts that are still being enjoyed in more sophisticated circles.

But back to the issue: How would a liberal "Fairness Doctrine" impact Spanish language stations like the one on which Piolín spews his pro-illegal alien, anti-American propaganda and race baiting?

Would that radio station be forced to provide equal time to a commentator who would remind his audience that illegal aliens do not belong in America and should, by law, be deported?

Would the inflammatory rhetoric used by Piolín to drive illegal aliens to the streets in order to demand non-existent "rights" be offset by a voice(s) of reason that would encourage young Latinos to stay in school?

In other words, before acting hastily, liberals need to answer a crucial question: How do you say "equal time" in Spanish?



John W. Lillpop
San Jose Ca