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?