The State of the Union As Seen By An Ordinary Citizen

John W. Lillpop

Next Tuesday, January 28th, George W. Bush will deliver his final State of the Union(SOU) address to the nation. If all goes according to script, Bush will waste about 60 minutes of valuable time in a last ditch attempt to convince the world that he is not the "worst president in U.S. history."

Charitable historians will describe Bush's final SOU as moderate and measured. Those committed to the truth will admit that the only thing worse than Bush's performance in office are his SOU addresses.

After the president has mangled the English language once again, the Democrats will respond in, both English and Spanish. Bilingual mangling, if you will.

All of the speeches will be laden with outrageous hyperbole and exaggerations, if not downright lies. The real problems facing the nation will be grossly underestimated or ignored. Achievements will be vastly overstated and misrepresented.

For a change, our politicians need to hear the State of the Union from the perspective of an ordinary American citizen.

This citizen proposes the following message:

Mr. President, members of Congress:

The state of this union is: In grave peril and in danger of collapse!

Due to inappropriate actions and or inaction on the part of those entrusted with managing this great nation--that would be YOU, ladies and gentlemen--
the United States of America is on the brink of declining into a third-world cesspool.

It is imperative that our government recognize the fact that the people are FED UP with the attempt to undermine American sovereignty, homeland security, and culture.

In short, the people are:


FED UP with plans to merge the United States into a North American alliance with Canada and Mexico. Such a plan would destroy American sovereignty and is totally unacceptable.

FED UP with the refusal of the federal government to secure our borders at time of war.

FED UP when Mexicans illegally cross our borders and assault and or kill Americans, yet our government takes no action, and refuses to even protest.

FED UP when Americans defending the U.S. from drug smuggling illegal aliens are sent to federal prison, while invading criminals are to be forgiven via amnesty for violating our borders and laws.

FED UP with the fact that upwards of 38 million illegal aliens are currently in America, and cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

FED UP with a president who orders thousands of young Americans into harm's way thousands of miles from home, but who refuses to secure America.

FED UP with politicians who refuse to enforce immigration laws and who claim it is "impossible" to deport criminals here illegally.

FED UP with illegal aliens who can not and/or will not speak English.

FED UP with taxpayer dollars being wasted to print documents in foreign languages.

FED UP with illegal aliens who dump their medical bills on the backs of U.S. taxpayers, but who send $30-40 billion a year back to Mexico each year.

FED UP with the fact that providing free medical services to illegal aliens drives hospitals out of business, making those facilities unavailable to American citizens for whom the medical centers were intended.

FED UP with our schools being invaded by non-English speaking children who impede the learning process of students who genuinely belong here.

FED UP with the fact that federal, state, and local penal systems are overrun by illegal aliens, again costing taxpayers billions each year.

FED UP with the fact that, on average, illegal aliens kill 12 Americans every day.

FED UP with the fact that the overwhelming majority of felony crimes being investigated in Los Angeles have been committed by illegals from Mexico.

FED UP with politicians who refuse to round up and deport millions of illegal aliens who are destroying American culture and language.

FED UP with politicians who pamper illegal aliens with driver's licenses and free public services, which encourage even more invaders to come to America.

FED UP with the attempted Mexicanization of America. Mexico is a third- world slum, and we are FED UP with those who want America to be like Mexico!

Finally, Mr. President and members of the U.S. Congress, people are FED UP with those who consistently work on behalf of illegal aliens and the state of Mexico, and against the interests of the American people!

Please do not underestimate the dissatisfaction and rage swelling in the hearts of patriotic Americans on this vital issue.

The state of this union is untenable and must not continue.

We DEMAND our great country back!

Why Is Martin Luther King's Birthday A National Holiday?

By John W. Lillpop

Although I am most grateful for the paid day off on Martin Luther King day, I have reservations about the propriety of making the occasion of his birth a national holiday.

One cannot question the fact that Dr. King was an effective warrior in the civil rights movement, a champion for African Americans, and a symbol of hope for downtrodden and oppressed people everywhere. Nearly 40 years after his assassination, Dr. King's words continue to inspire, guide, and illuminate.

But like all public figures, Dr. King also had personal flaws. He was alleged to have been sympathetic to communist causes, if not directly involved with their activities, and apparently chased skirts other than the one worn by his lovely wife.

But beyond the character issue, questions that should be asked, but are not because of political correctness, are these:

Does the birth and life of Dr. King warrant the forced closure of American government, education, and vast segments of private enterprise for an entire day every year? And

Compared to the other national holidays that America shuts down for, does Martin Luther King day really make sense?

Consider please: Martin Luther King day is the only holiday named for a specific American figure, although Dr. King was never elected to political office, nor did he serve the entire nation and all its people in any official capacity.

No president, war hero, educator, religious leader, or other individual American has been so honored. Why should Dr. King be the exception?

Consider also the basis for the other national holidays that America celebrates:


Memorial Day honors those who have given their lives for their country at time of war.

Independence Day celebrates America's independence and establishment of the most successful democracy in human history.

Labor Day honors the tens of millions of blue-collar workers whose labor has built America and made this nation great.

Veterans Day is a tribute to all the men and women who have served and are serving America in the U.S. military.

Thanksgiving is a day of thankful reflection for the many blessings that the American people have received from our Creator.


Christmas is observed all over the world to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.

New Year's Day is set aside to celebrate the start of a new year and to give gratitude for the blessings of the year just ended, and

President's Day honors those who have served and are serving as America's Chief Executive Officer and commander-in-chief.

Given the substance of America's other designated national holidays, does Martin Luther King day seem justified?

Or is Martin Luther King day really all about easing white guilt over slavery and racism in America's past?

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."