|
|
Archive for January, 2008
By John W. Lillpop In one of the most blatant and outrageous acts in the undeclared war that Mexico is waging against America, Mexican invaders ran down and killed a brave Border Patrol agent who was simply doing his job at the Yuma Sector. Repeat: Mexican invaders ran down and killed a BP agent and then raced back across the border into Mexico. Under better times, American could count on the president to respond immediately against the offending nation with a formal protest, and perhaps even military action. Unfortunately, these are not good times when it comes to America’s homeland security. That is so because we are encumbered with a retarded alcoholic in the Oval Office, a president who will spend as much as $2 trillion fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but who will do next to nothing to secure our own borders. If our president were not on the payroll of the Mexican government, he would have immediately sent the U.S. Marines to seal off the border. The Pentagon would have been ordered to develop plans for invading Mexico City and taking control of the Mexican government. The clear objective would have been to end the unlawful invasion of America by driving the Mexican border southward. Within ten feet of Guatemala would have been the goal. So what did Dubya do in response to the latest deadly attack on the U.S. Border patrol by Mexico? He sent in Michael Chertoff, alleged to be Director of Homeland Security. Chertoff made the following comment, in part: “Earlier today the Border Patrol lost a brave agent assigned to the Yuma Sector in a heinous act of violence. The agent was struck and killed while attempting to stop two vehicles believed to have illegally entered the country and were absconding back into Mexico. “I am outraged by this tragic loss. I have spoken to the Mexican ambassador who gives me both his condolences and deep assurance that their government will be resolute in tracking down the perpetrators, and bringing them to swift justice. “I’m insisting that the full force of the law be used in this investigation. Our Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are already on scene assisting the Border Patrol and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this effort.” And on and on and on and on, Chertoff followed the PC script written to coddle the outlaw renegades who run the Mexican government. If America had a responsible, sane, and intelligent commander-in-chief, that leader would have issued a statement something like this: “Earlier today, Mexico continued its assault on America when a brave Border Patrol agent was run down and killed by invading criminals from Mexico.“I have just finished speaking on the telephone with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and have advised him that we regard this latest incident as an act of war against the sovereign nation of America. “I further advised President Calderon that Mexico has 24 hours in which to apprehend the killers and return them to America for prosecution. In the event that Mexico fails to meet this deadline, American special forces will be sent into Mexico to search down and arrest the criminals. “President Calderon has also been informed that unless his government takes immediate action to prevent Mexican citizens from invading America, I shall reassign 75,000 troops from the middle east to the U.S.-Mexico border. These forces shall be ordered to use whatever force, including lethal, necessary to stop Mexican criminals from invading America. “Finally, I warned the president that if Mexico is ultimately unable to control its population, American forces may, at my discretion, be sent into Mexico to take control of the Mexican government. “I urge all Americans to remain calm and rest assured that your government is doing all we can to protect America from foreign invasion. That is our constitutional responsibility and we shall fulfill that obligation, with military force if need be. Good night and God Bless America, and to hell with Mexico!” Wonder what the odds are of Dubya uttering those words?
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.
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?
By John W. Lillpop Conservatives who voted for George W. Bush in either 2000 or 2004, or both, have once again been stabbed in the back by the most liberal president to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter. To begin with, W decided that fiscal responsibility, as a basic tenant of conservative governance, is not all that important. Thus, his refusal, until recently, to veto out- of- control spending bills that have contributed to a massive federal debt that will encumber future generations for years to come. Then it was “No Child Left Behind,” which W saw fit to approve at the urging of Senator Teddy Kennedy, the embodiment of anti-conservative thought if ever there was one. Whatever happened to the conservative notion that school policy was best left in the hands of local educators and citizens, rather than in the hands of reckless Washington politicians more interested in pork and getting re-elected than the quality of education? Why does the Department of Education continue to exist as a Cabinet-level department? A $10 trillion entitlement was next on the W anti-conservative agenda, this one for prescription drugs for seniors. Anyone with half a heart empathizes with seniors on fixed incomes struggling to pay for expensive medicines. But why should senior medical bills be dumped on the backs of young and middle aged taxpayers? Why is carrying for seniors not best left to their families, churches, philanthropists, and other private charitable institutions? To any conservative worth his weight in Ronald Reagan bumper stickers, defending the homeland is the only genuine responsibility of government. Yet W has refused to secure our borders during a time of war, and has stupidly advocated amnesty for as many as 38 million illegal aliens who have invaded America. These are positions one would expect from the likes of leftists such as Dennis Kucinich or George McGovern. Why has W retreated so completely from the conservative concepts of secure borders, rule of law, and American sovereignty? Just when it appeared as though W had lurched to the left as much as humanly possible without joining the Democrat party, news leaked out this week that the administration has filed a legal brief that suggests that gun rights are limited. Specifically, the brief argues that since gun ownership is subject to “reasonable regulation,” all gun limits imposed by the federal government should be affirmed as constitutional. “Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment,” he wrote U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in the brief. WND: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59770 Whatever happened to the conservative position that gun ownership is an inalienable right granted by the Second Amendment, and that no infringement of that right is acceptable? In analyzing the performance, or lack thereof, of the Bush administration over the past seven years, the overwhelming question that surfaces is this: Whatever happened to the idea that conservatives are better stewards of the public trust and treasure because of their commitment to fiscal restraint, individual responsibility, small government, rule of law, and law and order? Has George W. Bush single-handedly destroyed conservatism in America?
By John W. Lillpop Worried cries of “The Mexicans are coming, the Mexicans are coming!” filled the air in Tucson, Arizona this past week as government officials expressed frenzied concern about invading illegal aliens. And with whom were the public outcries originating? Tucson city or Arizona state officials? Or perhaps a member of the U.S. House or Senate? Maybe the Minutemen were acting up again? None of the above! In fact, the alarms were sounded by Mexican legislators suffering apoplectic fits over Arizona’s tough new anti-illegal alien laws. The source of their angst? Mexican illegal aliens going back to Mexico, where they belong! Tucsoncitizen: http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/border/74193.php This band of third world banditos descended on Tucson to reaffirm what has been obvious to most reasonable Americans long ago: Mexico is a third-world cesspool run by corrupt and greedy elitists who cannot, or will not, feed, house, educate, and provide medical care for its own citizens. And why should they? After all, it is far less expensive and problematic for Mexico to simply dump its problems on the U.S. side of the border for American taxpayers to deal with. Clearly, most Mexican officials have no respect for American sovereignty and rule of law. They are also lacking any concern for the impact that illegal aliens have on America’s homeland security, economy, and social and cultural stability. At a news conference, the Mexican legislators said Mexico cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools it will face as illegal Mexican workers in America return to their hometowns without jobs or money. Can you imagine? A delegation from a foreign government actually stood on American soil to protest enforcement of American law in America? Has there ever been a more outrageous display of arrogant incompetence? Excepting of course, the political malfeasance practiced by the United States Congress and several presidents, which has allowed as many as 38 million illegal aliens to invade and occupy America–during time of war? A sampling of quotes from the Mexican legislators provides a pretty good summary of how out of touch Mexico is with regard to the illegal alien problem in America: “How can they pass a law like this?” asked Mexican Rep. Leticia Amparano Gamez, who represents Nogales, in Spanish. She continued, “Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems” it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and sending money to their families return to hometowns in Sonora without jobs, she said. “We are one family, socially and economically,” she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona. Rep. Florencio Diaz Armenta, coordinator of the delegation, asked, “What do we do with the repatriated?” he asked. “As Mexicans, we are worried. They are Mexicans but they are also people - fathers and mothers and young people with jobs” who won’t have work in Sonora.” Mexican officials, including the ones quoted above, would do well to understand and accept the following essential truths about America: *America is a sovereign nation, totally independent of Mexico. It has been that way for over 200 years. We intend to keep it that way. *In America, Mexico is considered a FOREIGN nation and Spanish is a FOREIGN language. *America operates according to the rule of law, which applies to everyone. This is true whether one is brown, black, yellow, lily-white, red, or an exotic hybrid of lavender and green. *Being hard working and good hearted is commendable. But those qualities do NOT entitle anyone to enter America illegally. * People here illegally are common criminals, and as such, are most unwelcome. * American citizens will fight to have illegal aliens deported, regardless of whether or not families are involved. Illegal is illegal, Family or not. * Demanding that our borders be secured and that the law be enforced is the right of all American citizens; doing so does not make any one a racist or bigot, and *U.S. immigration laws exist to protect American citizens & others here legally, not to facilitate a foreigner’s pursuit of a better life, and Now if there just a way to convey those truths to George W. Bush and all Democrats and RINOs, American patriots might have a decent change of stopping and reversing the invasion of our nation by third world Mexico!
Obama’s spiritual mentor CHICAGO - The packed house at Trinity United - some 3,000 in all - had been in the pews for almost two hours, energized by a 200-voice choir and a rousing dance performance Sunday, when the Rev. Jeremiah Wright stepped up to speak. The connection has thrown a spotlight on some of Wright’s more controversial remarks in a church that advertises itself as “unashamedly Black and unapologetically Christian” - at times espousing a black liberation theology that can sound as exclusionary as Obama’s message is inclusionary. He has also equated Zionism with racism. On Sunday morning - amid intensified crossfire between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Obama over the use of race in the Democratic presidential campaign - Wright was preaching from the Gospel of John, using his powerful style to link the story of the loaves and fishes to a contemporary political message. Man should not put limits on what God can do, but that’s what people always do, he told the crowd. Just as God made five loaves and two fishes feed thousands, God has provided liberators for blacks in the past - from Nat Turner to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and now Barack Obama. But, Wright said, there were always reasons not to follow them. Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton “because her husband was good to us,” he continued. “That’s not true,” he thundered. “He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky.” Many in the crowd were on their feet, applauding - amazed, amused and moved by the fiery rhetoric of their preacher, who is about to retire. It is just such rhetoric that has made Wright’s remarks an occasional staple on conservative talk shows. They often make the rounds in anti-Obama e-mail. On occasion, the Illinois senator has distanced himself from Wright. In the past, the campaign has issued statements saying that Obama does not agree with all of Wright’s comments. An invitation to Wright to give the invocation at Obama’s announcement of his presidential candidacy last year was rescinded at the last moment, reportedly to keep the spotlight on Obama and not on Wright. Just yesterday, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen noted that a magazine associated with Trinity United once named Louis Farrakhan as its person of the year, praising the Nation of Islam leader. Cohen called on Obama to denounce such praise of Farrakhan, known for statements deemed anti-Semitic. In a statement released by his campaign last night, Obama responded to questions about Wright’s comments on Sunday. “As I’ve told Reverend Wright, personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they’re offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church,” he said. “I don’t think of the pastor of my church in political terms. “Like a member of my own family, there are things he says at times with which I deeply disagree,” he said. “But as he prepares to retire, that doesn’t detract from my affection for Reverend Wright or appreciation for the good works he has done.” As in the past, Obama did not completely denounce Wright. The candidate’s 1995 book Dreams From My Father depicts Obama’s decision to join Trinity United as a fundamental step in affirming his identity as an African-American. Obama’s mother was white, he was raised in large part by her parents and he spent much of his youth in Indonesia with his mother’s second husband. He only met his father, a Kenyan, once. Obama took the title of his more recent book, The Audacity of Hope, from the first sermon he heard preached by Wright, whom Obama met while working in Chicago as a community organizer. In Dreams from My Father, Obama wrote of his reaction on hearing that sermon in 1988: “In that single note - hope! - I heard something else: At the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and the Pharaoh, the Christians in the Lion’s Den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church on this bright day seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world.” Dwight Hopkins, a professor in the divinity school at the University of Chicago who is a member of Trinity United, was not surprised by Wright’s comments about the Clinton administration on Sunday. Bill Clinton, he said, may have been from the South and appointed blacks to his Cabinet and opened an office later in Harlem, “but if you really look at the policies he backed, many were worse for blacks than those of the pre-civil rights days.” Hopkins pointed to Clinton’s welfare reform policies and the criticism of activist Randall Robinson of Clinton policies toward black Caribbean countries such as Haiti. (via DRUDGE REPORT 2008®) Jan GOP Fails to Rig California Electoral Votes GOP Fails to Rig California Electoral Votes by Mike Kuykendall Page 1 of 1 page(s) http://www.opednews.com reddit_title=’GOP Fails to Rig California Electoral Votes’ digg_url=’http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_mike_kuy_070928_gop_fails_to_rig_cal.htm’; The Republican plan to change the way California’s electoral votes are awarded is “virtually dead.” From the LA Times; Plagued by a lack of money, supporters of a statewide initiative drive to change the way California’s 55 electoral votes are apportioned, first revealed here by Top of the Ticket in July, are pulling the plug on that effort. In an exclusive report to appear on this website late tonight and in Friday’s print editions, The Times’ Dan Morain reports that the proposal to change the winner-take-all electoral vote allocation to one by congressional district is virtually dead with the resignation of key supporters, internal disputes and a lack of funds. The reality is hundreds of thousands of signatures must be gathered by the end of November to get the measure on the June 2008 ballot. Although Maine (since 1972) and Nebraska (since 1996) award electoral votes to the popular vote winner in each congressional district, the California initiative ignited a national controversy with Democratic critics charging it was a power grab by Republicans who are regularly shut out of any California electoral votes by the current winner-take-all system. Democrats have won all the state’s 55 electoral votes in the last four presidential elections. It’s good to know this blatant attempt to split the Democratic power base in California has failed. I wonder how many other shady GOP projects are underway for 2008? http://indigentahole.blogspot.com Mike Kuykendall is a progressive, patriotic veteran of the U.S. Air Force, fighting hard to save our democracy.
Obama’s spiritual mentorPowerhouse Chicago preacher draws controversyCHICAGO - The packed house at Trinity United - some 3,000 in all - had been in the pews for almost two hours, energized by a 200-voice choir and a rousing dance performance Sunday, when the Rev. Jeremiah Wright stepped up to speak. The connection has thrown a spotlight on some of Wright’s more controversial remarks in a church that advertises itself as “unashamedly Black and unapologetically Christian” - at times espousing a black liberation theology that can sound as exclusionary as Obama’s message is inclusionary. He has also equated Zionism with racism. On Sunday morning - amid intensified crossfire between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Obama over the use of race in the Democratic presidential campaign - Wright was preaching from the Gospel of John, using his powerful style to link the story of the loaves and fishes to a contemporary political message. Man should not put limits on what God can do, but that’s what people always do, he told the crowd. Just as God made five loaves and two fishes feed thousands, God has provided liberators for blacks in the past - from Nat Turner to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and now Barack Obama. But, Wright said, there were always reasons not to follow them. Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton “because her husband was good to us,” he continued. “That’s not true,” he thundered. “He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky.” Many in the crowd were on their feet, applauding - amazed, amused and moved by the fiery rhetoric of their preacher, who is about to retire. It is just such rhetoric that has made Wright’s remarks an occasional staple on conservative talk shows. They often make the rounds in anti-Obama e-mail. On occasion, the Illinois senator has distanced himself from Wright. In the past, the campaign has issued statements saying that Obama does not agree with all of Wright’s comments. An invitation to Wright to give the invocation at Obama’s announcement of his presidential candidacy last year was rescinded at the last moment, reportedly to keep the spotlight on Obama and not on Wright. Just yesterday, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen noted that a magazine associated with Trinity United once named Louis Farrakhan as its person of the year, praising the Nation of Islam leader. Cohen called on Obama to denounce such praise of Farrakhan, known for statements deemed anti-Semitic. In a statement released by his campaign last night, Obama responded to questions about Wright’s comments on Sunday. “As I’ve told Reverend Wright, personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they’re offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church,” he said. “I don’t think of the pastor of my church in political terms. “Like a member of my own family, there are things he says at times with which I deeply disagree,” he said. “But as he prepares to retire, that doesn’t detract from my affection for Reverend Wright or appreciation for the good works he has done.” As in the past, Obama did not completely denounce Wright. The candidate’s 1995 book Dreams From My Father depicts Obama’s decision to join Trinity United as a fundamental step in affirming his identity as an African-American. Obama’s mother was white, he was raised in large part by her parents and he spent much of his youth in Indonesia with his mother’s second husband. He only met his father, a Kenyan, once. Obama took the title of his more recent book, The Audacity of Hope, from the first sermon he heard preached by Wright, whom Obama met while working in Chicago as a community organizer. In Dreams from My Father, Obama wrote of his reaction on hearing that sermon in 1988: “In that single note - hope! - I heard something else: At the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and the Pharaoh, the Christians in the Lion’s Den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church on this bright day seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world.” Dwight Hopkins, a professor in the divinity school at the University of Chicago who is a member of Trinity United, was not surprised by Wright’s comments about the Clinton administration on Sunday. Bill Clinton, he said, may have been from the South and appointed blacks to his Cabinet and opened an office later in Harlem, “but if you really look at the policies he backed, many were worse for blacks than those of the pre-civil rights days.” Hopkins pointed to Clinton’s welfare reform policies and the criticism of activist Randall Robinson of Clinton policies toward black Caribbean countries such as Haiti. (via DRUDGE REPORT 2008®)
The Republican plan to change the way California’s electoral votes are awarded is “virtually dead.” From the LA Times;
In an exclusive report to appear on this website late tonight and in Friday’s print editions, The Times’ Dan Morain reports that the proposal to change the winner-take-all electoral vote allocation to one by congressional district is virtually dead with the resignation of key supporters, internal disputes and a lack of funds. The reality is hundreds of thousands of signatures must be gathered by the end of November to get the measure on the June 2008 ballot. Although Maine (since 1972) and Nebraska (since 1996) award electoral votes to the popular vote winner in each congressional district, the California initiative ignited a national controversy with Democratic critics charging it was a power grab by Republicans who are regularly shut out of any California electoral votes by the current winner-take-all system. Democrats have won all the state’s 55 electoral votes in the last four presidential elections. It’s good to know this blatant attempt to split the Democratic power base in California has failed. I wonder how many other shady GOP projects are underway for 2008? http://indigentahole.blogspot.com Mike Kuykendall is a progressive, patriotic veteran of the U.S. Air Force, fighting hard to save our democracy.
|
