By John W. Lillpop
It may be true that Islam is indeed a “Religion of Peace” as has been contended by U.S. Presidents Bush and Obama, as well as by other Muslim apologists.
Most rationale Americans, however, will blanche at the very notion, given the events of 9/11.
Furthermore, the “Religion of Peace” moniker seems completely at odds with reality in view of current events:
The slaughter of innocent Muslims by the Assad regime continues unabated in Syria despite widespread revulsion and condemnation throughout the world; Iran continues to defy the world in pursuing nuclear-nation status, a defiance that is very close to erupting into all-out war; more than a year following the purging of dictator Muhammad Hosni Mubarak from power in Egypt and following democratic elections, Muslims are again being killed in Tahrir Square because, of all things, disputes involving football; the so-called “great achievement” of the Obama administration in Iraq seems tenuous, at best, and more likely to devolve into chaos; and Muslims continue to destroy Muslims in Afghanistan as the House of Obama-Clinton tries to negotiate peace in that God-forsaken hell-hole where peace has been evasive for decades, if not centuries.
And so it is, throughout the middle-east and Africa, Muslims are taking up arms against fellow Muslims in issues of great significance to issues not worthy of bloodshed (football), at least by Western standards.
A variety of words can be used to make sense when discussing the Muslim faith. “Religion of peace” is NOT among them!
29.1.12
Exactly Whom (Or What) Is the Republican “Establishment”?
By John W. Lillpop
As the GOP struggles to find a viable (or at least reasonable) candidate to oppose Barack Obama, the odd twists and turns in the fortunes of the surviving combatants are often attributed to those anonymous rascals known only as the Republican “establishment.”
No one seems to know who or what the hell the term means.
Is it, for example, El Rushbo? Seems most unlikely since he himself occasionally chides the establishment for being the most potent weapon in Obama’s re-election arsenal.
Very well, then, maybe “it” is the Bush Family, consisting of two former presidents and a third who fancies his likeness on Mt. Rushmore?
Are the Bush boys willfully sponsoring discontent and mayhem among Republicans so as to leave open a spot for Jeb when the moment is just right later in 2012?
Just who the holy hell is the omnipotent establishment that is in control of everything, especially since it seems as though no one is controlling anything?
Matt Drudge? Michael Savage? Charles Krauthammer or Brit Hume?
Who has the power and respect (and money) to dictate whom will be the alternative to our Marxist president?
Could it be that voters ARE in fact the Establishment by virtue of participation in elections and polls?
That last notion seems utterly implausible, given the fact that Republican voters are mindless Sheeple who will vote for anyone with an R next to his or her name, regardless of ideology or qualifications.
Just who is the mysterious Republican "establishment"?
Just asking.
As the GOP struggles to find a viable (or at least reasonable) candidate to oppose Barack Obama, the odd twists and turns in the fortunes of the surviving combatants are often attributed to those anonymous rascals known only as the Republican “establishment.”
No one seems to know who or what the hell the term means.
Is it, for example, El Rushbo? Seems most unlikely since he himself occasionally chides the establishment for being the most potent weapon in Obama’s re-election arsenal.
Very well, then, maybe “it” is the Bush Family, consisting of two former presidents and a third who fancies his likeness on Mt. Rushmore?
Are the Bush boys willfully sponsoring discontent and mayhem among Republicans so as to leave open a spot for Jeb when the moment is just right later in 2012?
Just who the holy hell is the omnipotent establishment that is in control of everything, especially since it seems as though no one is controlling anything?
Matt Drudge? Michael Savage? Charles Krauthammer or Brit Hume?
Who has the power and respect (and money) to dictate whom will be the alternative to our Marxist president?
Could it be that voters ARE in fact the Establishment by virtue of participation in elections and polls?
That last notion seems utterly implausible, given the fact that Republican voters are mindless Sheeple who will vote for anyone with an R next to his or her name, regardless of ideology or qualifications.
Just who is the mysterious Republican "establishment"?
Just asking.
Exactly Whom (Or What) Is the Republican “Establishment”?
By John W. Lillpop
As the GOP struggles to find a viable (or at least reasonable) candidate to oppose Barack Obama, the odd twists and turns in the fortunes of the surviving combatants are often attributed to those anonymous rascals known only as the Republican “establishment.”
No one seems to know who or what the hell the term means.
Is it, for example, El Rushbo? Seems most unlikely since he himself occasionally chides the establishment for being the most potent weapon in Obama’s re-election arsenal.
Very well, then, maybe “it” is the Bush Family, consisting of two former presidents and a third who fancies his likeness on Mt. Rushmore?
Are the Bush boys willfully sponsoring discontent and mayhem among Republicans so as to leave open a spot for Jeb when the moment is just right later in 2012?
Just who the holy hell is the omnipotent establishment that is in control of everything, especially since it seems as though no one is controlling anything?
Matt Drudge? Michael Savage? Charles Krauthammer or Brit Hume?
Who has the power and respect (and money) to dictate whom will be the alternative to our Marxist president?
Could it be that voters ARE in fact the Establishment by virtue of participation in elections and polls?
That last notion seems utterly implausible, given the fact that Republican voters are mindless Sheeple who will vote for anyone with an R next to his or her name, regardless of ideology or qualifications.
Just who is the mysterious Republican "establishment"?
Just asking.
As the GOP struggles to find a viable (or at least reasonable) candidate to oppose Barack Obama, the odd twists and turns in the fortunes of the surviving combatants are often attributed to those anonymous rascals known only as the Republican “establishment.”
No one seems to know who or what the hell the term means.
Is it, for example, El Rushbo? Seems most unlikely since he himself occasionally chides the establishment for being the most potent weapon in Obama’s re-election arsenal.
Very well, then, maybe “it” is the Bush Family, consisting of two former presidents and a third who fancies his likeness on Mt. Rushmore?
Are the Bush boys willfully sponsoring discontent and mayhem among Republicans so as to leave open a spot for Jeb when the moment is just right later in 2012?
Just who the holy hell is the omnipotent establishment that is in control of everything, especially since it seems as though no one is controlling anything?
Matt Drudge? Michael Savage? Charles Krauthammer or Brit Hume?
Who has the power and respect (and money) to dictate whom will be the alternative to our Marxist president?
Could it be that voters ARE in fact the Establishment by virtue of participation in elections and polls?
That last notion seems utterly implausible, given the fact that Republican voters are mindless Sheeple who will vote for anyone with an R next to his or her name, regardless of ideology or qualifications.
Just who is the mysterious Republican "establishment"?
Just asking.
28.1.12
Great News! Court Disqualifies Candidate Because of Poor English Skills
By John W. Lillpop
In a very encouraging bit of news from Arizona, a woman was disqualified from running for office based on her poor English skills.
As reported, in part, at the reference:
Hooray for this common-sense judge! Perhaps Cabrera should move to Mexico and run for office in that failed , 3rd-world state?
This sort of ruling is desperately needed throughout America for occupations which attract foreigners who deal with the public and MUST be fluent in English.
After all this is America, despite the best efforts of Barack Obama and the democrat party.
A new standard should be applied:
Press 1 for English, or
Press 2 to begin deportation process!
In a very encouraging bit of news from Arizona, a woman was disqualified from running for office based on her poor English skills.
As reported, in part, at the reference:
PHOENIX (Reuters) - A woman barred from seeking elected office in an Arizona border town by a judge who ruled she did not have a sufficient grasp of English has decided to fight the controversial ruling, and filed an appeal on Friday, her lawyer said.
A Yuma County judge disqualified Alejandrina Cabrera, a U.S. citizen born in Yuma, from running for a seat on the city council in the town of San Luis this week for what he called a "large gap" between her English proficiency and that required to serve on the council.
"It was clear to the court that she was stymied by many questions, did not understand many questions, failed to comprehend what was being asked, and guessed at answers," the court ruling said.
The judge, in a move that sparked a debate over language in often bilingual U.S.-Mexican border communities, said Cabrera's English was not of the level needed to carry out the professional duties required of a representative of the public.
Hooray for this common-sense judge! Perhaps Cabrera should move to Mexico and run for office in that failed , 3rd-world state?
This sort of ruling is desperately needed throughout America for occupations which attract foreigners who deal with the public and MUST be fluent in English.
After all this is America, despite the best efforts of Barack Obama and the democrat party.
A new standard should be applied:
Press 1 for English, or
Press 2 to begin deportation process!
26.1.12
Nancy Pelosi Threatens Newt Gingrich: Another Goofy Meltdown?
By John W. Lillpop
Over the years, while a member of the U.S. House, Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) has acquired quite a legacy for saying and doing some truly foolish things
Among her most memorable faux pas moments are the following:
Catholic fathers have not concluded whether or not abortion is wrong.
Enforcement of America’s borders & immigration laws is “un-American.”
Those who oppose building a mosque at ground zero in New York should be investigated by Congress.
It was imperative to pass ObamaCare in a heated rush so that Congress could then determine what was exactly in the bill.
Sealing off the Mexican border to prevent illegal drugs from coming into America is far too expensive and ineffective. Better to spend taxpayer money on treatment programs for those Americans actually harmed by such illegal drugs.
Despite information to the contrary in all the polls, Democrats would retain majority control over the U.S. House as a result of the 2010 elections, and she would return as Speaker.
Pelosi’s latest mind warp caused her to stick her unwelcome, unneeded, and uninformed nose in the Republican nominating process by, in effect, issuing a threat against Newt Gingrich.
As reported at the reference, the Pelosi bombshell included the following exchange with John King of CNN:
Bring it on! I would prefer to have her threats than her endorsement!
And so it is in the battle for preeminence among former Speakers of the U.S. House!
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/24/pelosi-says-that-gingrich-will-not-be-president-in-2012/
Over the years, while a member of the U.S. House, Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) has acquired quite a legacy for saying and doing some truly foolish things
Among her most memorable faux pas moments are the following:
Catholic fathers have not concluded whether or not abortion is wrong.
Enforcement of America’s borders & immigration laws is “un-American.”
Those who oppose building a mosque at ground zero in New York should be investigated by Congress.
It was imperative to pass ObamaCare in a heated rush so that Congress could then determine what was exactly in the bill.
Sealing off the Mexican border to prevent illegal drugs from coming into America is far too expensive and ineffective. Better to spend taxpayer money on treatment programs for those Americans actually harmed by such illegal drugs.
Despite information to the contrary in all the polls, Democrats would retain majority control over the U.S. House as a result of the 2010 elections, and she would return as Speaker.
Pelosi’s latest mind warp caused her to stick her unwelcome, unneeded, and uninformed nose in the Republican nominating process by, in effect, issuing a threat against Newt Gingrich.
As reported at the reference, the Pelosi bombshell included the following exchange with John King of CNN:
John King, CNN: "You make your case there passionately for President Obama. But also understand that this is a tough reelection climate for any president, Democrat or Republican in this economy. Because of your history with Speaker Gingrich, what goes through your mind when you think of the possibility, which is more real today than it was a week or a month ago, that he would be the Republican nominee and that you could come back here next January or next February with a President Gingrich?"When asked about Pelosi’s threat, Gingrich had the perfect rejoinder:
Rep. Nancy Pelosi: "Let me just say this. That will never happen."
King: "Why?"
Pelosi: "He's not going to be President of the United States. That's not going to happen. Let me just make my prediction and stand by it, it isn't going to happen."
King: "Why are you so sure?"
Pelosi: "There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him that's their prerogative. I don't even think that's going to happen."
Bring it on! I would prefer to have her threats than her endorsement!
And so it is in the battle for preeminence among former Speakers of the U.S. House!
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/24/pelosi-says-that-gingrich-will-not-be-president-in-2012/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)