Skyrocketing Gas Prices: A Crisis Too Good to Waste?

Skyrocketing Gas Prices: A Crisis Too Good to Waste?

By John W. Lillpop


Most Americans see the devastating rise in gasoline prices as an ominous threat to their personal standard of living, prosperity, and basic ability to survive.

Unfortunately, President Barack Obama and most liberal Democrats do not share that concern.

Which is why Obama flippantly dismissed the crisis by warning we the people to, “Get used to it,” perhaps forgetting, or deliberately ignoring, the fact that skyrocketing gas prices are particularly crippling to low-income and poor people, many of whom are minorities, the very people that progressives claim to be championing.

Even more sinister is the fact that Obama and fellow progressives see carnage at the gas pump as a “Crisis too good to waste,” i.e., a golden opportunity to push anti-business, anti-energy independence policies down the throats of the American people.

We the people must never forget that Barack Obama is committed to getting Americans out of gasoline-powered automobiles in the name of advancing extremist environmental ideology.

For example, Steven Chu, Obama’s Energy Secretary was even quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying “We have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." At the time, gasoline in Europe was going for around $8 a gallon.



Remember, too, that Candidate Barack Obama revealed that he considered it acceptable for the federal governmental to deliberately bankrupt an industry for failing to meet environmental standards set in Washington, D.C.

He was specifically referring to coal, but the remarks aptly demonstrate this man’s utter contempt for private enterprise and free markets, Holy Grail items to freedom-loving Americans.

With that mindset, it should come as no great surprise that President Obama has completely ignored the supply side of the crisis, electing instead to attack oil companies with higher taxes, as reported in part at the reference:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says oil companies are profiting from rising pump prices and he wants Congress to end $4 billion in annual tax breaks for the oil and gas industry.

"These tax giveaways aren't right," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday. "They aren't smart. And we need to end them."

Drivers in 22 states are paying more than the national average of $3.91 per gallon. In Alaska, California and Connecticut, it's $4.20 or more.

The price jump has slowed economic growth and hurt Obama's public approval ratings.

Exxon Mobil Corp. this week reported nearly $11 billion in profits for the first quarter of this year. Competitors also had huge gains.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says he plans to consider Obama's proposal as early as this coming week.
The president said money recouped from ending the oil and gas tax subsidies should go to new energy resources and research. He said he refuses to cut spending on clean energy initiatives.

"An investment in clean energy today is an investment in a better tomorrow," he said. "And I think that's an investment worth making."

Obama's critics say ending the subsidies would mean tax increases that would end up costing jobs.

"The president may think he's punishing CEOs of big companies, but his plan will hurt the everyday consumer of energy and imperil the jobs of millions of hardworking people in American-based companies," Rep. James Lankford, a first-term congressman from Oklahoma, said in the Republicans' weekly address.

In his address, Obama said the economy was growing again and took note of nearly 2 million new private sector jobs in the last 13 months. But the president did not mention that the pace of the recovery slowed significantly in the first three months of this year.”

Once again, Barack Obama has declared all-out war on private enterprise, the very institution that creates jobs and prosperity.

The outrage is that the president wages his assault in the name of cutting the deficit and improving the economy.

Is Obama even aware of the fact that 70 percent of the American people believe America is headed in the wrong direction?

As with his failed one- trillion dollar stimulus fiasco, mortgage- relief mess, and unconstitutional take over of health care, President Obama refuses to admit two essential truths:

The gasoline crisis must be addressed by removing government barriers to supply, and the economic crisis is the result of excessive spending not on the need for higher taxes.

Most significantly, President Obama continues to ignore we the people, owners and proprietors of this marvelous wonder known as American democracy.

Thankfully, we the people have recourse which we can exercise at the ballot box in November, 2012.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110430/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama

Was W. Eligible to Serve as President?

Satire by John W. Lillpop

Listening to the likes of Bob Scheiffer, Chris Matthews, David Letterman, Whoppi Goldberg and other left-wing moon bats rant and rave about Donald Trump and his racism,one cannot help but wonder what the media would have been saying back in 2000 if President-elect George W. Bush' birth certificate popped up as an issue.

Think back for a moment: It is December 12, 2000 and the United States Supreme Court has just ruled 5-4 that Al Gore's hanging chads were unconstitutional, which meant that George W. Bush was the 43rd president of these great United States.

Next, a breaking news headline from CNN's answer to Fox, the irrepressible and flamboyant Wolf Blitzer!

"CNN has it on good authority that newly elected President George W. Bush was actually born in Guadeloupe, Mexico in July of 1946 and is therefore NOT an American citizen.

"Repeating: President George W. Bush was apparently born in a village in Mexico and, according to our sources, is not eligible to serve as president of the United States!"

How might that bit of news go down at MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and the New York Times?

Would they dismiss it as "rubbish" and idle chatter from a bitter loser? Or would they invade Mexico in great numbers, thus partially canceling the impact of illegal aliens in America?

Would the New York Times run a 100-page expose, complete with color photos and sworn affidavits titled, "Why George W. Bush Talks That Way: He Is Not American!"

60 Minutes with Mike Wallace, a perky 93 back then, would use enhanced interrogation techniques to quiz GOP operatives on the science of forged birth certificates and would conclude: "Folks, this Bush will not hunt!"

On and on, a crescendo of outrage would flood the air waves as leftists would demand that W. release his official birth certificate, which was still being held by the Texas highway patrol as collateral for an unpaid DUI dating back 40 years.

Bush-gate would finally be resolved to the satisfaction of the Bush family, and only the Bush family, when the Mexican government would issue an official, "Declaration of Non-Birth, reading, in Spanish: 'We ain't never heard of no Dubya. He were not born in Mexico--we don't need no stinkin' Bush!"

Thus would end the kerfuffel and President George W. Bush would go on to be a Mexican mole serving in the White House at the behest of the Mexican government and illegal aliens for two terms.

W. would be best remembered as the greatest proponent of amnesty to have ever stolen the US Presidency!

Why Not Tax “Windfall Pension” Profits?

By John W. Lillpop


In their ongoing effort to divide America by class and race, Barack Obama and the “progressive” loonies on the left are once again alleging an injustice which causes the rich to be under taxed.

Under taxed? Talk about an oxymoron! There is no such thing, except in the foggy mind of a card-carrying commie.

According to Marxists, all of America’s financial and economic woes could be healing by simply raising the taxes of those who already pay the vast majority of taxes flowing into U.S. coffers. A favorite ploy of liberals is to label unearned riches as “windfall,” which translated means going to the wrong people, in the minds of ding bats on the left.

It just so happens that unearned wealth always accrues to business people and those on the right.

Or does it?

What about the public service employee who retires with a pension that pays him/her 100 percent or more of his/her base salary? For not working?

Just what has that public service employee done to deserve such a rich pay out from the taxpayers’ till? Besides belonging to a mobster-like labor union, corrupt to the bone and more greedy than most oil company executives?

The answer, of course, is nothing. Those exorbitant pensions have no merit in practice and are directly responsible for driving municipalities and even states into insolvency.

So, Mr. President and Democrats in general, when looking for windfall profits to tax so as to mask your reckless spending, take a good, hard look at retired public service employees who are not paying their “fair share” in taxes.

Or are higher taxes for union members completely off the table from a progressive perspective?


Perhaps even a tad "extremist"?

Unions Stripped of Bargaining Rights in (Gasp!) Massachusetts, By (Gasp!) Democrats!

Unions Stripped of Bargaining Rights in (Gasp!) Massachusetts, By (Gasp!)Democrats!

By John W. Lillpop


Are Democrats finally admitting that labor union demands are bankrupting American cities and states from coast to coast?

That happy turn of events certainly appears to be the case in the very liberal state of Massachusetts, at least in the lower house.

As reported at the reference, in part:

“House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.

The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states. But unlike those efforts, the push in Massachusetts was led by Democrats who have traditionally stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workers’ rights.

Unions fought hard to stop the bill, launching a radio ad that assailed the plan and warning legislators that if they voted for the measure, they could lose their union backing in the next election. After the vote, labor leaders accused House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and other Democrats of turning their backs on public employees.

“It’s pretty stunning,’’ said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. “These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that they’re with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions. . . . It’s a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.’’

The devastation caused by greedy, corrupt labor unions has been covered up for far too long by the media. Time to let truth will out!


http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/04/27/house_votes_to_limit_bargaining_on_health_care/

“Birther” Issue Exposes Barack Obama’s Immature Arrogance

“Birther” Issue Exposes Obama’s Immature Arrogance

By John W. Lillpop

The manner by which Barack Obama ultimately handled the “birther” issue provides a major insight into the president’s judgment and arrogance.

Those who believe that the birther issue is a newly minted fairy tale created by Tea Party extremists, the fact is that the entire issue of Barack Obama's eligibility was first brought to the fore by lawyers acting on behalf of Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008.

Specifically, Phil J. Berg, hardly a member of any vast right wing conspiracy, was an ardent supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and her candidacy for the presidency.

Notwithstanding his liberal pedigree, Phil J. Berg was hot on the trail of one Barack Obama, because Berg wished to protect the American people from electing a non-citizen to the most powerful office in the world.

In August 2008, before Obama was officially nominated by the Democrat party, Mr. Berg filed a legal challenge to Obama's constitutional eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

On October 23, Mr. Berg filed a Motion to Expedite Resolution of Berg V. Obama,summarized directly below:

" This motion argues that the facts have been established that Barack Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be elected or serve as President of the United States, and that the Court should issue a summary judgment as follows:

 That Barack Hussein Obama a/k/a Barry Hussein Obama a/k/a Barack Dunham a/k/a Barry Dunham a/k/a Barack Soetoro a/k/a Barry Soetoro is not a “natural born” or “naturalized” United States citizen.

 That he is ineligible to run for and/or serve as President of the United States.

 That the Democratic National Committee be enjoined from naming Barack Hussein Obama, et al as the Democratic Presidential Candidate on the ballot.

 That the Democratic National Committee and Barack Hussein Obama, et al are enjoined from any further campaigning on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama, et al for Office of the Presidency.

 That Barack Hussein Obama’s, et al name be removed from any and all ballots for the Office of the President of the United States."

Again, this from a Hillary Clinton operative!

As he has done until today. Barack Obama arrogantly ignored the Clinton offensive in 2008. Indeed, Obama allowed the controversy to rage on for three years before addressing the matter seriously.

That dithering speaks volumes about Obama’s lack of judgment and problem-solving ability. The big question: Should a man who has so little regard for valid constitutional issues be entrusted with the power of the Presidency?

Trump Barks, Obama Rolls Over!

Trump Barks, Obama Rolls Over!


By John W. Lillpop


In America’s great hour of challenge, our beloved nation desperately needs a president who is bold, transparent, decisive, and unafraid to lead. The thorny issues of the day demand that such a man, or woman, step forward to rescue We the People from the quagmire of economic, political, social and moray decay that has plagued America since 2009.

To coin a phrase, America needs a “Carnival Barker,” and in Donald Trump we may have found one.

Think about it: After nearly three years of dilly-dallying on Obama’s eligibility, the White House has finally decided to end the circus by releasing the president’s birth certificate, a gesture so simple and full of common sense that one wonders why it took so long for Obama to see the light?

Assuming the released document is the “real deal” and not some photo-shop phony, Donald Trump has demonstrated that he, and he alone, has the grit, determination, prestige, and intelligence to lead where the weak dare not go!

Rather than being distracted by Obama’s charisma and the attendant “thrill,” Trump focused on doing what is best for America, regardless of hurt feelings and critics.

In so doing, Trump filled a role that used to be the purview of an independent, objective media, before the great sell out of 2008.

Again, bravo to Donald Trump. He barked and Barack Obama rolled over!

Practical Ideas for Solving America’s Gas Crisis

Satire by John W. Lillpop


Americans waiting on Congressional Democrats and Barack Obama to address the gasoline crisis with practical ideas would be better off investing in walking shoes, bicycles, skateboards, and other means for moving about without reliance on combustion engines.

This is not an accident! Remember, Barack Obama is the Dithering Pied Piper of the Unworkable Alternative Energy cult and his mission is to lead the American people over the cliff into third-world purgatory for eternity. A Mexico without cars, if you will.

Thus far, this is the only item on the Obama agenda which is succeeding, mostly due to out-of-touch Twinkies like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and more than 60 other Marxists in Congress, knot heads involuntarily retired by the people last November.

Time to fact facts, patriots. If America is to survive as a world power and economic leader, innovative ideas will have to gleaned from conservative thinkers and rammed down the throats of so-called progressives.

There are a number of intriguing solutions which, if the political cajoles are there, can lead America back to the promised land of $2.20 a gallon gasoline, freeways clogged with Hummers and gas-hungry SUVs, and permanent expunging of “electric car” from the patriot dictionary.

A partial list of practical solutions follows:



BLOOD FOR OIL:

History will surely confirm that former President G.W. Bush was no brighter than a low-grade ball of wind-blown Texas tumbleweed. Still, even W. understood that skyrocketing gas prices could do more damage to one’s poll numbers than any other issue, including ground troops in harm’s way to fight a completely unjustified and unnecessary war 10,000 miles from home.

It was this political insight that caused W. to invade Iraq in 2003.


President Obama would do well to follow W’s lead by re-invading Baghdad until the price at the pump drops to pre-Obama levels.

As W. learned, Blood for Oil is immoral, indecent, despicable, and loathsome—but it damn well works!

Furthermore, remember that W. was elected to a second term after invading Iraq!


RATIONING:

After more than two years of the Obama presidency, large numbers of Americans now realize that the “American Dream” is on a par with Santa Claus and the tooth fairy in terms of believability.

Simply put, the people finally understand that owning a three-bedroom, 2.5 bath ranch style home with detached garage is not within reach of millions of average Americans.

The same holds true for those shiny new SUVs of the sort that grace the Obama presidential fleet.

All of which means that our nation must devise a means for doling out gasoline, our most valuable commodity.

Rationing in a fair and equitable manner is far too time-consuming and tedious. Much better to dole out the unleaded booty based on an income “means test” that rewards those who contribute to society rather than take, take, take.

For example, poor people simply do not need nor deserve as much petroleum as the upper and working classes. Other than short trips to welfare and food stamp centers or local liquor stores, poor people have no earthly reason for clogging the freeways and roadways while wasting precious gasoline.

A practical approach would be to borrow the concept of “Red Lining” from the mortgage industry which at one time refused to lend in certain communities based on vital statistics. Note, please, that leftist moon bats ended the practice of Red Lining and, in doing so, produced the Obama economic depression that still haunts our nation.

A modified version of petroleum red lining could be quickly implemented by prohibiting the delivery of gasoline to designated zip codes.

After all, if Obama can solve the health care crisis by rationing, why not do something similar for gasoline?

DRILL BABY, DRILL, DRILL!

As gasoline approaches $5.00 a gallon in the middle of a recession, it is encouraging to note that Barack Obama is finally considering drilling as a means for leveling the demand-supply equation.

Drill baby, drill, drill! seems to be more acceptable to the man who positively hates automobiles—except for his fleet of SUVs, that is.

While Obama deserves kudos for being open-minded about new oil exploration, his change of heart would be far more impressive if he had seen the light about drilling in Alaska and other American sites!

Sorry, Barack, but drilling in Brazil just does not pass the smell test for U.S. energy independence!

There you have it. Several practical, down-to-earth ideas that could free America from the gasoline quagmire created and nurtured by the Democrat Party and Barack Obama.

America must solve the problem of Obama in the White House and Democrats in Congress in order to have any hope for energy independence.

Oops! This Breaking News headline just in from polling experts: For every 20 cent increase in the price of a gallon of gasoline, Barack Obama’s approval rating drops two points.

Let’s not be too hasty, patriots. Perhaps we can just “Get used to it” ($5 a gallon gas) in order to bring about urgently –needed Regime Change in Washington, D.C. next year?

Do “Friday Prayers” Promote Death?

By John W. Lillpop

With all due respect to the billions of faithful Muslims who practice the “Religion of Peace,” a predictable relationship between violence and the hallowed Friday Prayers seems to be emerging, to such an extent that it can no longer be dismissed as sheer coincidence.

Specifically, throughout Muslim nations in the middle east and North Africa, Friday Prayers have been followed by explosive riots and loss of life, with tyrannical regimes even firing on their own citizenry as punishment for expressing dissent and demanding democratic reforms.

The latest bloody massacre took place in Syria where more than 100 protestors were allegedly slain for resisting the brutal rule of President Bashar al-Assad, whose forces used live ammunition and tear gas against demonstrators nationwide, according to witnesses and activists.

As reported, in part, at the reference:

At least 11 mourners were shot dead on Saturday as Syrians swarmed the streets to bury scores of demonstrators killed in massive protests and two MPs resigned in frustration at the bloodshed.

Activists said the death toll from Friday's nationwide protests could top 100, pending confirmation of a list of names, and expected fresh protests to form after the funerals.

Two independent MPs from the protest hub city of Daraa, Nasser al-Hariri and Khalil al-Rifai, on Saturday told Al-Jazeera television they were quitting parliament in frustration at not being able to protect their constituents.

Friday's deaths signaled no let-up from President Bashar al-Assad, whose forces used live ammunition and tear gas against demonstrators nationwide, witnesses and activists told AFP.

The bloodshed erupted as tens of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets for "Good Friday" protests to test long sought-after freedoms a day after Assad scrapped decades of draconian emergency rule.

The Syrian Revolution 2011, a driving force behind the protests, marked the tone on Saturday by posting on its main Facebook page a black banner with the word "Mourning" in English and Arabic.

It came as tens of thousands of mourners packed buses and headed for the southern town of Ezreh for the funerals of 18 people killed the previous day, a rights activist said by telephone.”

The obvious question that those of us living in smug comfort here in the U.S. would like answered: What is it about attending Friday Prayers in a Mosque that brings about massive discontent and death?

And more importantly, should Friday Prayers be banned in the interest of domestic tranquility and peace?

And finally, just where in the hell is America's "Humanitarian-in- Chief" as the streets of Damascus are awash in a tsunami of innocent blood?


Reference: http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/11-mourners-shot-dead-as-syrians-bury-their-dead-20110423-1drz3.html

Hope and Change Downgraded to “Get Used to It”?

By John W. Lillpop

Just three short years ago, Barack Obama captured the White House with a slick smile, a distracted media, $750 million dollars, and a “Hope and Change” mantra that froze millions into believing that anything was possible.

We can do it!, YES, we can! and other meaningless slogans inspired millions to vote blindly for an unknown entity at a time when the nation and the world needed real leadership and intelligence.

Instead of well-reasoned plans for dealing with an economy in meltdown and other cataclysmic catastrophes, Candidate Obama snookered millions with double-talk and hollow promises which he could not possibly keep. The fact that an African-American had emerged from the streets of Chicago with no known criminal record and, more importantly, no Negro dialect was all that millions needed to hear in order to make up their unsteady minds.

The fact that Harry Reid and Joe Biden were among the snookered says a lot about the current state of affairs in American politics, and even more about the dismal state of doings in the once proud Democrat Party.

Expecting mainstream liberal media to do anything but heap unwarranted praise on a black leftist running for the presidency was par for the course. Naively, some expected the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate to be more probing; all were bitterly disappointed.

Back in the day when the name Obama caused thrills to run up and down the legs of Democrat operatives posing as objective journalists, there was a universal, yet myopic, view that one’s mortgage and car payments would be beaten into submission by the newly arrived Messiah from Illinois, Hawaii, Kenya, or wherever the hell he was from.

As the story went, elect Obama and the greedy banks and other purveyors of high crime would be kicked to the ground in favor of lending a hand to the “little people” of the world; i.e., those voiceless, powerless, and as we now know, mindless minions, who generally loathe work and pay no taxes.

Alas, the old slogan, “If it seems too good to be true, it probably is!” has particular relevance to the performance of Barack Obama.

This insight became very clear when Obama faced anxious questions about the ever-escalating price of gasoline, a commodity used to excess by both the wealthy and not-so-wealthy.

After acknowledging the financial pain that gasoline headed toward $5 a gallon would inflict on the poor, Obama sort of retreated from his uplifting rhetoric concerning “Hope and Change.”

Indeed, the words of wisdom from the Messiah concerning outrageous gasoline prices was “Get used to it.”

Get used to it? But what about the little people, small business folk, and the ever-elusive recovery?

When it comes to gasoline prices, the new slogan apparently is “Get used to it.”

So much for Hope and Change!

Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan: Stupidity on Drugs!

By John W. Lillpop


U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) has wisely proposed that Mexico’s drug cartels be designated “terrorist organizations.”

McCaul’s proposal makes a good deal of sense given the complete lack of respect for human life and viscous violence employed by cartel thugs. Cartel beheadings and other terrorist tactics bear uncanny resemblance to Al-Quaeda and Osama bin Laden.


Recently, The Dallas Morning News published an editorial entitled “Let’s call Mexico’s drug cartels what they are: terrorists.” The editorial made a solid argument for supporting McCaul’s idea.

That editorial apparently did not set too well with the Mexican ambassador to the U.S., a dim-witted chap by the name of Arturo Sarukhan.

With righteous indignation flowing through his nostrils, Sarukhan fired off a missive to the newspaper protesting the use of the term “terrorist” with respect to Mexican drug cartel bosses who, in his worthless opinion, are simply good, hearted, hard-working business folks gone amuck.

In what can only be described as a historic and hysterical case of simple-minded blathering, the beleaguered ambassador wasted 182 words to remove all doubt as to his lack of intelligence and the extent to which his sick, deprived mind has decayed.

The ambassador wrote, and the newspaper published, the following trite:

“The editorial should be better headed "Let's Call Mexico's cartels what they are: very violent, well-financed transnational criminal organizations."

“These transnational criminal organizations, which operate in both our countries, are not terrorist organizations. They are very violent criminal groups that are well-structured and well-financed. They pursue a single goal. They want to maximize their profits and do what most business do: hostile takeovers and pursue mergers and acquisitions. They use violence to protect their business from other competitors as well as from our two governments' efforts to roll them back.

There is no political motivation or agenda whatsoever beyond their attempt to defend their illegal business.”

Misunderstanding the challenge we face leads to wrong policies and bad policy making. If you label these organizations as terrorist, you will have to start calling drug consumers in the U.S. "financiers of terrorist organizations" and gun dealers "providers of material support to terrorists." Otherwise, you really sound as if you want to have your cake and eat it too. That's why I would underscore that the editorial page should be careful what it advocates for.”

Arturo Sarukhan, Ambassador of Mexico to the U.S., Washington, D.C

-------------------------------------------------------


Sarukhan’s concern for “wrong policies and bad policy making,” is understandable, given the fact that President Calderon and his Mexican government is losing the war to the drug cartels, after five long years of brutal fighting.

Scores of thousands of Mexican citizens have been butchered like swine by the “business” folk who specialize in drugs and murder, while Mexico has declined even further into the abyss of a third-world, failed state.

Perhaps its time to reboot YOUR vocabulary, Mr. Ambassador, and recognize the cartel bosses for the heathen terrorists that they are?

Call them terrorists and treat them as such and the direction of the war might change course!

Pity that Sarukhan cannot rely on his brethren and sisters in America for better definitions. Unfortunately, our addled president refuses to use the term terrorism when describing the cut-throat Muslim gang from Saudi Arabia, those middle-eastern males that killed 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001.

And President Obama is joined in words of abuse and denial by Janet Napolitano who refuses to call invading criminals from Mexico illegal aliens, opting instead to mislabel said miscreants “Newly arrived refugees.”

How about a compromise? Let’s call drug cartel bosses “undocumented murderous thugs with terrorist proclivities?”

Barack Obama’s Historic Plan to Reduce the Deficit

Satire by John W. Lillpop


President Obama has finally responded to the fiscal crisis confronting America by offering concrete, verifiable actions to cut costs and stem the growth of big government. In the words of the White House team, the president has “bitten the bullet” in proposing actions which will put America’s financial house in order and preserve our cherished heritage and tradition for generations to follow.

Overall, Obama’s plans will cut more than $5 trillion dollars from the deficit while reinforcing this nation’s commitments to peace and equal rights for all.

The president’s blueprint for a deficit-neutral federal government includes the following big-ticket items:


1. Do not invade or otherwise engage Iran or North Korea in war

2. Eliminate expenses related to Defense of Marriage Act

3. Do not secure border with Mexico or enforce immigration laws to remove illegal aliens

4. Hire 16,000 lower-level IRS agents to enforce ObamaCare

5. End the Bush war in Iraq (Do not ask about Afghanistan or Libya!)

According to White House insiders, these steps alone will account for over three trillion dollars in savings over the next twelve years.

The remaining two trillion dollars will be achieved by a well- structured plan to redistribute wealth from under taxed millionaires and billionaires millions to poor people of color who neither work nor pay taxes, but all of whom require housing, education, food, health care, pensions and other government entitlements.

One footnote to the President’s plan is noteworthy: It reads: This manifesto is subject to the election of progressives to the White House and Congress over the next two decades. Null and void if any conservative wrongfully elected to the presidency.

For this wisdom and purity of thought, America owes a deep debt of gratitude to President Obama for his historic abandonment of partisan ideology in favor of doing what is best for all Americans!

Why Not Furlough (Permanently) Non-Essential Government Leeches?

By John W. Lillpop


As President Obama and other Marxists in government despair Republican “extremist” plans to actually cut spending, one wonders why in the world no one is shouting out to cut the hundreds of thousands (or millions) of leeches on the government payroll?

That would be those “non-essential” employees who would have been sent home if the government had shut down.

Just why in Hades is ANY non-essential employee on the payroll?

By the way Senator Schumer, a money-grubbing leech is far more destructive than a Tea Party flea!

Obama’s “Vision” for America

By John W. Lillpop


President Obama is scheduled to deliver a major speech this day to address his “Vision” for bringing the federal deficit under control.

That is like asking Islamofascists afflicted with Jihad to forsake beheadings in order to get along better with infidels, especially Jews.

In other words, it ain’t gonna happen!

All of which underscores the fact that Barack Obama has learned exactly NOTHING from the last election cycle. In his arrogant, belligerent way of thinking, millions of perfectly intelligent independent voters suddenly went dumb last November.

Thus, Obama will propose to quell the deficit tsunami with the old-fashioned progressive formula of higher taxes. Spending cuts, if any, will be limited to defense and other “non-essential” budget items.

Obama’s vision for America? Think Ireland, Greece, and other bankrupt European nations.

Here is a thought: The president presumably had a list of “non-essential” government workers ready to furlough if the government shut down.

Why not fire ALL non-essential employees immediately?

With a 14 trillion dollar deficit, that makes more sense that raising taxes!

Why Waste Taxpayer Treasure to Stop Muslims from Killing Muslims?

By John W. Lillpop


In the name of all that is good and holy, why in the hell is our dim-witted president wasting billions of taxpayer dollars in order to prevent seventh-century savages in Libya from slaughtering each other?

I speak of the 162+ Tomahawk Missiles, at $1.5 million per. fired into Libya in order to stop wild-man Ghadaffhi from butchering rebels who have revolted against his 42-year reign of terror.

Why not save those Missiles for a later date and for a cause which has even a vague national interest for America?

After all, the Libyan “rebels” are nothing but a gathering of hooligans and Al-Quaeda want-to-be thugs. Does Obama really believe that these miscreants are freedom-loving heroes lusting for democracy, equal rights, and all of that?

Come on, Barack, the “rebels” hate democracy as much as Ghadaffhi himself, owing their full allegiance to Islam, that “Religion of Peace” farce.

Since when did Islam represent equal rights for women, gays, and other minorities? Since when did Islam respect human life and the right of dissent?

Save those Missiles, Mr. President, for the day, sure to come, when they will be needed to silence Islamofascists in nations where legitimate American interests will need defending.

Obama's "Humanitarian" War to Cause Major Earthquake in America?

By John W. Lillpop

Although President Obama and his loyalists proudly point to the thousands of lives saved in Libya by firing more than 180 cruise missiles into the distressed land, there are those who believe that Obama’s illegal and unconstitutional war will ultimately bring great pain and suffering to America.

Foremost among those warning of dire circumstances in retribution for Obama’s missile mania is Minister Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam.

As reported at the reference, Farrakhan said, in part:

“Destruction could be on America's doorstep because it oppresses “God's chosen people,” said Louis Farrakhan who defended Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi today, calling the U.S. action in Libya hypocrisy.


“A major earthquake is on the way to you and me and us,” he said. “Death and destruction is at the door of all of us, and we are worse prepared than the Japanese.”

Farrakhan cautioned Obama that he was being used as a pawn to oppress his own people in Africa. He insisted several times that Jews controlled the media and pressured Obama to take so-called humanitarian action in Libya, but not in other places such as the Gaza Strip.

“The stupid mistake we make is assuming the president is the supreme power,” Farrakhan said. “The mad dogs are growling and grinding in Washington, D.C.,” referring to one of Gadhafi's nicknames, “Mad Dog of the Middle East.”

Thank you, Minister Farrakhan, for that positive, upbeat take on the news. Sir.

However, one point needs clarification: Did you not declare that Obama was “selected before he was elected,” implying that a divine hand was present in guiding America’s president?

If so, how is it that Obama is being used as a “pawn” against his own African people?


http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/news/local/chibrknews-farrakhan-defends-libyas-gadhafi-as-20110331,0,11191.story