Whither the Vaunted Obama “Recovery”?

By John W. Lillpop

With just over five months to go before the 2012 presidential elections, Barack Obama’s “Recovery” seems to have gone missing.

The reports below chronicle a drop in consumer confidence, home prices at new lows, and the collapse of one of the largest law firms in America, all ominous signs for a president struggling to convince voters that “America is back!” and that his tenure should be extended another four years.

The reports:

Consumer Confidence Goes South: Reference 1

NEW YORK (AP) — Americans' confidence in the economy in May had its biggest drop in eight months as consumers fretted about slow hiring, a big stock market drop and the global economy, says a private research group.

The Conference Board says its Consumer Confidence Index now stands at 64.9, down from a revised 68.7 in April. It was the biggest drop since October 2011.

Economists were expecting a reading of 70, according to a FactSet poll of analysts. The current level is below February's 71.6, which is the highest level it's been in a year.

Consumer confidence is widely watched because consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of economic activity. The measure is significantly below the 90 reading that indicates a healthy economy. But the current level is well above the 40 it hit last October.

Home Prices at New Lows: Reference 2

Home prices fell in the first quarter to new post-crisis lows, but prices were up in March from February for the first time in seven months.

The increase is the latest evidence of a slow recovery taking shape in the troubled housing market.

The Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller home price index showed that prices increased in 12 of the 20 cities it tracks.

Still, the major indexes ended the first quarter at new post-crisis lows, the report said. For the first quarter, prices were down 2 percent, compared to a 3.9 percent decline in the last three months of 2011.

Prices increased in Tampa and Miami — two of the hardest hit markets.

Las Vegas — the nation's worst market — saw no change in prices. Prices dropped sharply in Detroit, Chicago and Atlanta.

The increases partly reflect the beginning of the spring selling season. The month-to-month prices aren't adjusted for seasonal factors.

The overall index of 20 cities was essentially unchanged in March, after falling 0.8 percent in February.

Major Law Firm Files for  Bankruptcy: Reference 3

(Reuters) - The crippled law firm Dewey & Leboeuf LLP filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Monday night and will seek approval to liquidate its business after failing to find a merger partner, marking the biggest collapse of a law firm in U.S. history.

Once one of the largest law firms in the U.S., Dewey has been hit by the loss of the vast majority of its roughly 300 partners to other firms amid concerns about compensation and a heavy debt load.

"Dewey's failure is rocking the industry in the sense that most firms are saying to themselves, if Dewey could go down, could we?" Kent Zimmermann, a legal consultant at the Zeughauser Group, said in an email Monday night.

Dewey said in a filing it had decided to wind down its business following unsuccessful negotiations with other law firms to strike a deal. It said it would ask about 90 employees to remain on staff to assist in the liquidation, which it expects to be completed in the next few months.

Negative economic conditions, along with the firm's partnership compensation arrangements, created a situation where its cash flow was insufficient to cover capital expenses and full compensation expectations, Dewey said.

The firm's collapse is expected to be the subject of years of court proceedings, and a number of former partners have already retained lawyers to represent them.

Monday's filing follows months of turbulence, as wave after wave of partner defections shattered the high-profile firm from within. In April, the Manhattan District Attorney's office launched a criminal probe of former firm chairman Steven Davis. He has denied any wrongdoing.

The result of a 2007 merger between Dewey Ballantine and LeBoeuf, Lamb, Green & MacRae, Dewey & LeBoeuf had about 1,450 attorneys at its peak, according to The National Law Journal.

The BIG Question: Just where the hell is the Obama “Recovery”??

And: Is Mitt Romney ready to take over in January?


Ref 1 http://news.yahoo.com/consumer-confidence-plunges-may-140420807--finance.html

Ref 2 http://www.cnbc.com/id/47597053
Ref 3 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/29/us-deweyandlebouef-bankruptcy-idUSBRE84S01R20120529


108 Slaughtered in Syria: Kofi Annan Commits to “Serious and Frank Discussions"!

By John W. Lillpop

Syrian rebels fighting the evil Bashar Assad regime have again been bitterly disappointed by the utter lack of competent support and leadership from UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan.

As reported at the reference, the latest slaughter in Syria cost more than 100 innocent lives:

BEIRUT—A weekend massacre of more than 100 people emerged as a potential turning point in the Syrian crisis Monday, galvanizing even staunch ally Russia to take an unusually hard line against President Bashar Assad's government.

UN-Arab League Joint Special Envoy for Syria (JSE) Kofi Annan arrived in Damascus on Monday for talks with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. They said pro-government gunmen later stormed the area, doing the bulk of the killing by gunning down men in the streets and stabbing women and children in their homes.

The Syrian government rejected that account entirely, saying soldiers were attacked in their bases and fought back in self-defense without leaving their bases.

Russia blamed both the government and the rebels for the Houla massacre.”

Meanwhile, Kofi Annan displayed his fierce temper and commitment to action with these words:

"I intend to have serious and frank discussions with President Bashar al-Assad," Annan said. "Our goal is to stop this suffering."

Serious and frank discussions, Mr. Annan? Isn’t that a bit extreme for a weasel-bureaucrat such as you?

By the way, what is the latest from Barack Hussein Obama? Leading from behind again?



Honoring, or Mocking, Those Whom Died for Our Freedoms and Democratic Ideals?

By John W. Lillpop

Notwithstanding the fact that contemporary celebrations of Memorial Day have more to do with three-day weekends,back yard barbecues, reckless episodes of alcohol abuse, and other frivolities, the original purpose was to set aside a national spiritual holiday to remember and honor the brave American men and women whom sacrificed their very lives in the service of this blessed nation.

Indeed, in the beginning, it was conceived as a day to memorialize and prayerfully thank those dead American men and women whom made the ultimate sacrifice to defend and preserve the liberties and precious freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

No one can deny that horse shoes, watermelon, and fried chicken add spice to the celebratory spirit of Memorial Day.

However, in much the same manner as Christmas is not really about glittery trees, blinking lights, and mistletoe, so it is that the genesis of Memorial Day is really about things spiritual, rather than slothful excuses to overeat, over drink, and otherwise engage in intemperate behavior,

Memorial Day History*

Memorial Day was officially proclaimed on 5 May 1868 by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, in his , and was first observed on 30 May 1868, when flowers were placed on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery.

The first state to officially recognize the holiday was New York in 1873. By 1890 it was recognized by all of the northern states. The South refused to acknowledge the day, honoring their dead on separate days until after World War I (when the holiday changed from honoring just those who died fighting in the Civil War to honoring Americans who died fighting in any war).

It is now celebrated in almost every State on the last Monday in May (passed by Congress with the National Holiday Act of 1971 (P.L. 90 - 363) to ensure a three day weekend for Federal holidays), though several southern states have an additional separate day for honoring the Confederate war dead.

Traditional observance of Memorial day has diminished over the years. Many Americans nowadays have forgotten the meaning and traditions of Memorial Day. At many cemeteries, the graves of the fallen are increasingly ignored, neglected. Most people no longer remember the proper flag etiquette for the day. While there are towns and cities that still hold Memorial Day parades, many have not held a parade in decades. Some people think the day is for honoring any and all dead, and not just those fallen in service to our country.

Did Our Brothers and Sisters Die in Vain?

One cannot help but wonder whether the price paid by American men and women in years past are justified given the fact that America is currently run by politicians who simply do not respect traditional American values, traditions, or law.

Some questions to ponder:
1. Our government is run by an administration that ignores Constitutionally-protected freedom of religion by demanding that services which violate the religious beliefs of certain groups be provided by those groups, contrary to Amendment 1 of the US Constitution.

How many American lives were sacrificed so that our renegade government could ignore basic religious freedoms to 65 million Americans?

2. Our government is run by people who generally oppose the 2nd Amendment, and whom created and implemented a criminal program known as “Fast and Furious,” which caused dangerous weapons to be shipped from the US to drug terrorists in Mexico. Those weapons were used against innocent Americans and Mexicans, including the death of a US Border Patrol agent.

How many brave Americans fought and died so that our government could send weapons to foreign terrorists whom would use said weapons to kill an American law enforcement official in order to taint the 2nd Amendment?

3. In 2011, our President ordered a military attack on the foreign nation of Libya, and did so without Congressional approval, and in violation of the War Powers Act.
How many of those who fought and died for America did so knowing that their sacrifices would empower a defiant president to willfully ignore the provisions of the Constitution and the War Powers Act, thereby circumventing a vital separation of powers principle so vital to our Democracy?

4. The President of the United States, in concert with liberal allies in Congress, passed a law which requires Americans to purchase health insurance regardless of their personal choices. The law, opposed by a majority of Americans, also provides for punitive action by the IRS against those Americans who refuse to comply.

How many American lives were sacrificed so that our renegade government could force unwilling Americans to buy a product-service against their will and threaten to use a federal agency against Americans who do not comply?

5. The President of the United States is an unabashed socialist and outspoken critic of free enterprise and the profit motive, both of which favored by an overwhelming majority of Americans.

This president seeks to divide Americans on the basis of class and wealth, and further proposes to use government power to seize assets from the alleged “rich” and “redistribute” such wealth to people whose political views are more closely aligned with his own.

How many American lives were sacrificed so that our renegade president could wage class war fare and use government to steal wealth rightfully the property of some in order to enrich others?


Given the cynical, anti-American policies of the Obama Administration, those Americans whom have sacrificed their all for America are, regrettably, being mocked this Memorial Day.

The good news is that our Constitution, battered and abused as it is, is still viable.


We the people need to remember the American war dead on November 6 and vote to remove the current administration from power.

Do it in memory of the brave men and women who died for our freedoms and liberty!

* http://www.usmemorialday.org/backgrnd.html


Why Not Scott Walker (R-WI) for VEEP?

By John W. Lillpop

Assuming that current polling numbers hold up through June 5, the Republican Party may be blessed with a new, iconic conservative to help lead the party out of the Obama morass and into the sunshine of healthy capitalism come November.

His name is Scott Walker, current Governor of Wisconsin, who will stand before the people of his state on June 5 to tout a number of powerful economic reforms which have brought good economic news to Wisconsin.

Walker’s efforts have also produced plenty of hatred from Democrats, especially union members whom Walker has targeted for “fair share” reforms in these budget-weary times.

Democrats and union leaders have fought back hard against the successes of Walker with a Recall election that will decide his fate on June 5.

As of May 26, Walker is faring quite well in the polls as reported , in part, at Reference 1:

Despite a massive outpouring of support and cash from unions, a new Reason-Rupe poll indicates that things may not be going so well for Tom Barrett, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s recall rival.

According to the new survey, Gov. Walker, the much-maligned “enemy of unions” and “assaulter of working families,” leads his challenger by 50-42 among those likely to vote in the June 5 election. The same poll also shows former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney trailing President Barack Obama 46-36.

The survey asked 708 Wisconsin taxpayers a variety of questions pertaining to the recall election and the presidential election via cell phone and landlines.

What were some of the specific findings*?

 49 percent of all adults surveyed approve of President Obama’s performance while 45 percent disapprove.

 While President Obama leads Romney by 46-36, 6 percent chose libertarian Gary Johnson (which reduces the gap between the president and Romney to 45-41).

 72 percent favor new requirements on public sector workers to contribute more to their own pensions.

 71 percent favor government employees paying 12 percent of their own health care premiums (as opposed to the previous 6 percent).

The poll shows many in Wisconsin favor Gov. Walker’s reforms. In fact, the survey indicates some taxpayers don’t think Gov. Walker was wide-sweeping enough with his union reform legislation. Some voters think police and firefighters should have been included in the pension and healthcare adjustments.

“The public supports asking government workers to pick up more of the tab for their own retirement benefits, as 65 percent say public sector workers receive better pension and health care benefits than private sector workers,” Reason’s Emily Ekins writes.”

Meanwhile, presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney continues his search for a running mate whom can help send Barack Obama into early retirement.
Should Walker win his June 5 battle, who would argue against his name being tossed in the hat for consideration as VEEP?

Why not a Mitt Romney-Scott Walker ticket, and hopefully, new administration?


Priest Removed from Ministry for Sex Abuse Allegations Now Works at TSA!

Just What  Are You Looking for, Sir?

By John W. Lillpop

Never underestimate the sheer idiocy that the federal government is capable of when it comes to the simplest, most common sense issues.
For example, take the case of  Thomas Harkins who was a Catholic priest with the Diocese of Camden, New Jersey, until 2002, when he was removed owing to allegations of sex abuse.

As reported at reference 1, despite Harkins’ tainted background, the man found work at TSA, in a sensitive security post no less:

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – The CBS 3 I-Team has learned that a Catholic priest who was removed from the ministry over sex abuse allegations now holds a sensitive security post at Philadelphia International Airport.
The security checkpoint between Terminals D and E is a busy place where thousands of people – including lots of kids – pass through every day. But you might not believe who the I-Team observed working as a TSA supervisor at that checkpoint this week: Thomas Harkins.
Until 2002, Harkins was a Catholic priest working at churches across South Jersey. But the Diocese of Camden removed him from ministry because it found he sexually abused two young girls. Now, in a new lawsuit, a third woman is claiming she also is one of Harkins’ victims.

The I-Team asked Harkins about the suit as he was leaving his shift at the airport.

“I have nothing to say,” was Harkins’ reply.

The new lawsuit, filed in federal court against the Camden Diocese says quite a bit. It accuses Harkins of sexually abusing an 11-year-old girl 10 to 15 times in 1980 and 1981. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the alleged victim, claims the abuse occurred while Harkins was a priest at Saint Anthony of Padua parish in Hammonton, NJ, with one assault even occurring in Harkins’ bedroom at the rectory.

The I-Team asked Harkins if the traveling public should be worried.

“No, they shouldn’t be,” he said.

“The public should not be worried with you in a position like this despite your past?” reporter Ben Simmoneau asked.

“I have nothing to say,” Harkins repeated.

“They should know who they’re hiring,” said Karen Polesir, a Philadelphia spokeswoman with the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP). She believes Harkins’ TSA job is inappropriate.

The TSA says all its employees go through a criminal background check before they’re hired, but because these cases are so old, criminal charges were not filed. A spokesman says the Camden Diocese settled the first two lawsuits with Harkins’ accusers–it has not seen this suit just yet.”
There you go, travelers! A word of advice seems appropriate:

Next time an overly-eager TSA screener leers at your “junk,” remember this: That fellow or Philly with the creepy hands has probably seen it all in his or her sordid past. Consider it a high compliment that he or she is actually interested in your endowments!



As Days Grow Short, Which Priority Will Drive Obama: Security of Israel Or His Reelection?

By John W. Lillpop

As reported at the reference, talks between the six powers and Iran in Baghdad have concluded with more frustration than hope:

Over the past few weeks, there has been growing optimism in western capitals that Iran might be forced into a compromise over its nuclear program and avoid a war with Israel and the US.
However, after two days of anguished talks this week between Iran and world powers in Baghdad, such hopes were doused in a very cold dose of reality.

The lack of success in the Iraqi capital does not signal the end of the process. The talks between Iran and the international powers still have a few rounds left before the end of this year, when Israel and the US must decide on military action.

There was also the occasional indication in Baghdad that Iran is softening its approach to the US. On one occasion, Saeed Jalili, Iran’s chief negotiator, had a brief conversation with Wendy Sherman, the US chief diplomat at the talks. “That’s something he hasn’t been willing to do before,” said a diplomat. “You can call it a semi-brush-by.”

That said, western diplomats left Baghdad under no illusion about how difficult it will be to strike a deal with Iran this year.

Some experts say it would have been surprising if Iran had accepted the package in Baghdad. Acquiring airline parts is a minor concession compared with what Iran is seeking in this negotiation, such as the scaling back of punitive sanctions and securing international acceptance of its right to uranium enrichment.

Besides, Tehran has room for maneuver , particularly because the US is determined that talks must not break down before its presidential election.

Washington is desperate to stop Israel carrying out an attack before November – an event that would drag the US into war and also destabilize President Barack Obama’s chances of re-election. “As a result, Jalili could come to the talks retaining his maximalist bargaining position that Iran will give away nothing unless sanctions are reversed,” said a diplomat.

However, what is also clear is that the negotiations will get a great deal harder if there is no clear progress at the next meeting in Moscow on June 18. The meeting comes just before US and EU energy and banking sanctions take full effect on July 1, after which a breakthrough will be much more difficult.

At the same time, failure at Moscow will force Mr. Obama to ratchet up the rhetoric against the regime in order to counter Republican accusations that he is being strung along by Iranian prevarication.

And while negotiators await the outcome of the Moscow talks, contingency planning for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is intensifying in the US and Israel.”

Which is the greater priority: The security of Israel or the reelection of Barack Obama?


Is the “ Post-Obama” Era Nigh, Courtesy of the SCOTUS?

By John W. Lillpop

Chief Justice John Roberts and his right-thinking colleagues on the High Court may soon help deliver America from the tyranny of the “Obama Era” perhaps within the next 30 days or so.

Indeed, with decisions to be rendered on the Constitutionality of ObamaCare and Arizona’s SB 1070 in late June, by rejecting the former and upholding the latter,  the Court can set the stage for jettisoning Barack Obama and his Marxist goons out of power come November 6.

What a delightful 4th of July birthday gift it would be should the Court rule that the federal government does not have the right to force free people to purchase health insurance, or face punitive actions by the IRS for failing to do so.

The Happy 4th of July gift would be even more bountiful should the Court find that Arizona, a sovereign state, is perfectly justified in taking actions to protect its citizens from the social, economic, cultural, and political devastation which ensues when illegal aliens invade our home land in violation of our borders and laws.

The big question: Will actions taken by SCOTUS  begin the “Post-Obama” era in June?

More Disgusting Crock: Obama's "I Am Not a Big Spender" or Richard Nixon's, "I Am Not a Crook"?

Richard Nixon Would Be Proud of Obama!

By John W. Lillpop

Even if President Barack Obama is eligible by birth to serve as US President, his latest BS on the exploding federal deficit and spending exposes a palpable ignorance of the fundamental economic issues confronting this nation.

Combined with a world-class, ego-maniacal propensity to deny responsibility for his own failures, Obama’s shortfall of understanding render him totally ineligible for the job.

In fact, Obama could have been born on July 4th in the Rose Garden of the White House to American parents with impeccable credentials as US citizens, and he would still be ineligible, based on incompetence and flawed character.

Obama’s “I am not a big spender,” conjures up unpleasant recollections of Richard Nixon and his “I am not a crook” crock, issued just before he fled the White House in disgrace on an Air Force government helicopter back in August,1974.

At least Nixon had the good grace to get the hell out on his own volition, without the need for a gaudy Constitutional crisis and forced political perk walk.

Unfortunately, Obama’s ego is far more prominent and less amenable to distractions that surface as a result of inconvenient truths.

In other words, when it comes to veracity, even Richard Nixon was more believable than the pitiful, self-adoring community organizer now occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue .

In order to accept Obama’s incredible claim that the level of federal spending has actually declined as a result of his leadership, one needs a commitment to Democrat Party accounting gimmickry sufficient to allow one to arbitrarily re-create facts and figures just in order to support Obama’s outrageous “I am not a big spender” theme.

In other words, establish a positive premise for a campaign ad, manipulate the actual data to support the flawed premise, and then distribute the phony ad!

Obama’s ability to distort simple math for political gain is, unfortunately, an area in which he excels, as evidenced by his pathetic promise to add 30 million people to the ranks of the insured while reducing overall medical costs through adoption of Marxist healthcare, unpopularily known as ObamaCare.

Moreover, Obama’s self-serving BS attempts to ignore the larger, more critical point: Given the state of the economy and the overwhelming size of the federal deficit, responsible fiduciary leadership DEMANDS aggressive action to CUT! spending!

Simply limiting the increase in spending is not nearly enough—or has the president forgotten that the US credit rating was downgraded in 2011-- a calamity that befell the nation for the first time in history-- during his ill-begotten watch?

Simply stated, Obama has steadfastly refused to seriously address entitlements and deficit reduction.

Rather, this success-hating president has devoted enormous amounts of time and energies to raising the taxes of those who already pay the most taxes, so that he and his party can fund “re-distribution of wealth” Marxism and waste even more trillions of dollars on foolish liberal causes.

Still, Obama can take comfort in this fact:  Richard M. Nixon would be proud!


Obama’s Insensitive “War on Women” at University of Arkansas!

By John W. Lillpop

Women students in Arkansas unite!  You have been betrayed and sacrificed at the alter of political correctness by Attorney General Eric Holder, a foot soldier in the underreported Barack Obama War on Women.

As reported at the reference, the latest outrage steals one of the most precious rights guaranteed to women:

The inalienable Constitutional right to privacy and male-free bathroom experiences, unless specifically requested by a qualified female.

The report, in part:

On orders from Barack Obama’s Department of Justice, officials with the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith have given permission for a 38-year-old man to use the women’s restrooms on campus.

The report comes from Campus Reform.org, which explained that the individual also is seeking to have someone pay for a sex reassignment surgery to change from male to female.

Already living as a female, the individual, identified in the report as Jennifer Braly, started using women’s restrooms on campus, but quickly was the subject of complaints from women who saw him there.

The university had tried to make accommodations, designating gender-neutral restrooms in some buildings.

Not good enough, however.

Braly filed a complaint with the Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder, school officials reported. The DOJ contacted the school.

“[T]he office of civil rights basically made its expectations through the attorney and the decision was made to respond to that direction,” said Mark Horn, the vice president of university relations. “[T]he DOJ complaint caused revisiting of our thinking
“In the eyes of the law this individual [Braly] is entitled to use the bathroom that she identifies with,” Horn said.

The DOJ complaint was filed by Braly after the university told him to use any of the gender-neutral restrooms on campus.

“One problem to this is there are not unisex bathrooms in every building,” Braly wrote in an online essay about how other people should contribute to his surgery costs.

“Especially the two main buildings where most of my classes are, so I have to go to a completely different building to use the restroom.”

While the university offered to convert other restrooms to gender-neutral, Braly said that wasn’t satisfactory.

The Campus Reform report said while anatomy matters little to the DOJ, it still remains a concern for other students.

“‘I disagree with allowing a male to use the female restrooms,” Amanda Shook, a senior at UA, told Campus Reform. “Even if they are a transgendered person, they are still a man, and should have to use the men’s restroom.”

The DOJ and school both have declined to release the letter giving the school directions on the dispute, Campus Reform reported.

The DOJ told Campus Reform that the records “pertain to a currently active Civil Rights Division enforcement and access to the records should therefore be denied pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) since disclosure thereof could reasonably be expected to interfere with Civil Rights Division enforcement proceedings.”

While Braly did not respond to Campus Reform requests for comment, there is an extensive monologue by Braly on the fundraising website WePay.

That reflects that $75 has been contributed to the estimated $18,500 costs of the surgery.

Braly writes that his finances are depleted because when a second marriage ended, a custody battle “drained all my funds.”

Part of the reason for requesting donations for the surgery is because Braly’s income goes partly toward the monthly costs of hormone treatments as well as “required psychotherapy for transsexuals.”

Jennifer Braly may be a terrific fellow or gal, and is certainly all liberal in his/her thinking.

Whom else but a parasitical lefty would refuse the university offer to create a gender-neutral potty-room just to accommodate his needs, AND also expect others to pay the $18,500 medical bill for aligning his God-given plumbing to human whimsy?

This flagrant abuse of women is guaranteed to become a volatile election issue when voters realize that the Obama war machine has shoved women and their Constitutional rights under the bus just to pacify a cranky, uncooperative transgender nut ball who is male...at the moment!

In keeping with the “progressive way” of vacating common sense to assure PC, the university should be ordered to convert ALL men/women restrooms to gender-neutral potties, AND to forward $18,500 to Jennifer Braly ASAP to meet his urgent medical needs.

What about the need to protect women from the unwelcome presence of males?

We are told that the Obama position is “evolving” and should be completed sometime (unspecified) before or after the election, depending on the poll results and cash flow into the campaign.



Obama’s Relentless Wars on Faith, US Sovereignty, Private Enterprise, and Profits!

By John W. Lillpop

Just how in the hell is President Obama able to remain a viable candidate given the large swaths of the American electorate that he has alienated with anti-American rhetoric and outrageous policies which seek to replace free enterprise with Marxism?

Consider the enemies list that this man has created:

Jews (Israel)


Stay at home mothers

States which have passed laws to manage illegal immigration because President Obama refuses to enforce the law and recognize US sovereignty

Businesses the smallest to the largest entities

The Supreme Court

The US Military

Practitioners of private enterprise

Those with the audacity to make profits and succeed

Good grief, Obama is the quintessential anti-American on every front from business to profit, from borders to religious freedom!
Obama has no respect for American values, traditions, or history. In his myopic view, all that America stands for needs to be changed.

Obama’s latest assault on Mitt Romney and Bain capital even has Democrats joining in the fray to protest the “nauseating” Obama-speak.

Just how in the heck did  this fellow ascend to the office of the Presidency begin with?
How can anyone so vehemently opposed to profits, religious freedom, and stay at home mothers be elected to serve as the nation's chief executive officer?

How did we elect a man who made it his business, as one of his first official acts as president, to declare that “America is NOT a Christian nation” while apologizing for our great nation on Muslim soil?

Who in the hell authorized this naive, inexperienced Marxist renegade to trash170 million Americans who are Christians?

What would the Founding Fathers think of a president who refuses to enforce US borders and immigration laws and then actually sues sovereign states for taking action to protect their citizens from illegal aliens, a demographic that the president courts and panders to without shame?

How would the Founding Fathers regard Obama’s decision to fire 165 Tomahawk missiles into Libya without Congressional approval because, according to the president, “hostilities” were not involved?

How would the Founding Fathers feel about Obama’s refusal to honor the First Amendment religious rights of the Catholic Church with regard to mandates which violate the religious position of the church?

How would the Founders regard a president who, for 20 years, sat in the pews and listened to the rants of an alleged pastor who screamed, "God DAMN America" to his congregation?

How would the Founding Fathers feel about a president who opposes private enterprise and whose anti-business, anti-profit rhetoric is used to discourage exercise of the entrepreneurial spirit by the private sector?

Would the Founding Fathers agree that profit is an American evil?

Or, would they rightfully conclude that 21st Century American voters are barking mad by voting for a man whom is so out-of-touch with what it means to be an American?


How Much Stimulus Money Spent to Silence the Wrongs of Jeremiah Wright?

By John W. Lillpop

Mainstream media, still suffering debilitating effects from Obamamania, have never properly vetted Barack Obama’s past, never fully investigated his relationships with left-wing anarchists such as Saul Alinsky, or even hard-core criminals like John Edwards for that matter.

Because Obama is to the far left of Moscow on most issues, and is also a man of color, media folks at progressive non-think stink tanks such as the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, and ABC, and a host of others, have decided that vetting an alleged Messiah would violate their Journalistic code of ethics and professionalism. 

Separation of church and press, you know?

In other words, liberal politicians don't need no stinkin' vetting!

Which is why the leftist media have all but ignored Obama’s past, concentrating instead on Mitt Romney’s association with Mormonism and the shameful history of that religion from some 150 years ago!

However, perhaps the arrogant insolence of the US leftist media will come back to haunt these vultures for their refusal to investigate and report the facts during the 2008 coronation of King Barack?

Indeed, hope springs eternal and the hope for truth about Obama is getting a severe push(shove!) to the right what with new allegations concerning the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, celebrated pastor for 20 years to the One, Barack Hussein Obama, and author of the Infamous "God DAMN America!" straight quote from the pulpit.

As reported at the reference, a late-blooming  firestorm  surrounding the Wrongs of Wright is showing signs of igniting into a campaign issue.

It has to do with the possibility that Obama, or his team of anti-transparency goons and campaign lunatics, may have secured Wright’s silence with $150,000 in 2008:

The story from the reference:

There's a difference of opinion among Republicans about the wisdom of introducing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright issue into the presidential campaign. A lot of top GOP strategists think it's a bad -- a very bad -- idea. "Frankly, trying to dredge up Jeremiah Wright ... was stupid," Karl Rove said Sunday on Fox News, referring to reports a GOP ad man had suggested a Wright ad to a pro-Republican super-PAC. "I thought it was very smart for the Romney campaign to immediately go out and denounce the tactic."

On the other hand, a lot of people in the Republican base still blame John McCain for not using Wright against Barack Obama back in 2008. Now, they would like to see the GOP attack the president over his 20-year relationship with the preacher best known for shouting, "God damn America."

Thinking practically, it's hard to see how a new attack ad featuring Rev. Wright would work.
But there is one subject concerning Wright that merits scrutiny. In a nearly three-hour interview with Ed Klein, author of the new book "The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House," Wright said that back in 2008, when he was at the center of a raging controversy over his sermons, a close friend of Obama's offered him money to shut up until after the November election.
In the interview, Wright said Dr. Eric Whitaker, a top official at the University of Chicago Hospitals, sent a note to Wright through an intermediary at Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ. "[Eric] sent it to one of the members, who sent it to me," Wright told Klein. "He sent it to one of the guys close to me, saying, 'Can you make this offer to Rev?'"

Wright said he has kept notes from his experience and keeps all his documents, including the note from Whitaker, in a cardboard box. According to Klein, the amount Whitaker offered Wright was $150,000.

Is Wright's version of the story correct? Did Whitaker actually make the offer Wright says he did? If so, did Obama know about it? And where would the money have come from? All are questions that deserve answers.
So the allegation is there: Wright says he was offered money by a close Obama friend to disappear at a key moment in the 2008 campaign. In what way is that not newsworthy?

A top Obama re-election official says the campaign will not comment on Wright's allegations, saying Klein's book is simply not credible. But listening to the recording, Wright said what he said. It is news.

So far, neither Whitaker nor the other players in this matter have answered questions about the allegation. That might change if those involved face constant questioning from the press. But so far, few news outlets seem interested.

Maybe Rev. Wright is over as a campaign issue. But he's still a news story.”

Immediate questions emerge to right-wing truth warriors:

What did Obama know and when did he know it?

How much “Stimulus Money” was spent to silence the reprehensible Wright?

These are questions that MUST be pursued by that gaggle of unwilling journalists known as mainstream media!

Good luck with that, patriots!



PARTY ON, DUDE! Trumps Austerity for 9th Circuit Judges!

Hyatt Regency on Maui

By John W. Lillpop

“Spendthrift progressives out of step with the rest of the civilized world” seems an apt description of judicial malcontents from the often-overturned 9th Circuit of appeals.

Indeed, judges from the 9th circus, following the irresponsible examples set by President Obama and tax and spend Democrats who occupy Congress, have shunned austerity and financial prudence in favor of white sand and sultry beach fun on the Island of Maui.

The occasion is the annual judicial conference which could have been held in the not-so-glamorous and far less costly venue of Sacramento, California.

The California economy, $16 billion out of whack as a result of voter negligence in electing Jerry Brown and his wrecking crew, could certainly use the considerable tax booty which would be sure to flow into state coffers as is the case when two or more austerity-phobic progressives are granted access to a taxpayer-funded open bar and gourmet chow.

However, nothing is ever too good for the progressive palate when being satisfied at the public trough, which is why the 9th circuit has booked the luxurious Hyatt Regency Maui Resort and Spa for their annual conference in August.

9th Circuit excesses, well known and documented when it comes to reversal of goofy legal decisions, are now being reviewed with regard to the Circuit’s plans to invade Maui, as reported at reference 1:

Judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, federal district and bankruptcy courts in nine Western states and two Pacific island territories, along with lawyers practicing in those courts, and court staff, will gather at the luxurious Hyatt Regency Maui Resort and Spa from August 13 - 16, 2012 in what looks like a less than valiant attempt to ensure American justice is being served...at a cost to taxpayers of approximately one million dollars.

From tennis courts to the caddy shack and luau experience, justice will be served in a manner many Americans never get to experience. Breitbart News has reviewed a letter from the offices of the Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Jeff Sessions, and the offices of Senator Chuck Grassley, the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, with several detailed questions they want answered by the Ninth District.

The letter cites the 2010 version of the Ninth Circuit's annual judicial conference that cost taxpayers over $657,000 in travel costs alone, along with $860,000 in combined travel costs for the Ninth Circuit's 2008 and 2009 annual conferences in Monterey, California and Sun Valley, Idaho, respectively. It also provides evidence of the Ninth Circuit's awareness of the Government's budget challenges in the face of a still suffering Obama economy, going on to challenge why the Ninth Circuit seems determined to go on spending large amounts of money on plush conferences, when a more prudent approach could provide the same value for professional purposes.

The Senate's latest effort doesn't appear to be just a bit of politically motivated PR of some form. The Ninth District is considered by many to be the most liberal of all U.S. Court Districts, with 64% of sitting judges having been appointed by Democrats--the highest of all the districts. Many also consider the district as having the highest rate of being overturned by the Supreme Court. Research by Breitbart News suggests other districts are making efforts to cut back, while the Ninth District appears to have maintained a Party on, dude! attitude when it comes to putting on its judicial conferences.

As in past years, the Ninth District seems content to leave taxpayers on the hook for whisking many judges and aligned judicial professionals off to an exclusive destination, so that they might also enjoy "yoga, surfing lessons, stand up paddle board lessons, Zumba (a Latin-inspired dance program), a tennis tournament, a day trip and tour of Upcountry Maui, a Gemini Catamaran snorkel trip, and an activity called 'The Aloha Experience.'"
The solution: Progressives who maintain a ”Party on, Dude!” attitude, despite the rotten economy and nearly $16 trillion federal deficit, should be forced to fund untoward expenses from their own personal assets! 

And that discipline should most certainly apply to multi-millionaires, Barack and Michelle!

Reference: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/19/Exclusive-9th-Circuit-Takes-Another-Plush-Maui-Vacation-At-Taxpayer-Expense-As-Others-Cut-Back


Really DUMB Political Fairy Tales Spun by the Barack

By John W. Lillpop

Barack Obama is generally regarded as a brilliant man, considered almost without peer according to a consensus of the mainstream media. It is also a belief  held sacred by Obama himself.

Yet, to those not convinced of Obama's monopoly ownership of  raw IQ, several political fairy tales spun by the president call his dubious presumption of genius into question.

For example, according to the "smartest man in the room":

 80 percent of the American people want their taxes raised;

Raising taxes will cost the economy jobs(Dec 2010); not raising taxes will cost the economy jobs (July 2011);

Borders between the U.S. and Mexico have never been more secure, excepting only the occasional slaughter of an innocent “Newly Arriving Refugee” by an out-of-control, racist Border Patrol Agent;

The “National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform” introduced several outstanding ideas, except those that dealt with entitlements reform, spending cuts and other radical right-wing ideas smothered in  racism;

Getting involved in Libya was justified based on humanatarian concerns which simply do not exist in Syria;

Firing 165 missiles into Libya does not involve “hostilities,” thus, the War Powers Resolution does not apply;

Operation “Fast and Furious” was an appropriate under- the radar-project to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous, right-wing fanatical Americans by giving those weapons to Mexican drug cartels;

Adding 30 million people to the rolls of the insured will cut overall medical costs and save America from ruin;

If Trayvon Martin had been an Obama offspring, the kid would have been born with huge ears, an IQ close to 200, unassailable character, and a birth-right to all of the privileges and perks due elitst people of color;

There is far too much loose money in American politics, which is why Obama will force his re-election campaign to survive on no more than $1 billion dollars, unless an emergency (like poor poll numbers) causes him to do otherwise.

There it is: The Top political fairy tales told by the most loosely-wrapped president in U.S. history!


Obama’s Tough Love Counsel for Frazzled Euro Leaders: “Don’t Worry, Be Happy!”

By John W. Lillpop

As the maestro and chief choreographer of an economic train-wreck that has all but ruined the American Dream through reckless, undisciplined spending, one would hope that President Obama might accept responsibility for the fact that his policies are the bane of the greatest society in human history.

One would also hope (in vain) that Obama would tastefully refuse to offer advise to anyone, given the $15.5 trillion dollar deficit, high unemployment rate, and lack of growth in the American economy, the one that he has mangled for the past four years.

However, instead of discreetly retreating to the background during the important Camp David meetings, Present Obama has given in to the impulses of his spoiled “Inner Child” and positioned himself front and center with advise and words of wisdom for beleaguered European leaders looking for solutions.

As reported at the reference:

CAMP DAVID, Md., May 19 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama will press European leaders to ease up on fiscal austerity and focus on economic growth at a summit on Saturday that will discuss ways to stem turmoil in the Euro zone and head off the risk of global contagion.

At the wooded Camp David retreat in Maryland's Catoctin Mountains, Obama and leaders from other large economic powers will try to forge a common approach to tackling a crisis that threatens the future of Europe’s 17-nation single currency.

Though no major policy decisions are expected from the Group of Eight summit, leaders hope they can bridge enough of their differences to soothe rattled financial markets after worries about the risk of a Greek exit from the Euro zone sent European stock prices to their lowest level since December.

"Hopefully we'll get some stuff done," Obama told Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti as he and other summit participants arrived for Friday evening dinner at a lodge at the secluded presidential retreat.

Obama earlier in the day aligned himself with Monti and new French President Francois Hollande by urging a solution to the Euro zone crisis that combines fiscal belt-tightening measures with a "strong growth agenda."

On the other side of the debate is German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has pushed fiscal austerity as a means of bringing down huge debt levels that are burdening European economies.

Voters in Euro zone countries have shown frustration with that approach, ejecting governments such as that of Nicolas Sarkozy, who was defeated by Hollande, a socialist, in the May 6 French presidential election.”

In sum, Obama has encouraged the Camp David attendees to abandon austerity in favor of growth and jobs.In other words, " Don’t Worry, Be Happy.”

The big question: Why in the bloody hell would anyone with a lick of sense pay attention to a failed leader of a nation with close to a $16 trillion deficit? 

Whom would trust such a man when it comes to matters of  fiscal responsibility?



George Zimmerman: Set Him Free, Or Charge With Hate Crime?

By John W. Lillpop

The case of George Zimmerman, charged with 2nd Degree murder in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, has once again crashed into the news headlines after a period of relative quiet following Zimmerman’s release on bail.

To begin with, a medical report issued by Zimmerman’s doctor based on a physical examination of his patient the day following the confrontation with Martin describes a number of injuries suffered by the neighborhood watchdog.  The nature and severity of those injuries may collaborate Zimmerman’s contention that he was attacked and that he acted in self-defense, and in accordance with Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law.

In fact, as reported at the reference, in part, Legal scholar Alan Dershowitz believes that the case against Zimmerman should be dropped if the doctor’s report is valid:

A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting. If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.

There is, of course, no assurance that the special prosecutor handling the case, State Attorney Angela Corey, will do the right thing. Because until now, her actions have been anything but ethical, lawful and professional.

She was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She deliberately withheld evidence that supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. The New York Times has reported that the police had "a full face picture" of Zimmerman, before paramedics treated him, that showed "a bloodied nose." The prosecutor also had photographic evidence of bruises to the back of his head.

But none of this was included in any affidavit.

Now there is much more extensive medical evidence that would tend to support Zimmerman’s version of events. This version, if true, would establish self-defense even if Zimmerman had improperly followed, harassed and provoked Martin.

A defendant, under Florida law, loses his "stand your ground" defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.

Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)

This is a fact-specific case, in which much turns on what the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt. It must resolve all such doubts in favor of the defendant, because our system of justice insists that it is better for 10 guilty defendants to go free than for even one innocent to be wrongfully convicted.

You wouldn’t know that from listening to Corey, who announced that her jobs was "to do justice for Trayvon Martin" — not for George Zimmerman.

As many see it, her additional job is to prevent riots of the sort that followed the acquittal of the policemen who beat Rodney King.
Indeed,  Mansfield Frazier, a columnist for the Daily Beast, has suggested that it is the responsibility of the legal system to "avert a large scale racial calamity." He has urged Zimmerman’s defense lawyer to become a "savior" by brokering a deal to plead his client guilty to a crime that "has him back on the streets within this decade."

But it is not the role of a defense lawyer to save the world or the country. His job — his only job — is to get the best result for his client, by all legal and ethical means.

The prosecutor’s job is far broader: to do justice to the defendant as well as the alleged victim. As the Supreme Court has said: "The government wins . . . when justice is done."

Zimmerman’s lawyer is doing his job. It’s about time for the prosecutor to start doing hers."
Meanwhile, as legal professionals consider the facts reported by Zimmerman’s doctor, Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is weighing a move to charge Zimmerman with a "Hate Crime" which could result in the death penalty for Zimmerman if convicted. See reference 2.

So which shall it be? Drop the charge altogether, or elevate the charge to "Hate Crime" status?

Unfortunately, but true, with the Obama administration and in particular, the Eric Holder DOJ, one simply cannot assume that unbiased justice will prevail.  Indeed, Attorney General Eric Holder has demonstrated a very disconcerting racial bias when it comes to dispensing justice.

Thus, the major unanswered question of the day will be: Is George Zimmerman the perpetrator, or victim, of a hate crime?

Whatever happened to Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to unite the races and move America forward in a post-racism society?




BREAKING NEWS! According to 1991 Promotional, Barack Obama “Born in Kenya”!

By John W. Lillpop

BREAKING NEWS that could change everything!

As reported at the reference, our 44th President appears to have been born in Kenya:

Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama's then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii."

The booklet, which was distributed to "business colleagues" in the publishing industry, includes a brief biography of Obama among the biographies of eighty-nine other authors represented by Acton & Dystel.

It also promotes Obama's anticipated first book, Journeys in Black and White--which Obama abandoned, later publishing Dreams from My Father instead.

Obama’s biography in the booklet is as follows (text below):

Back Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.

The booklet, which is thirty-six pages long, is printed in blue ink (and, on the cover, silver/grey ink), using offset lithography. It purports to celebrate the fifteenth anniversary of Acton & Dystel, which was founded in 1976.”

Birthers of the world: Rejoice!

Ref: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii


Outing Barack Obama: America’s First Black, Gay, Filthy Rich President

By John W. Lillpop

If hypocrisy were a virtue, the 44th President of these great United States, Barack Obama, would be oozing virtue from every pore of his rich, gay, black being.

Indeed, HYPOCRISY appears to be the major flaw in the Obama persona, overshadowed only by his immense ego and absorption with—all things Barack Obama.

Thankfully, the Obama hypocrisy bubble was exposed at the reference, in part, where the 0-man was thrown to the wolves for his audacious riches and privilege.

As reported:

Three things are apparent from President Obama's annual financial disclosure statement, released today:

He is a wealthy man, with assets of as much as $10 million.

He has a hefty stake in JPMorgan Chase, the megabank that just made a bad $2 billion bet. Obama has an account worth between $500,000 and $1 million.

Despite the nation's $15.6 trillion debt, he is a believer in government paper. More than half of his assets are in Treasury bills and notes.

The disclosure statement lists assets and liabilities in dollar ranges, so pinpointing the president's net worth is difficult. His assets appear to tally between $2.6 million and $9.9 million. He holds a mortgage on his Chicago home of $500,000 to $1 million.

As was clear from Obama's income tax filing, much of his income continues to roll in from book royalties. The disclosure form lists $100,000 to $1 million in royalties from Dreams From My Father, $100,000 to $1 million from Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters, and $50,000 to $100,000 from The Audacity of Hope.”

With his vast riches and gay proclivities, Barack Obama has given new meaning to the phrase. "The Buck(s) Stops Here!

So, why have those Occupy Wall Street vigilantes not taken over the White House to protest Obama’s undeserved wealth and success?

You see, even in the wretched Obama economy, ten million dollars is one hell of a lot of money, more than enough to qualify one for membership in the notorious One Percent club normally reserved to humiliate and chastise white, conservative Republicans.

Consider too, that Judicial Watch recently revealed that Michelle Obama’s luxurious vacation to Spain cost American taxpayers one half million dollars a couple of years ago.

Good heavens, Occupy Bullies, why is it OK for a family worth ten million dollars to vacation on the public dime?

Whatever happened to the notion of basic fairness? And pay your “Fair Share”?

Consider this a call to action for Occupy soldiers:

In keeping with the traditions of the Occupy movement, it is time to form a national coalition of losers, anarchists, common criminals, and other Democrats for the purpose of ending the financial and spiritual raping of the American people by elite lefties named Obama!



Governor Brown to California: We Have $16B Gap--PLEASE Raise Your Own Taxes!

By John W. Lillpop

California Governor Jerry Brown has a very BIG problem :His budget is out of whack by $16 billion dollars.

Which leaves the Moonbeam governor in the unenviable position of begging voters to raise their own taxes because bureaucrats in Sacramento miscalculated the budget math by about seven billion dollars.

In other words, lefty Brown is, in essence, saying to voters, “We in government goofed, and to make up for our goof, we need for YOU to send another $7 billion to the same dim wits here in Sacramento who dropped the ball to begin with!”

Has there ever been a more insane argument delivered by a so-called professional politician?

Given the fact that California politicians have a long, sorry history of spending more than they take in, why in the hell would any sane voter agree to send more hard-earned income to the idiots who scoff at concepts such as “Living within your means” ?

Still, California’s budget woes do help focus attention on a major problem: Simple math is apparently beyond the skill sets of the Governor and most Democrats in state government.

Corrective actions should include mandatory continuing education for all elected officials in the area of simple math, with special emphasis on the fact that negative balances are simply not acceptable and will not be countenanced.


State law should be amended to provide for the immediate arrest and detention of the governor and legislative leaders in the event that an out-of-balance budget is signed into law!

The news is even more harrying for California, given the huge tax increase headed our way as a result of the Obama-created mess at the federal level.

Adding more state taxes to the mix will bankrupt plenty of voters and will seal the fate of California as an anti-business, anti-growth, anti-jobs Mecca for unrepentant tax and spend liberals.

And that is PROGRESSIVE?


More “Fundamental” Transformation from Obama: The “Gaying” of America!

By John W. Lillpop

When presidential candidate Barack Obama promised (threatened) to “fundamentally transform America,” most political pundits speculated that an Obama presidency would result in higher taxes, political agendas that were decidedly biased against business and pro-union, diminished emphasis on national defense and homeland security, uncontrolled domestic spending, and all sorts of government interference into matters best left in the hands of the non-government, private sector.

Back then, in the good old days of 2008, there was scant mention or warning that President Barack Obama would gut traditional family values and embrace notions so liberal that the very foundation of western culture and society would be rocked to the core.

To wit, whom would have guessed that Obama’s most profound legacy would be the “Gaying of America?”

Yet there he is, 44th US President Barack Obama, with his image gracing  the cover of the current edition of Newsweek Magazine with the label: The First Gay President.

A rainbow-hued halo is pictured above Obama’s head, emblematic of his dual mission as a messiah and chief architect of the Gaying of America revolution.

With all due respect to all of the intelligent and patriotic Americans and liberal media who consider themselves “progressive,” is this really what you had in mind when you crafted the Obama image?

Or is this simply another feeble effort to distract attention from the not-in-recovery Obama economy?


America Is Back? What About California, Mr. President?

By John W. Lillpop

During President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union message in January, he declared in part:

"From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease; from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies; to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back," he said.”

Obama’s SOTU assertion came as a huge surprise to tens of millions of Americans whom are unemployed or underemployed, face home foreclosure or bankruptcy, or whom are otherwise suffering from the economic malaise which has killed so many hopes and dreams, and given Obama’s refusal to take responsible action with respect to spending and the federal deficit, threatens to wreak even greater havoc on the dreams and aspirations of future generations of Americans.

The outlandish absurdity of Obama’s “America Is Back” silly attempt at self-congratulation has been exposed time and again by economic reports which indicate that the U.S. economy is hardly growing at all, certainly not enough to create the number of new jobs needed to reduce unemployment to acceptable levels.

Then there is this: 1 in 2 new college graduates are unemployed or underemployed. Where is the rationale for concluding that “America is Back,” given those data, Mr. President?

Even more dispiriting is the latest news from California, where the good (but none too bright!) people of that State entrusted their economic lives to the likes of Jerry Brown and assorted liberals who almost universally ridicule the idea that governments should “live within their means” when it comes to spending taxpayer money.

As reported in the media, California Jerry Brown dropped a bombshell on California voters by announcing that the budget shortfall of $9.2 billion reported four months ago is now $16 billion.

Brown's bomshell prompts the obvious inquiry, IF “America is back,” as alleged by President Obama, What about California?”

The report concerning Brown's announcement follows, in part:

SACRAMENTO -- California's projected budget deficit has ballooned to $16 billion, much larger than predicted just four months ago, Gov. Jerry Brown said Saturday as he warned of draconian cuts to schools and public safety if voters don't approve his November tax-hike measure.

The governor said the shortfall grew from $9.2 billion in January in part because tax collections are sluggish and the economy hasn't recovered as quickly as expected. The deficit also has soared because lawsuits and federal requirements have blocked billions of dollars in state cuts to social programs, Brown said.

"This means we will have to go much farther and make cuts far greater than I asked for at the beginning of the year," Brown said in an online video. "But we can't fill this hole with cuts alone without doing severe damage to our schools. That's why I'm bypassing the gridlock and asking you, the people of California, to approve a plan that avoids cuts to schools and public safety."

Brown on Saturday did not release details of the newly calculated deficit through mid-2013, but he is set to lay out a revised spending plan Monday. The new blueprint for the fiscal year that starts July 1 hinges in large part on voters approving higher taxes in the fall. Under Brown's tax measure, California would temporarily raise the state's sales tax by a quarter-cent and increase the income tax on people who make $250,000 or more.

The bad news announced by Brown puts intense pressure on Democratic leaders, who in January had vowed to fight proposed cuts in Brown's $92.5 billion budget because they believe they would rip apart an already fragile safety net.

"We will deal with it," Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said Saturday. "
Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said he wasn't surprised by the deficit spike given that state tax revenues have fallen $3.5 billion below projections in the current year. He and other Democrats, who control the Legislature, have resisted Brown's proposed cuts so far this year. And Republican lawmakers have criticized the majority party for building in overly optimistic tax revenues.

"Today's news underscores how we must rein in spending and let our economy grow by leaving overburdened taxpayers alone," Assembly Republican leader Connie Conway said in a statement.

Brown proposed $4.2 billion in cuts in January, including $1.4 billion to the state's welfare-to-work program and state-subsidized child care.

Brown turned in 1.5 million signatures for his ballot measure Thursday, more than enough to put it before voters. If approved, the new taxes would generate about $7 billion annually.
Democrats have already signaled they will reject Brown's proposal to close 70 state parks July 1, promising to find the relatively paltry sum of $21 million in savings elsewhere in the budget to do so. And they are likely to resist major additional cuts to CalWORKs, the state's welfare-to-work program, which has already withstood billions of dollars in reductions.

With a solid majority in both houses, Democrats can pass a budget easily, which has robbed Republicans of the power they once had to help shape the budget. But, as they found out last year when Brown vetoed their first budget, Democrats have to craft a plan that meets the governor's approval.

Steinberg said Democrats won't put themselves in a similar position this time because they share an interest in producing a balanced, on-time budget. The constitutional deadline for budgets is June 15, though legislators consider June 30, the end of the fiscal year, to be just as viable.

"We want to head into November having done our job together with the least amount of fuss and the least amount of fighting," Steinberg said of the fall election."
The state budget is $16 billion out of balance and Steinberg in concerned about minimizing the amount of fuss and fighting?

Good grief, is there not one Democrat in all of the nation who truly understands that overspending and fiscal irresponsibility can only lead California and America to a financial graveyard, like that now plaguing Greece?


On November 6, African-Americans Must Choose Between Jesus Christ & Barack Obama!

By John W. Lillpop

African-Americans are among the most passionate and devout Christians in America. Their loyalty to the Gospel of Jesus Christ is legendary, made all the more remarkable given the persecution and brutal discrimination that these people have suffered over the centuries.

Conservative Christian values on issues such as abortion and homosexuality are generally supported in large numbers by African-Americans across America. An example was evident in California, where Proposition 8, the ballot initiative to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, would not have won had African-Americans not supported the measure in great numbers.

The paradox is that African-Americans are, for the most part, aligned with the Democrat Party, folks who generally favor abortion and advocate for homosexuals, including marriage rights.

The disconnect between the Democrat Party and its African-American constituents was exacerbated this week when President Obama expressed his support (after a long, drawn-out pause for evolution and analysis of political advantage) for marriage by same-sex couples.

Ironically enough, Obama’s out-of-the- closet mea culpa was delivered the morning after the people of North Carolina, including large numbers of African-Americans, passed an initiative which, like Proposition 8 in California, defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

Obama’s lurch to the hard left was hardly a matter of principle; rather, it was a hodgepodge of selfish actions taken to satisfy Obama’s unquenchable lust for campaign cash, raw political power, and his larger-than-life ego, fueled by gross exaggerations of his IQ by an adoring media which universally swore off the pursuit of objectivity and truth sometime shortly after noon (EST) on January 20, 2009, a day that will live in infamy because it was on this date that the greatest nation in human history was handed over to an incompetent, na├»ve, America-hating Community Organizer who was probably not eligible for the presidency to begin with.

Still, it is as it is, and like it or not, Barack Obama wants a second bite at the apple come November. In his mind, he deserves a second term because….well, because he is Barack Obama!

All of this poses a serious dilemma for African-Americans who must answer the following question:

Shall I support and follow to the ends of the earth the savior of mankind, Jesus Christ, or shall I support the flawed figure of Barack Obama, he who supports abortion and homosexuality in defiance of the gospel and teachings of He who died to redeem all men from the scourge of sin?

The fact that Obama shares ethnicity with tens of millions of brothers and sisters makes the issue all the more confounding to those devout Christians caught in the middle.

The solution? Prayer and supplication are needed to make peace with this crucial issue.


Some Modestly Positive News: Romney 50%, Obama 43%!

By John W. Lillpop

Although it is still far too early to celebrate, there is cause for a bit of contained elation. As reported at the reference, Republican Mitt Romney, presumptive nominee of his party, now leads Barack Obama by seven percentage points.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney earning 50% of the vote and President Obama attracting 43% support. Four percent (4%) would vote for a third party candidate, while another three percent (3%) are undecided.

Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern.

This is the first time Romney has reached the 50% level of support and is his largest lead ever over the president. It comes a week after a disappointing jobs report that raised new questions about the state of the economy.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) give the president good or excellent marks for his handling of the economy. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he’s doing a poor job. Consumer confidence has slipped four points since last week’s government report on job creation and unemployment. The number who believe their personal finances are getting better slipped from 30% a week ago to 28% today. The number who fear their finances are getting worse increased from 43% before the jobs report to 47% today.

Scott Rasmussen’s weekly syndicated column notes that Senator Richard Lugar’s loss in a Republican primary highlights the sour relationship between voters and politicians. “In many troubled relationships, both sides deserve some of the blame. But the United States is a nation founded on the belief that governments gain their legitimacy only from the consent of the governed. In the relationship between the people and the Political Class, that means the voters are right, and the politicians need to change.”

Are you listening, Mr. President? The American people have joined you in demanding change—however, we the people want change from your failed policies and bone-headed Marxism.

American patriots: Pray that the Romney lead is sustained and grows in the coming weeks and months.

By the way, has Michelle starting packing yet, Mr. President?



Are Some Mums Overrated?

By John W. Lillpop

Mine is not, of course.  After all, she brought moi into the world and ever since that joyous occasion, the joint has never been the same.

For gifting the world with me, my mum deserves the eternal gratitude of the entire planet. I sort of appreciate her good works as well, even if she did spend most of her pregnancy in devout prayer for a bouncing baby girl.

Sorry, dear mum, but the Lord gave me what he gave me, from head to toe with all vital parts in between. What you see is what you get, holy prayer or not!

Thank God my folks were dirt poor, or dear mum might have tried to have me plumbing altered to suit her gender bias.

Why in the world she wanted a Joan instead of a John is still a mystery. In any event, I sort of got even with her by refusing to lift up the toilet seat before urinating until two days after her funeral.

At that point, it seemed the practical thing to do, since she was no longer around to swab the bathroom floors, and I positively gag at the sight and smell of stagnant urine and mops.

But what about those mothers whose offspring bring agony, rather than joy, to the globe?

I am thinking of those who gave birth to Barack Obama,  Harry Reid and other left wing monsters, for example.

Should the women who bore and raised these brats be praised or flogged in public?

What about the woman responsible for foisting Nancy Pelosi on an innocent America: Which is more appropriate? A dozen red roses and a pound of chocolates, or public flogging?

Happy Mother’s Day!

Whatever Will America Do for Laughs Without Joe Biden?

Joe Biden: We Will Miss the Laughs and Buffoonery!

By John W. Lillpop

When the votes are all counted and paid for late in the afternoon or early evening of November 6, 2012, it seems within reason to project that We the People will have chosen “regime change” as the most viable option for fixing that which ails 310 million of us, all weary as hell from fighting the equivalent of a second revolution, this time against forces of liberal tyranny and Marxism.

At that point, we will have redeemed our form of self-governance and preserved the future of our children and their grand children by removing the incumbent at 1600 Pennsylvania, Barack Hussein Obama, primary occupant of the Oval Office and, as history will surely record, the least effective president in the long and glorious history of our republic.

President Obama and wife Michelle and their two daughters will be required to vacate the White House and make room for Republican Mitt Romney whose vision of  “Change” will be limited to undoing the damage inflicted during the Obama occupation.

America will celebrate Barack Obama’s involuntary departure with great fan fare and celebration.

Stock markets will immediately soar; unemployment will drop to levels not forecast to be realized for years; our enemies in Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia will recognize that America has been revitalized, resulting in an immediate end to nuclear ventures by the aforementioned nations, and a renewed sense of hope through strength.

Like it used to be BO, before Obama.  Oh, the audacity of winning!

But while Americans will look “forward” eagerly to January 20, 2013 as a new set point for American Exceptionalism, there will also be a sense of deep loss.

That is because the indefatigable Joe Biden, also referred to as Vice President, will also be forced to forgo his privileged accommodations and lifestyle to make room for a new Vice President.

There is no way of knowing for sure whom will take Biden’s spot as Veep. However, whom ever it happens to be,  one can know of a certainty that the new man or woman will pale in comparison to the affable, but sometimes goofy, Biden.

Biden has a well deserved reputation as the clown prince of the White House, one who never fails to make even the most sober situation a little less onerous by saying and doing funny—and REALLY stupid!—things.

The biggest question that we the people will confront on the morning of November 7 will be: Whatever Will America Do for Laughs Without Joe Biden?

Obama Position on Gay Marriage Finally Evolves—A Presidential Epiphany, or Cash Flow Crisis?

By John W. Lillpop

After a particularly embarrassing few days in which President Obama was roundly criticized for confusion and conflicting statements about his position on gay marriage, the “evolving” phase seems to have finally ended. To the surprise of almost no one, Obama aligned himself with the pro-gay marriage crowd just as the 2012 election cycle turns ugly, bitter, and all about money.

As reported at the reference, Obama’s evolving was hardly the result of a spiritual awakening, an Epiphany or anything even remotely esoteric. Rather, it came down to cold, hard cash:

President Obama announced today he now supports same-sex marriage, coming less than 2 days after the Washington Post reported that prominent political donors were threatening to withhold donations over the president’s position on gay rights.
“[A]t a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told ABC News in an interview.

Progressive blogger Greg Sargent reported Monday that “leading gay and progressive donors” were angry with Obama over his increasingly convoluted position on gay rights and same-sex marriage, and were refusing to donate any more money to Priorities USA, the pro-Obama Super PAC. Sargent cited Paul Yandura, a political adviser to prominent Democratic donor Jonathan Lewis, who emailed that:

A number of gay and progressive donors, unsolicited, have indicated to us that they aren’t considering requests to donate to the Obama SuperPac because of the president’s refusal to the sign the order. And those are high-dollar asks, some in the seven digits. We have heard from at least half a dozen major gay and progressive donors that they stand united with us.

The Washington Post noted on Tuesday that approximately 20 percent of Obama top campaign bundlers—who are responsible for arranging $500,000 and up—“publicly identified themselves as gay.”

Obama’s announcement fits a pattern of changing positions on major issues for what appear to be financially motivated reasons.

The president in February publicly renounced his opposition to Democratic Super PACs such as Priorities USA, groups capable of raising large amount of money from anonymous sources.

Obama had previously denounced Super PACs as “shadowy groups with harmless sounding names” that pose “a threat to our democracy” because they allow wealthy donors outsized influence on the political process.

Four years ago, Obama became the first presidential candidate in history to reject public campaign financing, despite pledges he would not do so.

The liberal Talking Points Memo reports that one Obama bundler, Jon Cooper, said the president’s announcement will make fundraising for the re-election campaign “immeasurably easier.”
There you go, liberal nut balls! Your guy finally abandoned the closet, but not because of truth, honor, or principle.

It all came down to lust for the good old American dollar.

By the way: Whatever happened to the Obama high-minded promise of change and hope?

Reference: http://the-american-journal.com/gay-pay-obama-reverses-stance-sex-marriage-donations/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=gay-pay-obama-reverses-stance-sex-marriage-donations


Unlawful Assault on Constitutional Right to Be Obese Now Codified in Massachusetts Law!

A Call to Arms for the Cupcake Revolution!

By John W. Lillpop

Michelle Obama’s meddling nanny-state socialism is responsible, at least indirectly, for yet another scandalous attack on a fundamental right guaranteed to all Americans by the U.S. Constitution.

That would be the inalienable right to slothful living, including incorporation of obesity, even morbid obesity if so desired, into one’s lifestyle at the sole discretion of the individual patriot.

With great regret, it is now reported that Creeping Michelle-fascism has consumed the people of Massachusetts and may be headed to your school lunch room soon.

As reported at the reference:
Massachusetts is banning bake sales in its public schools starting Aug. 1, the Boston Herald reported.
The state’s new nutrition rules forbid the sale or serving of unhealthy food that’s not part of the regular lunch program in hallways, cafeterias, vending machines or school stores from 30 minutes before the school day begins until 30 minutes after it ends, the Boston Herald reported. Bake sales are banned, as are cupcakes brought to school for junior’s classmates on his birthday.
Officials are even encouraging schools to apply the ban 24/7, which would end sales of foods like hot dogs and baked goods at evening, weekend and community events, the Boston Herald reported.

"Clearly it's to really create an environment in schools where kids have an opportunity to make choices among healthy options,” Mass. Department of Public Health Medical Director Dr. Lauren Smith told ABC affiliate WCVB TV in Boston.

“We're at a place in Massachusetts where one-third of our kids in schools are either overweight or obese.”
School districts in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Texas have already banned bake sales, Bloomberg Businessweek reported”
Government interference through promotion of unsustainable height-weight charts and banning of bakery sales are a clear and present danger to all Constitution-loving Americans and must be resisted at all costs.

In addition, the Constitutional right to “pursuit of happiness,” although it does not set forth an implicit guarantee of the right to kill one’s self with Twinkies and consumption of all that is tasty and good, is understood by chubby scholars to mean that none in government, including the likes of Michelle Obama, is empowered to impose their will on We the People when it comes to Big Macs, Rib Eye steak, hot dogs, popcorn, or any other essential staple of the American diet.

Especially sacred are CUPCAKES!

In other words, Mrs. First Lady, you are free to replace cupcakes with carrot sticks and unsalted celery as you wish--for yourself and the rest of the first family-- provided you do not threaten the health or life of the president.

However, We the People do not give a damn what you think with respect to what we eat and what we feed our children.

Mitts off!

Back in the 1700s, folks in Massachusetts led the way with the Boston Tea Party which concerned taxes.

The torch has now been passed to a new generation of Americans who must now take up the battle and rally behind the “Cupcake Revolution,” and preservation of liberty and freedom associated with the cupcake.

We must not allow some half-baked liberal folly to circumvent our fundamental right to bakery sales!