By John W. Lillpop
The Solyndra fiasco is living proof that government, especially when big and in the hands of spending-addicted, foolish liberals, should never be permitted to meddle in the world of commercial business.
This is true because people like Barack Obama are utterly ill-informed and lack the common sense needed to make sound decisions when it comes to investing taxpayer money.
Solyndra is the nightmare scenario where Obama’s hatred for oil and gasoline and all fossil fuels, combined with his obsession for PC -alternative energy, caused the administration to flush more than $500 million dollars (YOUR money, Patriot!) down the drain by investing in a company that ultimately filed bankruptcy and fired 1,100 employees.
THAT nightmare in which our naïve, inexperienced, and unqualified president pursued his ill-begotten pay back to campaign donors under the guise of creating jobs!
What will it take to convince our community organizer/president that he is simply out of his league when it comes to actually making sound business decisions?
In sum, Mr. President, You ‘HAVE NEVER BEEN THERE, DONE THAT!’ and should stay out of the way when important business decisions are being made.
Even more disconcerting than Obama’s naïve, goofy bungling, however, is the disclosure that the loan to Solyndra was structured in a manner that subordinates the interests of taxpaying Americans to that of the thugs who bundled campaign donations for Obama’s election.
In simple terms, it means that the Obama wonks placed Obama campaign donors ahead of American taxpayers in the ‘pecking order’ for recovery of money should Solyndra go belly up, which of course it did!
That arrangement is unprecedented and may be criminal.
By the way, why has this news failed to arouse the wrath of the OWS crowd?
Manipulating loan policy to favor greedy corporate interests is NOT OK—even if the greed involves Obama campaign donors!
WHERE ARE YOU, OWS???
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Can Predator Drones Save the Obama Presidency?
By John W. Lillpop
Who would have imagined that Barack Obama, America’s Nobel Peace Prize winner and world-renown peace monger, would turn out to be a brutal killer of Islamic bad eggs?
After all, until recently Obama insisted that blabbing with our enemies, AKA, diplomacy, would eliminate the need for dumb wars and violent killings.
Yet in the most dramatic transformation of his persona to date, The One seems to have gone from Talker-in-Chief to Assassin.
Which proves just how devastating approval ratings in the 30s can be to a non-messiah figure facing reelection!
The president’s new image started with the messy removal of Osama bin Laden back on May 1 when Navy Seals invaded bin Laden’s ‘luxury’ digs in Pakistan and proceeded to teach the 6’11” freak a vital lesson about Jihad, American style.
The president’s newly minted, “Don’t Mess With Obama!” toughness continued when Obama ordered what was left of UBL to be dumped into the sea, without last rites or a proper Christian burial.
Even more shockingly, Obama apparently ordered Navy Seals to send bin Laden to the tender-loving-care of 72 virgins without first reading the brutal killer his Miranda Rights, a real no-no to people like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
Then just two days ago, Obama added another notch to his holster by ordering predator drones to free the world of one Anwar al-Awlaki, Al-Queada Chief and American citizen, which is more than can be stated with certitude about BHO himself.
With all the modesty one would expect from a seriously flawed narcissist, Obama hailed the demise of Anwar al-Awlaki as yet another reason why he (Obama) should be reelected.
Surprisingly, Obama failed to mention that the policies and technology which bagged bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki were 'inherited' from W.
He did, however, crow with pride that ridding the world of another terrorist was a significant victory for progressive values; albeit, blemished, ever so slightly, by the on-going 'Fast and Furious Scandal' in which he may be complicit in the death of a US border patrol agent.
So, what’s next for America's Nobel Peace Prize winner turned Assassin?
White House insiders, speaking on strict conditions of anonymity, claim that Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and North Korea’s Kim Young Ill may both face time rocky times ahead, especially if the U.S. unemployment rate does not fall dramatically-- and soon!
Who would have imagined that Barack Obama, America’s Nobel Peace Prize winner and world-renown peace monger, would turn out to be a brutal killer of Islamic bad eggs?
After all, until recently Obama insisted that blabbing with our enemies, AKA, diplomacy, would eliminate the need for dumb wars and violent killings.
Yet in the most dramatic transformation of his persona to date, The One seems to have gone from Talker-in-Chief to Assassin.
Which proves just how devastating approval ratings in the 30s can be to a non-messiah figure facing reelection!
The president’s new image started with the messy removal of Osama bin Laden back on May 1 when Navy Seals invaded bin Laden’s ‘luxury’ digs in Pakistan and proceeded to teach the 6’11” freak a vital lesson about Jihad, American style.
The president’s newly minted, “Don’t Mess With Obama!” toughness continued when Obama ordered what was left of UBL to be dumped into the sea, without last rites or a proper Christian burial.
Even more shockingly, Obama apparently ordered Navy Seals to send bin Laden to the tender-loving-care of 72 virgins without first reading the brutal killer his Miranda Rights, a real no-no to people like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
Then just two days ago, Obama added another notch to his holster by ordering predator drones to free the world of one Anwar al-Awlaki, Al-Queada Chief and American citizen, which is more than can be stated with certitude about BHO himself.
With all the modesty one would expect from a seriously flawed narcissist, Obama hailed the demise of Anwar al-Awlaki as yet another reason why he (Obama) should be reelected.
Surprisingly, Obama failed to mention that the policies and technology which bagged bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki were 'inherited' from W.
He did, however, crow with pride that ridding the world of another terrorist was a significant victory for progressive values; albeit, blemished, ever so slightly, by the on-going 'Fast and Furious Scandal' in which he may be complicit in the death of a US border patrol agent.
So, what’s next for America's Nobel Peace Prize winner turned Assassin?
White House insiders, speaking on strict conditions of anonymity, claim that Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and North Korea’s Kim Young Ill may both face time rocky times ahead, especially if the U.S. unemployment rate does not fall dramatically-- and soon!
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Why the Hell Are Muslims Allowed to Serve in U.S. Military?
John Lillpop is a 'recovering liberal' who has been clean and sober since 1992 when he last voted for a Democrat. Pray for John: He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area where people like Nancy Pelosi are considered normal.
Why the Hell Are Muslims Allowed to Serve in U.S. Military?
By John W. Lillpop
How many more American soldiers need to be slaughtered in cold blood before those responsible for running the military prohibit Muslims from serving?
That question, as non-PC as one can possibly get, should nonetheless be a priority with anyone who has a loved one or friend now serving.
As indicated at the reference, yet another Muslim posing as an American solider has been arrested for plotting the death of young Americans:
A U.S. soldier who was accused Thursday of planning to attack troops near Fort Hood, Tex., has told investigators that he was acting in support of Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the Army psychiatrist who has been charged in the killing of 13 people at the base in 2009, according to congressional and federal officials.
Pfc. Naser Abdo, 21, was arrested in Killeen, Tex., after authorities said they discovered bombmaking materials in his motel room, as well as a copy of an article from the al-Qaeda magazine Inspire, which is produced by the terrorist group’s Yemen affiliate.
The officials said Abdo was planning to set off bombs at locations outside the base where soldiers gather and to follow the explosions with gunfire.
“I would classify this as a terror plot,” Police Chief Dennis Baldwin told reporters in Killeen. Law enforcement officials said Abdo would be charged in federal court with possession of bombmaking materials, among other offenses.
The emergence of another alleged plot to attack troops at the same base where Hasan is accused of striking may intensify fears that there is a growing terrorist threat from self-radicalized Americans and raise questions about whether the military can adequately identify internal threats. Hasan was arraigned in military court this month on capital murder charges but has not entered a plea.”
Clearly, because America’s Commander-in-Chief refuses to accept the fact that radical Muslim IS very much a threat to all Americans, the military no longer has the ability to protect the lives and health of young Americans serving their nation!
An urgent message to Rep. Peter King of New York: Please continue to hold hearings on the radicalization of Muslims. Apparently, yours is one of the few voices of sanity on this issue!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/awol-soldier-accused-of-plotting-fort-hood-attack/2011/07/28/gIQAvml1fI_story.html
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Rick Perry: "Undocumented" Liberal!
By John W. Lillpop
Amid all the media excitement generated by Rick Perry’s bluster and swagger into the Republican presidential sweepstakes, a vital fact about the handsome man from Texas is being underreported:
Perry is about as liberal as one can be on the issue of illegal aliens!
After eight long, precarious years under W. and three harrowing years so far under Obama, America needs a president who respects the rule of law and U.S. sovereignty, and who will fight tooth and nail to defend American language and culture from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
We need a president who will enforce existing laws to defend American citizens from foreign invaders.
We need a president who will listen to the concerns of Americans in states like Arizona, Georgia, Alabama and others who are suffering from the influx of illegal aliens from south of our borders.
We need a president who will abandon partisan politics by joining Arizona and Alabama in their efforts to stop the illicit flow of drugs and illegals into their states.
We need a president who understands that foolish ideas like the DREAM Act, amnesty and other pandering to illegals will only serve to attract another 20 million of so invaders.
Unfortunately, Rick Perry is not that candidate.
As documented by American patriot and hero Tom Tancredo at the reference, Rick Perry is anything but conservative on this issue.
Mr. Tancredo writes, in part:
Perry is eager to separate himself from his predecessor in the Texas governor’s mansion, George W. Bush — who is unpopular with both tea party Republicans and the American electorate as a whole. But one area where Perry’s positions are virtually identical to Bush is immigration.
When I ran for president in 2008, I tried to pressure the Republican candidates to take a hard line against illegal immigration. For this, Perry called me a racist.
When he first took office as governor in 2001, Perry went to Mexico and bragged about his law that granted “the children of undocumented workers” special in-state tuition at Texas colleges, the first state in the nation to do so.
“The message is simple,” Perry concluded, “educacion es el futuro, y si se puede.” Education is the future, and (echoing Cesar Chavez’s slogan) yes we can.]
Just a few weeks ago, Perry defended his decision to give in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. He said “to punish these young Texans for their parents’ actions is not what America has always been about.”
Perry opposed Arizona’s tough anti-illegal immigration law SB 1070. “I have concerns,” he explained, “with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas.”
He spoke out last year against using E-Verify to prevent illegal immigrants from getting jobs as state employees, who get their paychecks from the taxpayers. He insisted it “would not make a hill of beans’ difference.”
Numbers USA, a group that supports immigration control, gives Perry a “D-“ for his positions supporting amnesty, open borders, and opposing border security.
Perry, in a speech in Mexico in 2007, said he supports completely open borders, calling for the “free flow of individuals between these two countries who want to work and want to be an asset to our country and to Mexico.”
In the same speech he came out against building a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border. Perry also came out in favor of blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants in 2006, albeit without citizenship, supporting “a guest worker program that takes undocumented workers off the black market and legitimizes their economic contribution.”
Despite all his talk about sovereignty and states’ rights, Perry proposed the Trans-Texas Corridor. This toll road would go through Mexico, but be run together with the Mexican government in the middle of Texas.
While Perry opposes the border fence, 68 percent of all voters, and 86 percent of Republicans, support the fence. While Perry opposes the Arizona law, SB 1070, voters want 1070 in their state by a 2-1 margin — including 86 percent of all Republicans.
Perry’s only true conservative positions on borders involve calling for an end to sanctuary cities and signing a voter ID law. While I support these measures, they don’t make up for the rest of his positions on immigration. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.”
As well all know, being right twice a day is not nearly good enough!
Rick Perry: An “undocumented” liberal when it comes to illegal aliens!
http://tancredoradio.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/rick-perry-not-a-true-conservative/
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Deport Illegal Aliens, Cut Deficit by $1 Trillion Over 10 Years!
By John W. Lillpop
When the "Super Committee" appointed by leaders of the House and Senate convene in September to take on the task of of cutting $1.5 trillion from the federal deficit over the next 10 years, their actions, or inactions, will help answer the question: Will America prosper or perish?
America’s economic problems are rooted in many ways in foolish, imprudent decisions with respect to spending.
An outrageous example is an expense that benefits foreign invaders, those with no legal or moral basis for being here.
I refer to perhaps as many as twenty millionillegal aliens who have ignored America’s borders and immigration laws.
As documented in Reference 1, these people cost American taxpayers $113 billion a year.
Again, illegal aliens, cost American taxpayers $113 billion a year.
As a taxpaying citizen, I wonder why politicians from both sides of the aisle refuse to target this wasteful expense?
Surely, $113 billion a year cannot be too paltry an amount to summon the attention of those responsible for eradicating wasteful spending?
Clearly, the American people would benefit enormously if the federal government would simply enforce existing laws and take action, through deportations, to return illegal aliens to their nations of origin.
In the past, skeptics have argued that mass deportations would be too costly.
However, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Nelson Peacock, responding to request from several U.S. Senators, recently (December 3, 2010) wrote the following:
“Our conservative estimate suggests that ICE would require a budget of more than $135 billion to apprehend, detain and remove the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.”
See reference 2 for the complete statement.
Thus, an investment of $135 billion dollars would yield a savings of $113 billion a year.
Over a period of ten years, that would result in more than $1 trillion dollars for American citizens!
In addition, millions of jobs now filled by illegals would be available for unemployed America citizens, and homeland security would be strengthened by removing individuals about whom little or nothing is known, including possible ties to terrorists.
To help solve the deficit crsis and enhance homeland security as well, members of the Super Committee must require that illegal aliens be deported, thereby freeing America from the extreme financial, employment, and security dangers attendant with a huge population of illegals.
Reference 1:
1http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=23198&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1741
Reference 2
http://www.examiner.com/immigration-reform-in-national/dhs-confirms-cheaper-to-deport-every-illegal-alien-than-allowing-them-to-stay
When the "Super Committee" appointed by leaders of the House and Senate convene in September to take on the task of of cutting $1.5 trillion from the federal deficit over the next 10 years, their actions, or inactions, will help answer the question: Will America prosper or perish?
America’s economic problems are rooted in many ways in foolish, imprudent decisions with respect to spending.
An outrageous example is an expense that benefits foreign invaders, those with no legal or moral basis for being here.
I refer to perhaps as many as twenty millionillegal aliens who have ignored America’s borders and immigration laws.
As documented in Reference 1, these people cost American taxpayers $113 billion a year.
Again, illegal aliens, cost American taxpayers $113 billion a year.
As a taxpaying citizen, I wonder why politicians from both sides of the aisle refuse to target this wasteful expense?
Surely, $113 billion a year cannot be too paltry an amount to summon the attention of those responsible for eradicating wasteful spending?
Clearly, the American people would benefit enormously if the federal government would simply enforce existing laws and take action, through deportations, to return illegal aliens to their nations of origin.
In the past, skeptics have argued that mass deportations would be too costly.
However, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Nelson Peacock, responding to request from several U.S. Senators, recently (December 3, 2010) wrote the following:
“Our conservative estimate suggests that ICE would require a budget of more than $135 billion to apprehend, detain and remove the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.”
See reference 2 for the complete statement.
Thus, an investment of $135 billion dollars would yield a savings of $113 billion a year.
Over a period of ten years, that would result in more than $1 trillion dollars for American citizens!
In addition, millions of jobs now filled by illegals would be available for unemployed America citizens, and homeland security would be strengthened by removing individuals about whom little or nothing is known, including possible ties to terrorists.
To help solve the deficit crsis and enhance homeland security as well, members of the Super Committee must require that illegal aliens be deported, thereby freeing America from the extreme financial, employment, and security dangers attendant with a huge population of illegals.
Reference 1:
1http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=23198&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1741
Reference 2
http://www.examiner.com/immigration-reform-in-national/dhs-confirms-cheaper-to-deport-every-illegal-alien-than-allowing-them-to-stay
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Libs to Call for Repeal of ObamaCare, Take Credit for Deficit Reduction?
By John W. Lillpop
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals failed to drop its hammer on ObamaCare in time for Obama’s birthday which happened on August 4, 1961, allegedly in Honolulu, but more likely in Kenya.
Still, the devastation was overwhelming as described at the reference:
“President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law suffered a setback on Friday when an appeals court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require all Americans to buy insurance or face a penalty.
The U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, ruled 2 to 1 that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but it unanimously reversed a lower court decision that threw out the entire law.
The legality of the individual mandate, a cornerstone of the healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Opponents have argued that without the mandate, which goes into effect in 2014, the entire law falls.
The law, adopted by Congress in 2010 after a bruising battle, is expected to be a major political issue in the 2012 elections as Obama seeks another term. All the major Republican presidential candidates have opposed it.
Obama has championed the individual mandate as a major accomplishment of his presidency and as a way to try to slow the soaring costs of healthcare while expanding coverage to the more than 30 million Americans without it.”
Despite the bitter disappointment felt by those on the left, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to make lemonade from the ObamaCare lemon with this proposal(satire):
This ruling is disconcerting particularly in light of the terrorism visited on the American people by the Tea Party loonies recently.
Nonetheless, we are willing to work with the hand we have been dealt.
Accordingly, when the Super Committee kicks off next month, I will recommend that the savings from NOT implementing ObamaCare be credited to our side as a huge chunk of the $1.5 trillion in required deficit reductions.
We ARE the party of fiscal responsibility!
And so it goes from the Party that creates financial monsters only to claim victory when those same monsters are destroyed!
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Remember the “Osama bin Laden” Bounce?
By John W. Lillpop
It was on May 1 that President Obama stood before microphones and television cameras at the White House to announce the assassination of Osama bin Laden, former CEO of Terrorism, Inc. and leader of the Al-Quaeda branch of the Religion of Peace.
Obama’s announcement set off a spontaneous round of thundering jingoism and celebration from coast-to-coast, including on college campuses where young college students rallied and chanted, “We’re Number 1!, We’re Number 1!” expressions of pride normally reserved for really important matters like an important basketball or football victory over a bitter rival.
The next morning, America was still celebrating wildly. So much so that Joy Behar and Barbara Walters of the View proposed that the 2012 elections should be cancelled because of Obama’s newly earned stature as America’s Killer Dude-In-Chief.
By giving orders which caused Navy SEALS to splatter the personage of bin Laden directly to Allah in about 100 bloody pieces, the Barack Obama presidency was instantly rescued from the dustbin of failure and consigned to the “can’t miss for re-election” category.”
Behar and Walters could barely contain their glee as they contemplated Act 2 of the worst presidency in history:
View co-hosts Joy Behar and Barbara Walters on Monday immediately politicized the killing of terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. After giving credit to Barack Obama for the successful strike, supposedly straight journalist Walters giddily announced, "I would hate now to be a Republican candidate thinking of running."
Fast forward just 90 days or so and you have a weakened President who, by “leading from behind,” has driven America to the brink of default and, having failed to accomplish that nasty deed, still managed to preside over the first credit downgrade in U.S. history.
Now instead of basking in the glory of a stunning military coup over an unarmed wimp in hiding, Obama has been reduced to watching the stock market collapse on national TV while he blames Republicans and Standards and Poor’s for the awful financial mess inherited from George W. Bush.
Sorry, Joy and Barbara, but as things stand today, canceling the remaining 14 months of Obama’s presidency seems the most prudent course for America, given the fact that 73% of the public believe that the nation is headed in the wrong direction!
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/05/02/joy-behar-and-barbara-walters-politicize-bin-laden-death-just-cancel#ixzz1Uj8FEhn2
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)