Illegal Immigration: All About Redistribution of Wealth

By John W. Lillpop


Those who genuinely care about our great nation, are justifiably outraged that the Mexican government blatantly refuses to respect American sovereignty and rule of law.

Even more distressing: The fact that the Obama administration, the Democrat Party, as well RINO members of the GOP, share Mexico's utter contempt for American citizens.

Those who advocate enforcement of laws and border security are often smeared as racist jingoists. Former Speaker of the U.S. House Nancy Pelosi even suggested that such people are some how un-American!

Mexican born musician Carlos Santana in Atlanta to receive an award prior to a Major League Baseball game, said that Arizona and the city of Atlanta should be "ashamed" for passing immigration bills!

Santana who enjoys enormous fame and fortune due to America, is the one who should be "ashamed" that tens of millions of " his people" have invaded America!

For perspective, Santana would also do well to consider Mexican law and practices with respect to illegal aliens. He would (or should) be "ashamed" at how his beloved Mexico mistreats and abuses (including murder and rape)illegal aliens.

Santana should also hang his head in shame at the fact that Amnesty International has declared Mexico’s treatment of illegals as a “humanitarian crisis!”

Back here in America, illegal aliens are often defended as goodhearted, hardworking folks who come to America because they share our values.

Former President George W. Bush, by all accounts a good and decent man, refused to enforce immigration laws and secure the borders based on his personal belief that illegals migrate north because of a burning desire for the liberties and freedoms which accrue to those who live in our American Democracy.

However, President Bush never answered the following question: If illegal aliens love America and our values so much, why do they blatantly defy the rule of law, a basic foundation of our blessed Democracy?

In truth, illegals do not invade because they share common values or pine for the freedoms found in a robust Democracy.

Illegals come to take public services—education, health care, welfare, food stamps and the like--to which they are not entitled, and which cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion of each year.

Illegal immigration is really all about the redistribution of wealth from American citizens to poorly-educated, impoverished, third-world, non-English speaking invaders from our south.

Its about millions of illegal foreigners deciding, unilaterally, to move to America for their own enrichment, with no concern for the impact that their invasions will have on American citizens.

As to common values. , most Americans are NOT criminals—all illegal aliens are.

Most Americans speak English—most illegal aliens refuse to learn the American language.

In addition, many illegals justify their snubbing of our borders and immigration laws with the belief that parts of the U.S. still belong to Mexico.

They come not to share in the “American Dream,” but to reclaim property which they naively believe to still be part of Mexico.

As everyone knows, the Mexican government bitterly opposes efforts to stem the flow of illegal aliens from Mexico into America. That government has even threatened to take the United States to the UN because a proposed fence at the at the border.

A fence that would be built by Americans on American soil using American money!

However, when it comes to illegal aliens going into Mexico from countries south of its border, the Mexican government has absolutely zero tolerance. No driver’s licenses, in-state tuition, or any of the other perks that American politicians bestow on Mexicans here illegally.

Fact is, illegal aliens in Mexico are regarded as felons by the government, treated accordingly, and are deported as quickly as possible.

America officials should do the same to the scores millions of aliens here illegally.

To claim that America is somehow “blessed” to have a third-world neighbor that does nothing as millions of its citizens are dumped on the backs of U.S. taxpayers is outrageous and irresponsible.

No other nation on earth would tolerate a “neighbor” like Mexico—and neither should America!

Why Not Calculate Income Tax Based on Moral Values?

By John W. Lillpop

Over the years, Nancy Pelosi has been a rich source for misspeak and gaffes. And, approaching her 71st birthday (in 10 days), Pelosi has not slowed down a bit when it comes to mind-boggling statements.

For example, in addressing the budget crisis and spending cuts, Pelosi recently made it perfectly clear why this nation is $14 trillion dollars in debt, and counting.

She said, “We cut here we cut there to find a middle ground. That may not be enough,” she said, “I think this debate is on a higher ground of our values. It’s not about money. It’s about the morality of what we’re doing.”

Got that? It’s not about money, it’s about morality.

Talk about goofy!

However, I have decided to use Pelosi’s faux pus as the basis for calculating my income taxes for 2010.

Which led to the following correspondence dispatched to the IRS on March 16:


March 16, 2011

Internal Revenue Service Center
Fresno, Ca 94888

Dear Sir or Madam:

Enclosed please find my Federal Income Tax return and all supporting documents for the tax year ended December 31, 2010.

In preparing this return, I have been guided by the words of Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Minority leader of the U.S. House, who has declared that issues like spending cuts and budgets should be based on morality rather than money.

In accordance with the thinking espoused by Pelosi, I have identified several federal programs that are, in my judgement, immoral and unworthy of my continued support.

Specifically, I have determined that federal programs which provide federal funding for illegal aliens, abortions through Planned Parenthood, as well as all support for National Public Radio and PBS and other liberal causes are immoral.

Accordingly, I have adjusted my tax obligations for 2010 to exclude any support for such programs, using generally accepted accounting standards for prorating.

Because the immoral programs identified involve hundreds of billions of dollars, my adjusted tax for 2010 is actually negative, meaning that when you subtract my share of the money spent by the federal government on illegal aliens, abortions, and public radio, IRS actually owes me $25,578.

Kindly deposit $25, 578 in my bank account by April 15, 2011.

Thank you.

John W. Lillpop

Morality not money, you say? Perhaps that is not so goofy after all!

Unlike Obama, UK's Cameron "Gets it" on Islam

By John W. Lillpop

While President Barack Obama stubbornly and foolihly refuses to admit that the war on terror is essentially a war against Islamic extremists, British Prime Minister Dave Cameron has chosen a less politically correct, more honest, stance.

As reported, in part, at Reference 1:

David Cameron today pledged to make Britain ‘a lot less’ tolerant towards Islamic extremists who whip up hatred against the West.

In a major speech on terrorism, the Prime Minister argued that Britain has been too ‘passive’ towards organizations and preachers who poison the minds of young Muslims.

Mr. Cameron said Britain needs to be less tolerant and more judgmental when faced with ideologies that threaten the country’s basic values.

Signaling a major departure from Labor’s softly-softly approach, he suggested that to ‘belong’ in Britain, individuals must sign up to core values such as freedom of speech, the rule of law and democracy.

In a barely-concealed attack on the opposition, he will say:

‘It’s time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past.’
The Prime Minister pledged to end all public funding for groups which give succor to extremist views. And he called for action to ban extremists from radicalizing young people in universities, prisons and internet chat rooms.

At a security conference in Munich today, Mr. Cameron said: ‘Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism.’

Hear, hear, Mr. PM!

How refreshing to hear a leader of the free world tell it exactly “like it is.”

Meanwhile in the United States, our Commander-in-chief and President continues to ignore the truth, refusing even to use the word Islam in conjunction with discussions about terrorism.

What will it take to awaken Obama to the truth?



1 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353902/David-Cameron-Stop-tolerating-Islamic-extremists-respect-British-core-values.html#ixzz1D6VJXbKh

Second Year of Obama Presidency Most “Polarizing” in 57 Years: Why?

By John W. Lillpop

As measured by a recent Gallup poll, Barack Obama’s second year in office was the most polarizing since 1953, when President Dwight Eisenhower was running the show.

As reported by Gallup poll (1), in part:

"President Barack Obama's job approval ratings were even more polarized during his second year in office than during his first, when he registered the most polarized ratings for a first-year president. An average of 81% of Democrats and 13% of Republicans approved of the job Obama was doing as president during his second year. That 68-point gap in party ratings is up from 65 points in his first year and is easily the most polarized second year for a president since Dwight Eisenhower.”

Obama’s poor showing is doubtlessly linked to the government take-over of health care, unflatteringly referred to as ObamaCare.

The president’s defiance of recent court rulings against ObamaCare will do little to rehabilitate his numbers.

Consider, please:

In a speech following that of Egyptian President Mubarak on February 1, President Obama said the following, in part:

“The process (transition)must include a broad spectrum of Egyptian voices and opposition parties. It should lead to elections that are free and fair. And it should result in a government that's not only grounded in democratic principles, but is also responsive to the aspirations of the Egyptian people.”

Interesting words, those, especially the part about the need for “a broad spectrum of voices and opposition parties” and a call for “government being responsive to the aspirations of the people.”

This moral talking-down from an aloof, elitist president who
presided over a corrupt process of manipulation to pass a socialized health care bill (ObamaCare), despite widespread opposition among the governed and the opposition party.

This blatant hypocrisy from an inexperienced community organizer who chose to bribe, deceive, lie, misrepresent, deny, extort, slander, obscure, hide, execute, mischaracterize, sabotage, and any and all other acts of sleight-of-hand chicanery and tom foolery needed to pass ObamaCare in cahoots with like-minded Marxists in Congress.

This condescending language from a wrong-minded, anti-capitalist renegade who chose to render the principle of democratic governance subservient to the wishes of the elitist governing class, including Congressional scalawags such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who hold the will of the people in utter contempt.

Antonyms to the way in which President Obama handled health care include open, honest government, integrity, rule of law, Constitutional, fair, decent, democratic, representative, and American.

Unfortunately, Obama’s dictatorial behavior has extended beyond the criminal antics required to pass the controversial measure.

Indeed, two federal judges have independently ruled that ObamaCare is unconstitutional.

Furthermore, federal judge Roger Vinson ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.

While Judge Vinson did not issue a specific injunction against implementation of ObamaCare, he clearly expected the Obama Administration to pull the plug on the flawed legislation, as evidenced by the following words from Vinson on the subject:

"...there is a long-standing presumption that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.”

“There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary."

Alas, to date the Obama Administration has simply ignored the ruling by Judge Vinson.

Is it any wonder, therefore, that Barack Obama is such a divisive figure?



1: http://www.gallup.com/poll/145937/Obama-Approval-Ratings-Polarized-Year-Year.aspx

Why Has Charles Rangel Not Been Arrested for Tax Evasion?

By John W. Lillpop

Charles Rangel has spent 40 of his 80 years on this earth in Washington, D.C., living off the sweat and treasury of American taxpayers. Ordinarily, such long-term service would earn the office holder kudos for giving so much to his country.

However, this is Charles Rangel we are talking about. Poster child for Corruption, with a capital C. One of Nancy Pelosi’s trusted mentors on removing corrupt white Republicans from the People’s House, and turning it over to unsavory people of color, always Democrats as it turns out.

After a grinding ordeal played out over 2+ years and millions of dollars in legal fees, Charles Rangel was found guilty of 11 ethics violations and was sentenced to censure by the House.

Which is all well and good, but why is this corrupt moocher still allowed to wander the halls of Congress begging for a “drop of mercy” after evading taxes for lo those many years?

In blunt terms: Why has Charles Rangel not been arrested by the IRS for tax evasion?

After all, powerless citizens like yours truly will soon be subject to harassment by the IRS and a $5,000 fine for failing to buy ObamaCare!

You and me, sisters and brothers, will face the full force and fury of the U.S. government for refusing to follow an unconstitutional mandate from our Marxist president; yet, the fellow who just months ago was in charge of writing the tax laws failed to pay his taxes for years and is still a free man?

Where in the hell is the justice in that?

Most distressing is the fact that this bloated tax cheat wails like a stuck pig when called to account for his corrupt behavior by peers. He even demands that he be called “not corrupt.”

Elitist fools like Charles Rangel are exactly what the election results of November 2were all about.

Because he is so long in the tooth, some may believe that Rangel deserves a “break,” a kinder, gentler hand if you will.

I say, enough is enough!

A mild scolding is no way to deal with a CORRUPT weasel who has abused the public trust in order to enrich himself.

The solution? Arrest Charles Rangel for tax evasion, charge him with a felony or 13, and punish his fat bum to the full extent of the law.

After all, being 80 is no excuse for evading income taxes!

Barack Obama’s “Bad- Hair” Month

By John W. Lillpop

If one could somehow take a quick, private peek into President Obama’s personal diary, the month of November 2010 might have a cryptic entry along these lines:

Dear Diary: November sucks!

BHO

Indeed, for President Obama, November has been nothing but awful news compounded by awful news, made all the worse by an administration that refuses to admit the brutal truth:

America rejects the President’s socialist policies. Case closed, end of story!

Obama’s bad-hair month began on November 2, when Americans registered an emphatic and unequivocal NO! to Obama’s CHANGE, and to most Democrats that supported same.

Some seats in the U.S. House are still undecided, but even so, voters managed to clean the People’s House, an accomplishment that a certain Shrieker- woman was unable to deliver.

Nancy Pelosi failed to clean house because her swamp cleaner was programmed to root out only corruption identified with an R.

Bad guys and women with a D next to their names were ignored; thus, folks like William Jefferson, Charles Rangel, Maxine Waters, and Patrick Kennedy escaped Pelosi’s sanctimonious judgment.

Voter repudiation of Obama policies was also evident in the U.S. Senate where the GOP picked up six seats, effectively ending Obama’s ability to rule by fiat.

After conceding that he suffered a “Shellacking,” in the elections, the President escaped on a 10-day junket through Asia where he hoped to bag a free-trade agreement with South Korea and persuade G-20 attendees to follow his lead on dealing with China.

However, instead of asserting his regal power on the global stage, Barack Obama was rebuffed time and again, thereby confirming the verdict delivered by America voters on 2 November, which was:

President Obama’s judgment is very much suspect and must be aggressively challenged when necessary!

Back “home” after the Asian fiasco, the president sought to enhance his self-esteem and public image by winning confirmation of the START Treaty with Russia in the U.S. Senate.

Once again, President Obama was trumped, this time by Senator John Kyle, the well-respected Republican from Arizona who has said that ratification should not be rushed during the current lame duck session.

President Obama is still fighting this battle, but it will take 67 votes in the Senate to confirm.

While the SALT Treaty is being sorted out, Obama’s scheme to try terrorists in civilian courts suffered a major blow when jurors convicted Ahmed Ghailani of conspiracy to blow up government buildings in the al-Qaida attacks on two U.S. embassies in 1998, but acquitted him on more than 280 other charges.

That legal silliness almost surely means an end to Obama’s misguided pipe-dream of closing GITMO.

Bank of Obama: Too Inept to Fail?

By John W. Lillpop

Lord, tell me, please, just how is it that the federal government, at least $13 trillion dollars in debt with no end to reckless spending in sight, is mandated to seize banks, and now credit unions, because of insolvency and inability to handle money responsibly?

Does any breathing entity really believe that Barack Obama and his tax-dodging pals at the U.S. Treasury are better able to manage assets than those beleaguered souls in charge at the failing banks?

Still, the federal government continues to rush in to “rescue” ever more institutions, driven to the edge of financial ruin by Marxists who believe the ancient myth, long ago disproved, that higher taxes, government meddling, and anti-business polices are vital keys to prosperity.

As reported at Reference 1, in part:

“Regulators on Friday shut down small banks in Florida and Washington state, bringing to 127 the number of U.S. bank failures this year on a wave of loan defaults and economic distress.

With 127 closures nationwide so far this year, the pace of bank failures exceeds that of 2009, which was already a brisk year for shutdowns. By this time last year, regulators had closed 95 banks.

The number of bank failures is expected to peak this year and be slightly higher than the 140 that fell in 2009. That was the highest annual tally since 1992, at the height of the savings and loan crisis. The 2009 failures cost the insurance fund more than $30 billion. Twenty-five banks failed in 2008, the year the financial crisis struck with force; only three succumbed in 2007.”

This crisis is also due, in large part, to crazed Democrats who contend that home ownership, regardless of income, employment history, immigration status, credit worthiness, available assets, and other reasonable standards, should be eschewed in order to spread the wealth.

After all, they say, home ownership is a constitutional right!

When and if fiscal sanity returns to Washington, D.C. in the form of a Republican revolution this November, the new congress must immediately commission a SWAT team to kick in the door of Timothy Geithner at the U.S. Treasury and seize all taxpayer assets being held hostage by the failed Bank of Obama!

While you are at it, patriots, have the SWAT team do lunch in Kentucky early in January and, while there, visit Fort Knox to see if there is anything in the vault other than a few thousand rusty, old Obama-Biden campaign buttons, and a few hundred thousand autographed copies of The Audacity of Hope buried in cob webs!

A National Priority: Shut down the Bank of Obama and declare the federal government, as currently constituted, unworthy of stewardship over the assets and wealth of the American people!



Ref 1 http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100925/D9IEMB381.html