A Sensible Way to "Stimulate" the Economy: Stop Taking So Much in Taxes!

By John W. Lillpop


President Bush and Congress are about to "stimulate" the economy by adding another $150 billion to the national debt!

When will this sort of fiscal insanity end? Why do elected officials refuse to accept their fiduciary responsibility with regard to taxpayer money?

Point: Instead of spending billions of dollars to process rebate checks, why not simply stop taking so damn much to begin with?

In other words, cut out the middleman--the IRS--and let the American people keep more of their hard-earned money! Leave those extra dollars in the hands of those whose spending will produce a robust and thriving economy, rather than in the hands of knot-headed bureaucrats and politicians!

Of course, leaving more money in the hands of those who worked for it will result in reduced tax revenues. But that does not need to add to the federal debt if wasteful and unnecessary spending is cut and eliminated where possible.

Finding wasteful spending to cut and eliminate is easy, provided elected officials apply common sense, rather than PC, to the task.

To begin with, America wastes approximately $100 billion a year by providing public services to illegal aliens. These are people have no legal or moral basis for being in America, yet they receive health care, welfare, education and other public services to which they are not entitled.

Why not pass legislation making it a felony crime for any government agency or employee to provide public services to illegal aliens? Call it embezzlement, theft, fraud or whatever, but make it a serious crime!

In addition, tens of billions of dollars are wasted each year to print voting information and ballots in languages other than English.

The dollars wasted on this folly are particularly galling since only citizens are supposed to vote. Citizens by birth should be proficient in English; those born elsewhere and naturalized here are, by law, required to be proficient in English as a condition of citizenship.

Why not make English the official language of the United States, and make it a felony crime to print any voting materials, ballots, or other governmental information in any language except English?

Enacting "English only" legislation could save another $10 billion a year.

Next, our government needs to revise the method by which welfare benefits are disbursed. As it is, the government provides no motivation whatsoever for welfare recipients to become productive members of society. In fact the exact opposite is true.

Why not make all welfare income taxable at the 75% tax bracket?

That would increase revenues, and more importantly, "stimulate" those living on the public trough to get the hell out of said mooching mode, and into work and gainful employment.

That would increase revenues, which could then be passed on to all taxpayers!

An urgent plea to President Bush and Congress:

1. Stop wasteful spending!

2. Stop shoving trillions of dollars onto the backs of future generations by running up the national debt!

3. Stop taking so damn much money from the American people to begin with!


Fiscal responsibility from our elected officials is the only "stimulus" that we need, thank you!

Looking for Change? Think Mitt Romney!

By John W. Lillpop

Although Barack Obama has pinched, or attempted to pinch, the legacy of JFK for his own presidential aspirations, the fact is that Mitt Romney is far more reminiscent of America's 35th president.

Kennedy, it will be remembered, was forced to fight religious bigotry and prejudice in 1960 because of his Catholic faith.

Thankfully, American voters rose to the occasion and elected Camelot, despite his religious preferences and possible alignment with powerful men in the Vatican.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney faces a very similar struggle in 2008 because of his Mormonism, and his alignment with powerful men in Salt Lake City, Utah.

As a practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Romney is aligned with one of the most persecuted and oppressed minorities in history. Even in these enlightened times, millions of Americans say they would not vote for the charismatic ex-governor of Massachusetts under any circumstances.

That ugliness is costing Romney dearly as he challenges John McCain for the GOP nomination, especially since McCain stands opposed to so many conservative principles that are supposedly the bedrock of the Republican Party.

Fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney is the most conservative candidate running for the White House. He is also the most experienced and qualified, a fact attested to by his service as the governor of liberal-infested Massachusetts, and by his enormously successful personal finances.

Mitt Romney knows how to work with people from diverse political backgrounds, how to overcome discrimination and adversity, and he knows how to run a large organization.

No other candidate comes close to matching his qualifications for taking over the Oval Office on January 20, 2009.

Best of all, Romney is intelligent, articulate, and an eternal optimist. He is a contemporary clone of Ronald Reagan, but in sacred underwear.

Unlike Reagan, Romney attends church every Sunday. Which in the Mormon faith requires him to spend the majority of his Sunday either in church, or commuting to and from church.

Mitt Romney does not attend church just to provide television cameras and photographers with photo ops. He attends church to practice his faith, which is what church attendance is supposed to be all about.

Discipline, dedication, decisiveness, decency, and devotion are attributes that Mitt Romney has developed through his church. Those attributes are also an urgent need for the presidency.

Looking for real change? Think Romney!

The Bush Legacy? Don't Ask, Don't Tell!

By John W. Lillpop

Barring any major unexpected turn of events, one year from now George W. Bush will be off the federal payroll and in the private sector. As such, Bush will be more of a Washington outsider than he is now.

Once he is no longer encumbered with concerns over an unwarranted war that he started, or the huge federal debt he created, or any of his other failures that will leave America in shambles, private citizen George W. Bush will probably work full time to rewrite history in his favor.

In other words, Bush will try desperately to transform a resume of failure into a legacy of success.

If truth is allowed at all in the future, the Bush legacy will include the following history:


* Incompetent handling of WMD intelligence, leading to invasion of Iraq

* Inept management of the Iraq war.

* Attempted sale of port management to nation with strong terrorist ties

* Unsecured borders during time of war.

* Unopposed invasion of America by millions of additional illegal aliens.

* Armed incursion by Mexican officials into America, also unopposed

* Massive new entitlement (prescription drugs), costing trillions of dollars

* Huge federal debt

* Bungling of federal response to Katrina.

* Sub-prime loan crisis, massive foreclosures, possible recession

* Nomination of Harriet Miers to U.S. Supreme Court

* Democrat majorities in both chambers: Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid

* Garbled, mostly unintelligible communications with the American people.

All in all, the Bush Legacy will be best described by a term from the Clinton era: Don't ask, don't tell!

John McCain Does Not Deserve Support from Conservatives

By John W. Lillpop

In this the winter of political muckraking and dirty tricks, when candidates play foot loose and fancy free with the truth, one fact remains irrefutable:

John McCain is one of the most courageous Americans to have ever donned the uniform of the United States military. Put simply, the man is a national hero who deserves the undying respect and gratitude of the American people for his military service, including several years as a POW in North Vietnam.

However laudable his military credentials may be, John McCain does not deserve the Republican nomination for the presidency.
This is so because America's best hope for the future is to elect, and continue to elect, dedicated conservatives to serve as the nation's CEO and to serve in Congress.

Unfortunately, John McCain does not support certain conservative objectives.

On issues ranging from tax cuts to campaign finance reform, McCain's voting record is more aligned with that of ultra-liberal Ted Kennedy, than with conservatives.

His greatest conservative shortfall is in the area of illegal immigration, where the Arizona senator actually joined forces with Ted Kennedy last summer to promote amnesty for as many as 38 million invaders currently on American soil.

Like George W. Bush and other open borders advocates, McCain insists that he was only interested in "reform," and not amnesty.

But how can one logically argue that rewarding tens of millions of people who have violated U.S. borders and immigration laws with a "path to citizenship" is anything but amnesty?

That spurious argument has been soundly rejected by the American people, and should be abandoned by McCain as well.

Anything short of deportation is amnesty, Senator!

By now, America and her politicians should have learned a lesson from the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986:

Namely, amnesty only begets more millions of illegal aliens.

Indeed, since amnesty was granted to several million illegal aliens back then, another 38 million or so have unilaterally decided to make America their home.

And why not? Why go through the rigors of legal immigration when one can simply invade America and wait for politicians like George W. Bush and John McCain to "reform" the law in favor of the invaders?

John McCain's disdain for the rule of law spiked last June when he decided that that fear mongering was essential in order to sell his amnesty snake oil to an increasingly skeptical public.

On June 2, McCain rolled out his fear-based defense of amnesty on the campaign trail in Le Mars, Iowa. Responding to a question about deportation of illegal aliens, McCain delivered the following dilly:

"In case you hadn't noticed, the thousands of people who have been relegated to ghettos have risen up and burned cars in France,'' McCain said. ``They've got huge problems in France. They have tremendous problems. The police can't even go into certain areas in the suburbs of Paris. I don't want that in the suburbs of America.''

With all due respect to the senator, warning American citizens that government will not enforce certain laws because to do so would lead to rioting is unacceptable and, frankly, incredibly dumb!

It is also irresponsible and reckless, because it conveys a very dangerous message, which is:

"America is governed by the rule of law, except when the threat of anarchy and violence is too great. In which case, congress and the president will simply change the law to legalize what had been illegal, thereby pacifying those guilty of behavior once considered unlawful."

In addition to the anti-American stench in McCain's riot warning, one wonders:

If John McCain had been as cowardly and deferential to his communist captors as he would apparently be to illegal aliens, would he have even survived Vietnam?

Moreover, now that a sitting U.S. senator and leading candidate for the presidency has warned that mob rule, rather rule of law, may be the foundation for future government immigration policy and action, will the illegal alien community decide to play the R card (riot!) in order to get its way?

Finally, McCain and others intent on legalizing 38 million illegal aliens argue that amnesty makes sense because Latino aliens share values common to the majority of Americans.

That may be so, but I'll be damned if I can recall a single instance when millions of American citizens resorted to rioting because of displeasure with legitimate laws and enforcement.

But perhaps some rioting from American citizens is needed to convince the likes of John McCain to abandon amnesty and his strategy of surrender to illegal aliens?

Invading Mexicans Run Over, Kill BP Agent: Where Are the Marines?

By John W. Lillpop

In one of the most blatant and outrageous acts in the undeclared war that Mexico is waging against America, Mexican invaders ran down and killed a brave Border Patrol agent who was simply doing his job at the Yuma Sector.

Repeat: Mexican invaders ran down and killed a BP agent and then raced back across the border into Mexico.

Under better times, American could count on the president to respond immediately against the offending nation with a formal protest, and perhaps even military action.

Unfortunately, these are not good times when it comes to America's homeland security. That is so because we are encumbered with a retarded alcoholic in the Oval Office, a president who will spend as much as $2 trillion fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but who will do next to nothing to secure our own borders.

If our president were not on the payroll of the Mexican government, he would have immediately sent the U.S. Marines to seal off the border. The Pentagon would have been ordered to develop plans for invading Mexico City and taking control of the Mexican government.

The clear objective would have been to end the unlawful invasion of America by driving the Mexican border southward. Within ten feet of Guatemala would have been the goal.

So what did Dubya do in response to the latest deadly attack on the U.S. Border patrol by Mexico? He sent in Michael Chertoff, alleged to be Director of Homeland Security.

Chertoff made the following comment, in part:

"Earlier today the Border Patrol lost a brave agent assigned to the Yuma Sector in a heinous act of violence. The agent was struck and killed while attempting to stop two vehicles believed to have illegally entered the country and were absconding back into Mexico.

"I am outraged by this tragic loss. I have spoken to the Mexican ambassador who gives me both his condolences and deep assurance that their government will be resolute in tracking down the perpetrators, and bringing them to swift justice.

"I'm insisting that the full force of the law be used in this investigation. Our Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are already on scene assisting the Border Patrol and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this effort."

And on and on and on and on, Chertoff followed the PC script written to coddle the outlaw renegades who run the Mexican government.

If America had a responsible, sane, and intelligent commander-in-chief, that leader would have issued a statement something like this:

"Earlier today, Mexico continued its assault on America when a brave Border Patrol agent was run down and killed by invading criminals from Mexico.

"I have just finished speaking on the telephone with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and have advised him that we regard this latest incident as an act of war against the sovereign nation of America.

"I further advised President Calderon that Mexico has 24 hours in which to apprehend the killers and return them to America for prosecution. In the event that Mexico fails to meet this deadline, American special forces will be sent into Mexico to search down and arrest the criminals.

"President Calderon has also been informed that unless his government takes immediate action to prevent Mexican citizens from invading America, I shall reassign 75,000 troops from the middle east to the U.S.-Mexico border. These forces shall be ordered to use whatever force, including lethal, necessary to stop Mexican criminals from invading America.

"Finally, I warned the president that if Mexico is ultimately unable to control its population, American forces may, at my discretion, be sent into Mexico to take control of the Mexican government.

"I urge all Americans to remain calm and rest assured that your government is doing all we can to protect America from foreign invasion. That is our constitutional responsibility and we shall fulfill that obligation, with military force if need be.

Good night and God Bless America, and to hell with Mexico!"

Wonder what the odds are of Dubya uttering those words?

W's Latest Leftward Lurch: Assault on Second Amendment

By John W. Lillpop

Conservatives who voted for George W. Bush in either 2000 or 2004, or both, have once again been stabbed in the back by the most liberal president to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter.

To begin with, W decided that fiscal responsibility, as a basic tenant of conservative governance, is not all that important. Thus, his refusal, until recently, to veto out- of- control spending bills that have contributed to a massive federal debt that will encumber future generations for years to come.

Then it was "No Child Left Behind," which W saw fit to approve at the urging of Senator Teddy Kennedy, the embodiment of anti-conservative thought if ever there was one.

Whatever happened to the conservative notion that school policy was best left in the hands of local educators and citizens, rather than in the hands of reckless Washington politicians more interested in pork and getting re-elected than the quality of education? Why does the Department of Education continue to exist as a Cabinet-level department?

A $10 trillion entitlement was next on the W anti-conservative agenda, this one for prescription drugs for seniors. Anyone with half a heart empathizes with seniors on fixed incomes struggling to pay for expensive medicines.

But why should senior medical bills be dumped on the backs of young and middle aged taxpayers? Why is carrying for seniors not best left to their families, churches, philanthropists, and other private charitable institutions?

To any conservative worth his weight in Ronald Reagan bumper stickers, defending the homeland is the only genuine responsibility of government.

Yet W has refused to secure our borders during a time of war, and has stupidly advocated amnesty for as many as 38 million illegal aliens who have invaded America.

These are positions one would expect from the likes of leftists such as Dennis Kucinich or George McGovern.

Why has W retreated so completely from the conservative concepts of secure borders, rule of law, and American sovereignty?

Just when it appeared as though W had lurched to the left as much as humanly possible without joining the Democrat party, news leaked out this week that the administration has filed a legal brief that suggests that gun rights are limited.

Specifically, the brief argues that since gun ownership is subject to "reasonable regulation," all gun limits imposed by the federal government should be affirmed as constitutional.

"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment," he wrote U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in the brief.

WND: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59770

Whatever happened to the conservative position that gun ownership is an inalienable right granted by the Second Amendment, and that no infringement of that right is acceptable?

In analyzing the performance, or lack thereof, of the Bush administration over the past seven years, the overwhelming question that surfaces is this:

Whatever happened to the idea that conservatives are better stewards of the public trust and treasure because of their commitment to fiscal restraint, individual responsibility, small government, rule of law, and law and order?

Has George W. Bush single-handedly destroyed conservatism in America?

Worried Cries of "The Mexicans Are Coming!" Break Out in Tucson

By John W. Lillpop

Worried cries of "The Mexicans are coming, the Mexicans are coming!" filled the air in Tucson, Arizona this past week as government officials expressed frenzied concern about invading illegal aliens.

And with whom were the public outcries originating? Tucson city or Arizona state officials? Or perhaps a member of the U.S. House or Senate? Maybe the Minutemen were acting up again?

None of the above!

In fact, the alarms were sounded by Mexican legislators suffering apoplectic fits over Arizona's tough new anti-illegal alien laws.

The source of their angst? Mexican illegal aliens going back to Mexico, where they belong!

Tucsoncitizen: http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/border/74193.php

This band of third world banditos descended on Tucson to reaffirm what has been obvious to most reasonable Americans long ago: Mexico is a third-world cesspool run by corrupt and greedy elitists who cannot, or will not, feed, house, educate, and provide medical care for its own citizens.

And why should they? After all, it is far less expensive and problematic for Mexico to simply dump its problems on the U.S. side of the border for American taxpayers to deal with.

Clearly, most Mexican officials have no respect for American sovereignty and rule of law. They are also lacking any concern for the impact that illegal aliens have on America's homeland security, economy, and social and cultural stability.

At a news conference, the Mexican legislators said Mexico cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools it will face as illegal Mexican workers in America return to their hometowns without jobs or money.

Can you imagine? A delegation from a foreign government actually stood on American soil to protest enforcement of American law in America?

Has there ever been a more outrageous display of arrogant incompetence?

Excepting of course, the political malfeasance practiced by the United States Congress and several presidents, which has allowed as many as 38 million illegal aliens to invade and occupy America--during time of war?

A sampling of quotes from the Mexican legislators provides a pretty good summary of how out of touch Mexico is with regard to the illegal alien problem in America:

"How can they pass a law like this?" asked Mexican Rep. Leticia Amparano Gamez, who represents Nogales, in Spanish.

She continued, "Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems" it will face as more and more Mexicans working in Arizona and sending money to their families return to hometowns in Sonora without jobs, she said. "We are one family, socially and economically," she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona.

Rep. Florencio Diaz Armenta, coordinator of the delegation, asked, "What do we do with the repatriated?" he asked. "As Mexicans, we are worried. They are Mexicans but they are also people - fathers and mothers and young people with jobs" who won't have work in Sonora."

Mexican officials, including the ones quoted above, would do well to understand and accept the following essential truths about America:

*America is a sovereign nation, totally independent of Mexico. It has been that way for over 200 years. We intend to keep it that way.

*In America, Mexico is considered a FOREIGN nation and Spanish is a FOREIGN language.

*America operates according to the rule of law, which applies to everyone. This is true whether one is brown, black, yellow, lily-white, red, or an exotic hybrid of lavender and green.

*Being hard working and good hearted is commendable. But those qualities do NOT entitle anyone to enter America illegally.

* People here illegally are common criminals, and as such, are most unwelcome.

* American citizens will fight to have illegal aliens deported, regardless of whether or not families are involved. Illegal is illegal, Family or not.

* Demanding that our borders be secured and that the law be enforced is the right of all American citizens; doing so does not make any one a racist or bigot, and

*U.S. immigration laws exist to protect American citizens & others here legally, not to facilitate a foreigner’s pursuit of a better life, and

Now if there just a way to convey those truths to George W. Bush and all Democrats and RINOs, American patriots might have a decent change of stopping and reversing the invasion of our nation by third world Mexico!

Hillary's Tin Ear on Illegal Aliens

By John Lillpop

During the October 30 Democratic debate, moderator Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton, "Do you the New York Senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York Governor's Plan to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses?"

The Queen of Mean answered with several flip-flops between "Yes" and "No."

That shoddy Halloween eve performance has haunted Hillary ever since and has resulted in new life for the campaigns of challengers Barack Obama and John Edwards.

One wonders why "No person is illegal!" was not Hillary's immediate response in Philadelphia?

That was clearly her tactic while stalking potential victim-voters in a Hispanic neighborhood in Las Vegas on January 10.

"No woman is illegal," Clinton screeched to cheers, mostly in Spanish, coming from people who apparently forgot that they were consigned to the shadows.

Still, Hillary's confusion is fairly plausible, when one thinks about.

After all, being surrounded by the likes of Bill Clinton, Norman Hsu, Sandy Burger, and Sidney Blumenthal could distort one's ability to distinguish between right and wrong, legal and illegal.

However, the issue of illegal versus illegal as pertains to immigration is really quite well defined in federal laws such as the Immigration Reform and Control Act, passed by Congress and signed into law in 1986.

IRCA: http://www.oig.lsc.gov/legis/irca86.htm

In that law, the term "Illegal alien" is the operative term for those whom are in the United States illegally.

But perhaps the law does not mean all that much to an ambitious woman on a scavenger hunt for votes who also just happens to be a congenital liar?

Armed Incursions By Mexicans Prod Dubya Into Inaction

By John W. Lillpop

Startling new information secured by Judicial Watch documents the fact that Mexican military and other officials have staged 29 incursions into America over the past 12 months.

FOXNEWS: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,321547,00.html

In 17 of the incursions, the Mexicans were armed.

Can you imagine? An armed invasion of these great United States without so much as a whimper or complaint from the dunderheads charged with defending our nation?

In fact, George W. Bush is so concerned that he has retreated to the middle east on a "peace mission."

Dubya on a peace mission?

That's akin to having Nancy Pelosi address the NRA in order to rally support for the second amendment. Or Harry Reid touring Iraq to assure U.S. ground troops that America is winning the war.

But perhaps the American people are actually better off with Dubya consigned to the most dangerous region in the world? At least while he is abroad, Duyba is not doing more "lame duck" damage here at home while on a scavenger hunt for a legacy.

And who knows, maybe Dubya can actually bring peace to Israel by convincing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert into adopting an "open borders" policy that will allow millions of suicide bombers to invade Israel, to do work (blow up buses, shops, etc.) that persnickety Jews will simply not do?

A middle east version of his idiotic "Mexicanization" policy that has worked so well in America--if you happen to be an official of the Mexican government looking to dump 38 million illiterate peasants on the backs of U.S. taxpayers, that is?

With just slightly more than 365 days left for the "Worst President" in history to achieve a respectable legacy, Dubya will have to do something spectacular and dramatic should his peace mission fail.

Here's food for thought for the Dubyamester: Why not invade Mexico, take over the oil fields, imprison all of their corrupt elitist billionaires and politicians, and hand out their treasury to the 38 million criminals who have invaded America?

With the caveat that in order to claim the booty, every illegal alien must be embedded with a tracking chip and return to Mexico forever, with no right of return or visit.

Dubya could even skim oil profits off the top and send said profits to the U.S. treasury for distribution to rich and powerful Americans desperately in need of more tax cuts.

How do you say win-win in Spanish?

Disenfranchisement of Absentee Voters

By John W. Lillpop

The following letter was sent to the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Francisco Examiner, and the San Jose Mercury News to bring attention to the disenfranchisement of absentee voters:

Dear Editor,

Upon receipt of my absentee ballot for the February 5 election, I immediately voted my conscience, hoping to spark a revolution for a better and more secure future.

For myself, that means YES! on the measure to keep corrupt state lawmakers from stealing money from motor fuel taxes in order to enrich the general fund.

It means NO! on anything that would reduce term limits. It means NO! on the measure to approve a $349,000,000 bond sale to prop up the wretched East Side Union School District.

In light of the illicit occupation of East San Jose by third-world illegal aliens, schools in that district should really be funded by the Mexican government.

It also means NO! on the four Compact measures which, if approved, would make gambling addiction even more of a cash cow for a state that already wastes $10.5 billion a year on illegal aliens.

Having finished my patriotic duty by voting wisely and prudently, I folded the ballot and placed it in the return envelope. It was then that I noticed that return of my ballot requires that $.58 in postage be affixed to the envelope!

Said postage to be paid for by me, regardless of ability to pay. Or disinclination to pay, to be more exact.

Holy voter fraud, this is like a poll tax!

How can it cost the Post Office $.58 to drop off an envelope at the Registrar of Voters? From anywhere in the danged state, much less the same city?

This is an outrage! It is discrimination against people who find $.58 postage to be usury, most likely criminal, and if the ACLU gets involved, unconstitutional.

I immediately e-mailed our two U.S. senators seeking financial relief for disenfranchised absentee voters. We are also in touch with the Justice Department and may decide to file a civil rights complaint as well.

Can we count on your paper to support the war that absentee voters must wage in order to remain free and independent?

John W Lillpop
San Jose, California