It's A Pundit

March 31 is the birthday of one of the fiercest foes of illegal immigration in California history.

Unlike retarded Democrats in modern times, this man understood that invading illegal aliens would suppress wages and diminish the standard of living for all working class people.

The late Cesar Chavez was a Mexican American labor activist whose life California has seen fit to memorialize with a state holiday. Several city governments in California have followed the lead of the state, and also go dark on Chavez's birthday.

As a conservative, I would normally object to an expensive holiday for a non-essential and marginal figure like Chavez.

But given the fact that California's state and city governments are infested with liberals intent on raising taxes and lowering freedoms, keeping government workers out of their offices as often as possible is very much in the public interest.

In fact, state holidays are California's greatest hope for balancing the budget and restoring responsible governance! We need as many as possible.

Of course, there are negative side effects of Cesar Chavez Day as well.

Example: Hundreds of Latino students, including illegal aliens, stormed out of their California classrooms on Friday and took to the streets to make their "demands" known.

Their demands are what? That illegal aliens be granted full citizenship rights, and that a national Cesar Chavez holiday be established.

Mind you, many of those out on the streets are the same dullards who will be unable to pass California's exit exam in order to graduate high school.

But learning basic English and math skills is obviously less important than marching to demand uncivil rights for invading criminals and a national holiday to honor a grape picker!

So, how do you say "Hail Be Unto Cesar!" in Mexican?

Satire by John W. Lillpop

Speaker Pelosi has left Washington, D.C., to visit Syria. That is the good news.

The bad news: She is coming back!

Pelosi's sojourn has gossipmongers and political pundits working overtime to answer the $60,000 question: Why?

Doesn't Pelosi realize that she has already done enough damage to the United States with her mind-numbing surrender?

Experts say Pelosi is probably going to Syria for one or more of the following reasons:

* Promote the Pelosi Doctrine for the middle east which calls for the impeachment of George W. Bush and the resurrection of Saddam Hussein, both on Easter Sunday;

* Explain the surrender bills passed in the House and the Senate, and to set a "Date Certain" for resolving all differences into a final bill that terrorists can live with;

* Celebrate First Quarter achievements with Islamofascist sponsors and get marching orders for 2nd Quarter;

* Offer the full time services of William J. Jefferson as Ethics and Banking adviser to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Jefferson's salary and all living expenses to be paid by the DNC, provided Jefferson does not return to the U.S. before the day after the elections on November 4, 2008;

* Formally apologize to Syria for the shameful behavior of the Bush administration with regard to 14 innocent Syrian musicians who were viscously harassed during a Northwest Airlines flight from Detroit to Los Angeles in 2004. Pelosi will refer the Syrian government to the San Francisco chapter of the ACLU for further action.

As a gesture of goodwill, Pelosi will also offer to hire the 14 musicians (at minimum wage) to perform at the Gay Pride festivities in San Francisco on June 20;

* Get fitted for a Niqab, the traditional Muslim face wear for women, just in case the "Islam thing" takes hold in the U.S.

* Demonstrate her Islam-friendly politics by traveling with Rep. Keith Ellison, America's first and only Muslim elected to Congress. Pelosi plans to keep a detailed account of all racial profiling and other discrimination suffered by Ellison at airports, in bars, and on the plane in order to argue for repeal of the Patriot Act, and

* Fly in one of those cool 757 air force jets that the Air Force refuses to let her use for fund raising scams in San Francisco.

All in all, Pelosi's trip is good for America because while she is out of the country at least she is not making stupid "Tax and Surrender" laws!

Go, Nancy, Go.

Stay there, Nancy, Stay there!

Despite the inherent "wrongness" of the color-coding, in American politics, Red refers to Republican and Blue refers to Democrats.

I'm neither.

I'm not a member of any political party. But if I did join one, it'd be the Republicans. Because I'm a conservative, and conservatives are more comfortable with the GOP than with the Democrats.

So, what I'm about to say, I say from the standpoint of an outsider to — but friend of — the GOP.

To all Republicans and conservatives: Do not send the Republican Party any money.

Not one Red cent.

"Red" cent. Get it? Red=Republican? Yeah, corny, I know.

Still, I'm asking all Republicans … and those that, like me, generally support Republicans … to withhold all funding. If you had planned to send them money, put it in a savings account instead. Let it draw interest. You were going to do without it anyway, right? So let it grow.

The idea is to withhold funds from the Republicans. For a while. And for two reasons.

The first reason is that we need to get the attention of those running the Republican party.

In 1964, the GOP took a swing to the right. Barry Goldwater, the Patron Saint of Republicans, was the candidate. And lost badly to Lyndon Johnson, the sitting president.

Heck, anyone would have lost that election to Johnson. It just so happens it was Goldwater.

But Goldwater attracted conservatives.

Sure he was portrayed as a war-monger. In fact, I remember my father — who used to be a conservative before he had his brain surgery — telling of a discussion he had with an individual who was shocked to discover that Sr. was planning to vote for Goldwater. He was told, "Hell, if you vote for Barry Goldwater, this country will be at war in six months." The punch line? "I did and we were."

But through it all, Goldwater withstood the criticism and stayed true to his beliefs.

Sure, he lost the election. But he won conservative hearts.

The GOP finally seemed firmly conservative when Ronald Reagan was the party's standard-bearer in 1980. But in a lot of ways, Reagan was a lot like Goldwater. To me anyway. He stayed true to his beliefs. But, unlike Goldwater, Reagan won the election. And re-election.

Lately, though, the GOP has been weak when it comes to conservative values.

Yes, I'm still a supporter of our president. And, if George W. Bush could run for a third term, I'd vote for him.

But he wasn't my first choice in the primaries in 2000. But when election day came, he was by far the better of the two. And again in 2004.

And I haven't seen a whole lot out of the crop of those who have declared for 2008.

And that's one of the reasons I say withhold your funds from the Republicans.

That's the only way you'll get their attention.

They seem to have forgotten the value of a dollar.

Remind them.

Put your dollars in a savings account. Until it's time to release the funds.

They'll panic.

Then, when the candidate you want — not one you'll settle for, but one you actually want — runs, release the funds.

I really think my candidate is running, although unofficially.

I'm supporting Fred Thompson, who is not running. Offically.

And, no, I'm not one of those late-comers who's looking for the latest fad. I was disappointed when he decided not to run for re-election to the Senate, even though I'm not from Tennessee. I thought he was presidential material. I wanted him to stay in the Senate and stay in the public eye.

But Fred Dalton Thompson is smater than I am.

He's stayed in the public eye. Weekly on NBC. Twice a week, sometimes. And on TNT. Five times a week. And on USA. Five times a week.

I seriously think Thompson is running for president. But he can't say he's running.

If he says now that he's running, he'll lose his free platform he currently enjoys. He'll no longer be able to substitute for Paul Harvey. He'll get less calls to be a commentator on the talking head shows on cable and "nitwork" TV.

Right now, by not running, he's able to get what other GOP candidates can't get.

But I think … or hope … or maybe it's just wishful thinking … that Fred Thompson is running for president.

And that's the second reason to withhold your money. Get a real conservative running.

When that happens, take that money out of savings and send it in … keeping the interest for yourself. That way, everyone's a winner!

In their bitter hatred for George W. Bush and unquenchable desire to do real harm to the man, regardless of any impact on America, Congressional Democrats appear to be receiving their legislative marching orders directly from Osama bin Laden himself.

Both the U.S. House and Senate have now passed Democrat initiated legislation that would effectively tell terrorists to cool their heels until March or September of 2008.

In other words, Osama et al., we surrender but we want to manage the timing of the physical withdrawal so as to make it an integral part of our political campaigns in 2008.

After all, on November 4, 2008, voters will elect a new president, decide all 435 seats in the U.S. House, and vote on a significant number of seats in the Senate.

Given the dynamics of the 2008 elections, why not choreograph the withdrawal so that Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Charles Gibson, and all the rest can devote nightly news segments to the joy of American heroes arriving home safely and being welcomed into the arms of loving family?

Throw in staged clips of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and John Murtha, sobbing hysterically with joy as they welcome American soldiers back home, and you have the potential to move five percent of the undecided vote toward Democrats.

So what if the American withdrawal is seen by America's enemies as a sign that America can be defeated provided one has the guts to fight them in a long, drawn out ground war?

So what if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens to fill the vacuum left by withdrawing Americans with Jihad throughout the middle east?

So what if the violence in Iraq escalates out of control and threatens the supply of oil to America and her allies?

So what if retreating American armies signal that Israel can no longer count on the U.S. and is now fair game?

Such eventualities can be easily blamed on the stubborn refusal of the Bush administration to cooperate more fully with the Democrats. That message would be delivered by the liberal media without even the slightest hesitation or reality check for objectivity.

The only thing that can sabotage the Democrat plan is something Democrats will work 24/7 to prevent: American victory.

Indeed, the very worse case scenario for Pelosi and Reid would be for the surge to succeed, resulting in an end to the violence, and the stabilization of Iraq.

Victory would validate the policies of George W. Bush and would wreak havoc on Democrats' plans for 2008.

Victory in Iraq is the last thing Democrats want to see happen.

Sad to admit, but Islamofascists appear to have found American politicians whom they can work with to destroy America.

All but a few of those politicians have a D next to their names.

satire

Americans received a special blessing this past week when the issue of global warming, its causes, potential harm to Earth, and the options for reversing this curse on humanity were unveiled.

The blessings started when Al Gore was chauffeured from his 20,000 square foot mansion in Tennessee to the U.S. House in Washington, D.C.

Gore showed his unwavering commitment to "Green" by arranging a clever carbon swap: In order to make up for his sinful use of non-green transportation, Gore agreed to forsake his gas powered lawn mower for the summer.

Tipper says she really needs the exercise anyhow, so using a push mower on their six-acre lawn should be a win-win.

No fair using illegal aliens on the sly, Tipper!

I confess to initial skepticism about the Gore decree.

How can a man who spends $30,000 a year to heat and cool his mansion be trusted with the truth on global warming? I also understand that Gore is a major moneyman for one of those carbon swap schemes.

It's an Amway-type pyramid where liberal guilt, not soap, is the commodity of commercial trade.

Could it be that Gore gets a kickback (in a private account) every time Tipper finishes cutting the grass with that hand mower?

My natural skepticism went sailing out the window when Dr. Katie Couric awarded the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval to Gore right after he finished his snake oil testimony.

Couric called Gore's return to Congress a "triumph," and then sought to put the issue to rest by declaring that the scientific consensus confirms that global warming is real.

Many thanks are owed Al and Katie for the definitive word.

Even the Almighty could have learned a thing or two from the Al and Katie show, but it is rumored that he watches FOX.

He prefers fair and balanced, and all that.

Between them, I doubt if Gore and Couric could distinguish between lethal carbon emissions and a blast from John Edwards' aromatic hair spray.

And instead of worrying about a carbon print, Al Gore would be well advised to work off that huge butt print of his, which is sure to create dangerous craters every time the former Veep falls into a bank of snow in mid-April!

For her part, Dr. Couric sort of showed her lack of objectivity when she opined that a special session of congress should be convened to evict George W. Bush and install Al Gore as president.

Calling for Al Gore to be sworn in by April 22, 2007, which is also Earth Day, placed an additional strain on Couric's vanishing credibility.

Still, Couric proved that she is more than just a sawed off leftist mouthpiece whose major mission in life is to destroy CBS' news ratings. With her Gore gushing, Katie exposed her affection for oversized bags of hot air and that should help in the ongoing debate.

It may turn out that human kind is indeed the cause of global warming.

But I refuse to swear off my 12 cylinder gasoline lawnmower or that noxious BBQ pit based on "science" offered by Al Gore, Katie Couric, Barbara Boxer, or any of the other liberals whose "solution" is for all conservatives and moderate Democrats to move to Mars.

By the way, Al, what say you about recent findings that suggest global warming has made its way to the Red Planet?

Or is that an Inconvenient Truth that is a tad bit too inconvenient to suit your agenda?

The events of March 23, 2007 will surely gone down in history as pivotal in defining what America stands for and what Americans are willing to fight for.

For the first time in history, a feminist with "Special Olympics" capabilities held the Speaker's gavel in the U.S. House and played a major role in defining anti-American foreign policy.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) did the moment proud.

To begin with, Pelosi made it clear that all the talk about Iraq being a rerun of Viet Nam is more than just anti-Bush rhetoric.

In fact, Pelosi authenticated the analogy by leading her party into a quagmire of anti-war malfeasance similar to what Democrats did to America in the 1970s.

The final vote was Jihad 218, American troops 212. America's first female speaker has thus spoken, leaving an indelible mark on American war politics.

However, a critical question remains: Did Pelosi speak for or against America?

In addition to the "firsts" surrounding Pelosi's personal demographics, the vote marks the first time in history that the U.S. House has attempted to surrender via C-Span television.

With 18 months remaining until the Pelosi term ends, concession politics by way of satellite may become fairly common, especially now that the C-Span signal (with Arabic sub-titles) can be received in Afghan caves by Islamofascist subscribers.

To those who tend to "misunderestimate" Pelosi, be reminded that only 14 Democrats voted with the GOP on this vital issue.

This a clear sign that Pelosi cannot only count to 218, but that she knows how to use cajoling, jawboning, and pork in order to defeat America.

Today's historic vote reaffirms the precipitous decline of the Democrat party from the days of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Scoop Jackson, and General Douglas MacArthur, to a party now featuring the likes of John Murtha, Maxine Waters, and Dennis Kucinich.

From the heady days of Camelot, the Democrat party is now a collection of outcasts and clowns led by a House Speaker who would, if she could, slash $300 billion from the war on terror and homeland security, and give the money to illegal aliens.

Still, there is some good news: The American people can overturn the occupation of Washington, D.C., by liberal buffoons at the next election.

November 4, 2008: A "Date Certain" that those who love America can support and look forward to!

California state Senator Gilbert Cedillo, Democrat, has worked tirelessly to achieve one absurd objective: He wants the state to grant drivers' licenses to invading criminals, most of who share Cedillo's Hispanic ethnicity.

Most of the time, Cedillo's attempts to license, rather than arrest, illegal aliens are dumped in the trash bin at the state legislature, or are vetoed by the governor.

Normal people usually see the illogic in even considering drivers' licenses for those who have no business being in America to begin with.

An apt analogy would be a plan to issue concealed weapon licenses to those convicted of bank robbery.

Only once, during the term of Democrat Governor Gray Davis, did the Cedillo annual assault on common sense actually become law.

However, even then, the new law was short-lived because California voters wisely decided that Gray Davis was missing sufficient Grey matter to run the state. So, in 2004, Governor Davis was recalled, and voters installed Arnold Schwarzenegger in his place.

Newly elected Governor Schwarzenegger immediately recognized the illogic of the Cedillo travesty and promptly terminated the law. The governor has faithfully vetoed the measure each time it has come up in subsequent years.

In an ironic twist of fate, there may be another emerging ally in the battle to keep illegal aliens from being rewarded for invading our sovereign land.

That new ally could be in the bloated personage of Al Gore, Global Warming Patrol Officer, Planet Earth.

If Big Al gets his way, governments at all levels will be under intensive pressure to reduce the number of carbon dioxide spewing automobiles on the road.

Granting drivers' licenses to illegal aliens would increase, not reduce, the number of killer cars on California's potted and nearly impassable roads.

Again, triangulation politics may rescue we the people.

Think of it like this: California can Go Green by denying drivers' licenses to illegal aliens!

It is a win-win for Big Al, the environment, California, and those here legally.

Anyone doubting the hypocrisy of liberals should consider the following:

* Execution of a convicted killer is cruel, unusual & barbaric; whereas a woman’s right to abort the life of an innocent child is inalienable;

* Starving a helpless victim like Terri Schaivo to death is acceptable; but using lethal injection to end the life of a brutal killer is not;

* Discrimination based on race or gender is wrong. Except when waged against Caucasian men, in which case it is mandated by law & called Affirmative Action;

* Invading a foreign nation is wrong, except when aliens from Mexico invade America;

* Democrats are the only hope for American families and labor. But the inconvenient truth is that liberals support the influx of millions of illegal aliens who work for lower wages and without benefits, thereby driving down the standard of living for "average" American citizens;

* Outsourcing of American jobs offshore is driven by immoral corporate greed. By contrast, open borders and amnesty are acceptable because the majority of illegal aliens are future Democrats;

* Huge profits are obscene and un-American, except when enjoyed by George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, and other liberals;

* Conservatives who seek to preserve American culture are bigoted hate mongers, whereas new immigrants must be allowed to maintain and celebrate their cultural heritage at all costs;

* The traditional American family consisting of one man and one woman and their offspring is just one of several possible arrangements, all of which are equally moral and acceptable. In addition, marriage is no longer necessary to sanctify man-woman relationships.

* Although the institution of marriage is no longer vital to heterosexual partners, it is absolutely essential that same-sex couples be allowed to marry as if they were straight. To do otherwise is to deny gay couples equality and fairness and is clearly unconstitutional.

* Burning Old Glory is protected free speech, whereas expression of conservative values by people like Rush Limbaugh is unacceptable hate speech and should be subjected to "fairness" controls;

* Freedom of speech must never be quashed, except for criticism directed at minorities and other constituencies of the Democrat party;

* Tax cuts are wrong when returned to people who actually paid taxes, but perfectly fine when sent to those who paid none;

* Skyrocketing gasoline prices devastate working American families, but protecting wild life is a greater priority;

* Anyone who supports English as the official American language is a racist. But those who prefer Spanish and other foreign languages are justified because "diversity is our greatest strength;"

* Blocking the sale of port security to the UAE was necessary to protect homeland security, but securing the border with Mexico is wrong because it would “scapegoat” Hispanics;

* Illegal aliens should be licensed to drive–to avoid breaking the law by driving illegally;

* Symbols of Christianity must be kept out of public view so as to offend no one, whereas Islam must be openly promoted in the name of religious awareness and tolerance;

* Businesses are oppressive institutions that must not be allowed to become too large and powerful. By contrast, government creates wealth & happiness and should be expanded whenever possible;

* Military force must never be used, except when needed to advance interests not vital to the United States, or to obscure a Democrat president’s sexual misconduct in the Oval Office.

Think about it– Are you enough of a hypocrite to be a liberal?

by John W. Lillpop

Of the many blunders committed by George W. Bush over the past six years, none is more ill timed and dangerous than his wrongheaded appointment of Alberto Gonzales to serve as U.S. Attorney General.

After 9/11, one would have expected America's war on terror president to install an Attorney General who, at a minimum, respects American sovereignty, rule of law, and immigration statutes.

Bush's choice for AG should have been a professional who would work 24/7 to enforce U.S. laws, including rounding up and deporting those here illegally.

Is that not what the Department of Justice is supposed to be all about? Enforcing the danged law?

Apparently not, at least not in the mind of Duyba. Instead of doing the intelligent thing, George W. Bush decided to hire Alberto Gonzales for the job.

It may be that "Diversity is our greatest strength," but with this one, W went just too far.

After all, Alberto Gonzales is rumored to be the child of illegal aliens from Mexico. If that is true, he is the most accomplished anchor baby in U.S. history.

From Gonzales' perspective, then, Mexican illegal aliens are more like "family" than invaders. The more the merrier, right, Alberto?

All of which explains why the Department of Justice has taken virtually no action to enforce our immigration laws.
Honestly, now, who would push for deportation of one's own aunts, uncles, cousins? And in-laws who are also outlaws?

Rather than rounding up, prosecuting, and deporting illegal aliens,Gonzales has been laboring to chase down, prosecute, and jail innocent border patrol agents caught in the unseemly act of doing that for which they are paid-defending America against invasion from third world Mexico.

As a result of Gonzales' efforts, former agent Jose Alonso Compean is slated to spend 12 years in prison, and Ignacio Ramos will be behind bars 11 years.

Meanwhile, the drug-smuggling illegal alien that Compean and Ramos tried to apprehend is suing the U.S. government for five million dollars.

It's time to say adios to Alberto Gonzales, America's Numero Uno Anchor Baby!

By John W. Lillpop

Not so very long ago, White House political strategist Karl Rove was considered a political genius, a virtuoso who could do no wrong.

Blessed with an IQ too robust to measure, Rove was like a balding version of Harry Potter–a wizard on a mission to save the Republican party.

Only an improbable combination of genius and wizardry would explain Rove's masterful feat in getting George W. Bush elected President of the United States, and reelected to boot.

Without magic wands, incantations, and complex curses at his command, there is no way that Rove would stand a chance at winning with a candidate who is unable to string two cogent sentences back-to-back, who creates words like "Hispanically" and "strategery," and who makes your cross-eyed, demented aunt sound presidential.

Unfortunately for Rove, the snake pit that is Washington, D.C., has whittled him down to size, at least with respect to influence, if not girth.

No longer in the same league as Harry Potter, Rove has assumed the persona of Voldermort, AKA public enemy number one.

Rove's failures include alienating the Republican base, and losing both the U.S. House and Senate to the dreaded Democrats. That is not cool for the resume of a highly touted political strategist.

About the only positive news for Rove is that he was not indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald in the Valerie Plame non-scandal that has Scooter Libby at such loose ends.

However, Rove is not out of the woods by any stretch of the imagination: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) announced his intent to issue a subpoena, with the name Rove prominently inscribed thereon.

Which means that Rove will be required to testify under oath, an act that sounds alarm bells in the heads of those who worry about matters like perjury, obstruction of justice, and jail time. Ask Scooter Libby.

Rove's ongoing issues are not good news to the Bush legacy-making machine, an enterprise that is quickly running out of time.

At it now stands, George W. Bush is widely perceived as a dyslexic cowboy with a history of alcoholism who resembles Adolph Hitler more than Winston Churchill, and who is more of a threat to world peace than Osama bin Laden, North Korean President Kim Yong Il, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, combined.

Which is not a pretty package to leave behind for liberal historians to sort out.

Clearly, it will take Herculean efforts to remake Duyba into a Mister Rogers clone between now and January 20, 2009.

Just as clearly, Karl Rove needs to vacate the White House premises as soon as possible.

To replace Rove, Bush needs a young, intellectually gifted, well-educated, sophisticated, flame-throwing conservative who can take the heat off the president long enough to allow his legacy dream team to do its job.

Bush's new political strategist at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue should be a well-known, widely hated conservative figure who can distract the enemy (Democrats and the liberal media) while the president and his team tend to the nation's urgent business.

Bush needs a person who can combine a withering wit, acerbic tongue, and "take no prisoners" attitude with an uncanny ability to create an impromptu media firestorm, when needed. And one who can do so with obvious delight and outlandish humor.

Where might the president find such a talented and radioactive purveyor of ill will? One that Democrats and the media already hate more than Bush and Rove combined?

Does the name Ann Coulter ring a bell?