What if Mark Foley Were a Democrat?

Those who really believe there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans should consider the case of one Mark Foley.

Foley, for those who have been visiting Pluto or other distant universes the past few days, is the Republican Congressman from Florida who was caught exchanging sexually explicit instant messages with an underage page. An underage, male page, that is.

Go here:

Until his abrupt resignation, Foley was part of the Republican leadership in the U.S. House. In a bit of bitter irony, he was also chairman of the House caucus on missing and exploited children. Foley campaigned for tough laws against those who exploited children and once called such offenders “sick” people in need of mental health counseling.

Although Foley’s behavior fails to meet the normal Republican standard of traditional family values, at least he is no longer in office or tainting Congress with his presence.

If Foley were a Democrat, things would surely be different.

To begin with, Foley would have been lauded by the Democrat leadership for his courage and dignity in pursuing an “alternative lifestyle,” and for openly championing his unique sexuality in that hostile, homophobic environment otherwise known as the U.S. Congress.

Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would abandon her full-time job as Chief Renovator of the Speaker’s office long enough to congratulate Foley for his “Special commitment to diversity and humanity in the hugely complex world of contemporary human relationships.”

Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would have stopped campaigning for a terrorist bill of rights long enough to thank Foley for supporting the young male pages. “It would have been easy to abandon these young male pages when things started to unravel,” Reid would have whispered on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

“But being a good and decent Democrat, Mark Foley recognized the importance of building the confidence and self-esteem of these young men by being a credible role model for them to emulate for the rest of their lives,” Reid would have continued.

All in all, Democrat Foley would have been far more popular, influential, and powerful after his adventures with the young pages than before. In the parlance of Washington liberals, Foley would have finally “arrived.”

And who knows? Democrat Foley might have even leveraged his new fame into a run for governor of New Jersey, in the fine tradition of that great state!

John W. Lillpop
San Jose, California

Nobody to Pick Crops? What About Illegal Aliens Already Here?

In a minor victory for those who favor protecting America from terrorism and
preserving our sovereignty, language, and culture, the United States Senate, by a vote of 80-19, approved construction of 700 miles of new fencing along the southern border. Go:

This fencing was approved by the U.S. House two weeks ago; therefore, all that remains is for President Bush to sign the bill into law. Bush has indicated that he will do so.

In a sour note in an otherwise joyful tune, Sens. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., made an 11th-hour appeal to include a measure to help the agriculture industry, which relies heavily on illegal aliens.

“Pickers are few and the growers blame Congress,” Craig said, reading a news headline.

The growers blame Congress? How in Hades can growers blame Congress for enforcing America’s borders and immigration laws?

How about blaming the growers for hiring illegal aliens to begin with, in violation of U.S. laws? Or how about blaming growers for not offering competitive wages to attract American workers here legally?

Reports indicate that the “shortfall” of agricultural workers is also the result of illegal aliens working in construction and other U.S. industries.

In other words, illegal aliens already here are no longer willing to pick produce and fruit. So America needs to let another 20 million illegal aliens in?

But perhaps there are other ways to address the agriculture worker “crisis” without escalating America’s demise into a third world cesspool like Mexico?

For example, just this past April and May, Americans were horrified at the sight of millions of illegal aliens marching through our streets to protest the rule of law. Let’s round up these criminals, outfit them with straw hats, picking buckets, and other required picking paraphernalia, and ship them to the nearest needy growers!

County jail systems throughout America already use incarcerated inmates to clean parks and roadways, so why not force those here illegally to meet the needs of the American people for a change?

Other venues for locating illegal immigrants to pick include day labor centers, Home Depot stores, welfare offices, food stamp distribution centers, and voter registration drives sponsored by Democrats!

And a note to President Bush seems in order: With all due respect, sir, those menial jobs that “Americans will not do” are apparently beneath the dignity of the goodhearted, hardworking Mexican illegal aliens you want to ram down the throats of the American people.

Why, then, is it in the interest of America to grant amnesty to millions of criminals who glum onto public services to which they are not entitled and which cost taxpayers close to 100 billion dollars a year? Criminals whose illegal crossings weaken America’s homeland security and increase our vulnerability to terrorism?

Wake up, America. Granting amnesty to illegal aliens, or letting more in, is not an intelligent solution.

John W. Lillpop
San Jose, California

Dereliction of Duty: A Must Read for All That Seek the Truth

As Democrats and Republicans exchange barbs about which administration is more responsible for 9/11, an illuminating book is available to set the record straight.

The book, titled Dereliction of Duty, was written by Lieutenant Colonel Robert “Buzz” Patterson, USAF (Ret.) who served at the side of the president, carrying the suitcase containing the nation’s nuclear launch codes, also called the nuclear button.

On page 131 of the book, the author summarizes the Clinton approach to the war on terror thusly:

“The Clinton administration never responded decisively, even when given the opportunity, as it was obligated to do, with its own ‘war against terrorism.’ If we had a national interest in sending troops to Haiti and Rwanda, certainly the Clinton administration had an obligation in the name of our national security to deploy and use the military resources necessary to deal with al-Qaeda as its deadly presence became known and its declared war on America became public and costly. That it did not respond is a consequence for which the Clinton administration is, in my view, extremely culpable. By failing to answer the threat as it should have, the Clinton administration was guilty of gross negligence and dereliction of duty to the safety of our nation, which the president was sworn to defend.”

This book provides a first-hand account of why 9/11 might have been prevented if the Clinton administration had been more diligent and fully committed to America’s national security.

A must read for all that seek the truth.

John W. Lillpop
San Jose, California

Arnold Terminates Licenses for Invading Criminals!

Kudos to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who has vetoed a state bill that would have rewarded criminals with driving privileges in California.

The bill, SB 1162, authored by Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, would have allowed illegal aliens to get driver’s licenses. This was the eight attempt by Democrats to license criminals who have no legal or moral basis for being in America.

By rejecting this idiotic proposal, Schwarzenegger affirmed the rule of law and placed the interests of U.S. citizens above those of outlaws from third world Mexico.

Thank you, Mr. Terminator!

Go here to see the story:

John W. Lillpop
San Jose, California

You Have Never Used the "N" Word? Can You Prove That?

Because life in the great state of Virginia is as close to Heaven as God will permit, politicians running for office there are at a loss to raise important issues with which to dazzle voters.

As a result, the race for the U.S. Senate involving Republican incumbent George Allen and Democrat challenger Jim Webb has deteriorated into a petty word game of charges and countercharges over the use of racial epithets.

The latest “Breaking News Headline” involves charges from well-known political-science professor Larry Sabato that Senator Allen did in fact use the N word in the 1970s. Go here

Meanwhile, Jim Webb is making his own headlines by denying that he ever used the N word. Go here

Heaven knows, I do not advocate the use of racial slurs on any occasion or for any purpose. But before we turn an important political debate into a PC urinating contest, a bit of reflection seems warranted.

To begin with, who among us can truthfully state that the “N” word, or its equivalent, has never found its way into a casual conversation?

From personal experience, I shall always remember mentioning to an uncle from the Deep South how excited I was at the prospect of seeing baseball star Willie Mays play in San Francisco. My uncle took the wind out of my sails when he bluntly asked “He’s a N*****, ain’t he?”

My face turned a deep, deep purple at this racist denigration of a baseball hero, and my speechless embarrassment spurned great hilarity among my cousins who were obviously accustomed to their father’s indelicate language.

Later in life, while reading a biography of President Harry S. Truman titled Plain Speaking, I was astonished to learn that the thirty-third President of the United States used the N word regularly. But Truman was also credited with integrating the U.S. armed forces at a time when doing so was not the PC thing to do.

Lyndon Johnson, the thirty-seventh President of the United States, was also allegedly one to drop an N bomb now and again. Of course, President Johnson was instrumental in getting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 signed into law.

However, black “rap” artists are by far the most prolific users of the N word. Without it, rap music as we know it would not exist.

A different N word—”Nip”—was used during World War II as a slur against the Japanese. Nip was used prominently in television comedy shows like McHale’s Navy, which is still rerun–with Nip intact–from time to time.

The point is that it is neither reasonable nor responsible to dwell solely on racial slurs that one may have used 30 years ago.

Without knowing the exact context and environment in which such words were uttered, it is impossible to make an intelligent evaluation as to whether or the individual involved is worthy of trust in 2006.

John W. Lillpop
San Jose, California

You Have Never Used the “N” Word? Can You Prove That?

Because life in the great state of Virginia is as close to Heaven as God will permit, politicians running for office there are at a loss to raise important issues with which to dazzle voters.

As a result, the race for the U.S. Senate involving Republican incumbent George Allen and Democrat challenger Jim Webb has deteriorated into a petty word game of charges and countercharges over the use of racial epithets.

The latest “Breaking News Headline” involves charges from well-known political-science professor Larry Sabato that Senator Allen did in fact use the N word in the 1970s. Go here

Meanwhile, Jim Webb is making his own headlines by denying that he ever used the N word. Go here

Heaven knows, I do not advocate the use of racial slurs on any occasion or for any purpose. But before we turn an important political debate into a PC urinating contest, a bit of reflection seems warranted.

To begin with, who among us can truthfully state that the “N” word, or its equivalent, has never found its way into a casual conversation?

From personal experience, I shall always remember mentioning to an uncle from the Deep South how excited I was at the prospect of seeing baseball star Willie Mays play in San Francisco. My uncle took the wind out of my sails when he bluntly asked “He’s a N*****, ain’t he?”

My face turned a deep, deep purple at this racist denigration of a baseball hero, and my speechless embarrassment spurned great hilarity among my cousins who were obviously accustomed to their father’s indelicate language.

Later in life, while reading a biography of President Harry S. Truman titled Plain Speaking, I was astonished to learn that the thirty-third President of the United States used the N word regularly. But Truman was also credited with integrating the U.S. armed forces at a time when doing so was not the PC thing to do.

Lyndon Johnson, the thirty-seventh President of the United States, was also allegedly one to drop an N bomb now and again. Of course, President Johnson was instrumental in getting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 signed into law.

However, black “rap” artists are by far the most prolific users of the N word. Without it, rap music as we know it would not exist.

A different N word—”Nip”—was used during World War II as a slur against the Japanese. Nip was used prominently in television comedy shows like McHale’s Navy, which is still rerun–with Nip intact–from time to time.

The point is that it is neither reasonable nor responsible to dwell solely on racial slurs that one may have used 30 years ago.

Without knowing the exact context and environment in which such words were uttered, it is impossible to make an intelligent evaluation as to whether or the individual involved is worthy of trust in 2006.

John W. Lillpop
San Jose, California

Bush's English Ain't two Hot. Sew Watt?

Although G.W. Bush is perhaps the worstest* president communicator in U.S. history, there is some consolation for the President: He is reputed to be conversant in Spanish.

And if, perish the thought, Bush immigration ideas become law, illegal immigrants from Mexico will quickly outnumber U.S. citizens on the American side on the border.

At that happy day, at least G.W. will be able to remind the millions of invaders he is so fond of that they are a goodhearted and hardworking majority.

In Spanish!

And the Mexicans will gratefully chant “Gracias, Meester Senor Boo-sh!”

America will thus die Hispanically Speaking without so much as a whimper!

*From the Dubya dictionary of contemporary Texas language arts.

John W. Lillpop
San Jose, California

Bush's English Ain't two Hot. Sew Watt?

Although G.W. Bush is perhaps the worstest* president communicator in U.S. history, there is some consolation for the President: He is reputed to be conversant in Spanish.

And if, perish the thought, Bush immigration ideas become law, illegal immigrants from Mexico will quickly outnumber U.S. citizens on the American side on the border.

At that happy day, at least G.W. will be able to remind the millions of invaders he is so fond of that they are a goodhearted and hardworking majority.

In Spanish!

And the Mexicans will gratefully chant “Gracias, Meester Senor Boo-sh!”

America will thus die Hispanically Speaking without so much as a whimper!

*From the Dubya dictionary of contemporary Texas language arts.

John W. Lillpop
San Jose, California

Bush's English Ain't two Hot. Sew Watt?

Although G.W. Bush is perhaps the worstest* president communicator in U.S. history, there is some consolation for the President: He is reputed to be conversant in Spanish.

And if, perish the thought, Bush immigration ideas become law, illegal immigrants from Mexico will quickly outnumber U.S. citizens on the American side on the border.

At that happy day, at least G.W. will be able to remind the millions of invaders he is so fond of that they are a goodhearted and hardworking majority.

In Spanish!

And the Mexicans will gratefully chant “Gracias, Meester Senor Boo-sh!”

America will thus die Hispanically Speaking without so much as a whimper!

*From the Dubya dictionary of contemporary Texas language arts.

John W. Lillpop
San Jose, California

Too Old to Remember 1986?

A fellow blogger has cluttered cyberspace with views contrary to mine on the subject of illegal aliens. His articles are immediately recognizable because he uses Barbara Streisand as his spell check guru. With predicttabkle reessultgs!

This gentleman, who shall remain unnamed, has pontificated on and on about what Native American Indians faced when the pilgrims invaded Plymouth Rock in the 1600s. His blathering can be modestly entertaining, unless one has a radio, a telephone, or even old magazines.

In the interest of spreading truth and wisdom, I often try to remind this misinformed blogger that we are living in 2006, not 1606, and that America is not an unsettled continent.

Furthermore, the United States has absolutely no obligation to honor any neurotic notions that illegal aliens may have concerning their Manifest Destiny or retaking (Reconquesta) of the American Southwest.

The realities of 2006 are quite clear: America is a sovereign nation with defined, established borders. We operate under the rule of law, including procedures that those who wish to migrate here must follow.

Americans welcome newcomers with open arms, provided that those who wish to join us do so in a logical, orderly and lawful manner. That is the way immigration works in 2006.

The United States is hardly alone in this civilized approach to borders and immigration laws. Indeed, I suggest that my “open borders” opponent try to sneak into Mexico illegally, and see how tolerant Mexicans are when it comes to illegal aliens.

In addition, although I can not be certain, my guess is that if this was 1606, Native Americans would not look kindly on 20 million illegal aliens invading their land and otherwise plundering their assets.

My blogging buddy also advocates a form of amnesty so that we can secure the borders and move on. In other words, this is last 20 million we let stay!

In 1986, the U.S. tried that approach. About three million illegal aliens were granted amnesty and tough new laws were codified to prevent future invasions.

Now, 20 million illegal aliens later, we have the same problem, but much larger and, because of the threat of terrorism, far more dangerous.

Amnesty will never work, because it is serves as an incentive to those remaining behind. The 1986 experience proves that we need militarized borders and merciless enforcement of our laws, including mass deportations.

But perhaps my cyberspace competitor is too old to remember 1986?

John W. Lillpop
San Jose, California