![]()
As if the 30 million or so illegal aliens already haunting America is not bad enough, President Bush spent the last six days beating the bushes in Latin America, looking for even more invaders to house, fed, clothe, educate, and provide medical care for.
All of which is to be paid for by American taxpayers, of course.
For their part, hundreds of thousands of Latinos were trying to beat the Bushes in massive street riots and protests at every stop.
Clearly, George W. Bush is a “unifier” without equal.
Think about it: In the space of just six fleeting years, this president has united a billion Muslims, China, Russia, North Korea, all of the middle-east, and now Latin America, against the United States.
Significantly, the repudiation of Bush crosses all racial, social, educational, economic, and political lines–he is an equal opportunity antagonist with remarkable versatility and consistency.
Only when one escapes earth’s gravity does the anti-Bush fervor seem to diminish–and then only because our commander-in-chief has yet to launch a preemptive strike against a neighboring galaxy. But he is probably working on it.
While on his mission to annoy as many Latin Americans as possible, the president stopped in several nations to spread the gospel, according to Duyba:
In Brazil, Bush urged more Brazilian students to invade our colleges and universities.
Funny, there was nothing in the mainstream media about a crisis involving a shortage of Brazilian students in the U.S. But Duyba begged Brazilians to “Come to America to study,” nonetheless.
In Uruguay, Mr. Bush touted an effort that his administration is very proud of: A program that helps President Tabaré Vázquez in his efforts to make Uruguay youngsters more literate, particularly in English.
If this program pans out as expected, Bush is expected to enroll for the fall semester himself, in order to upgrade his own English-language skills.
In Columbia, Bush insisted that America needs a guest-worker program for good hearted, hard worked Colombian drug traffickers.
Bush said such a program would motivate the thugs to give up their multi-million dollar cocaine trade in order to pick avocados for $3.50 an hour in 100-degree heat in California.
In Guatemala, the president decided to try out a new comedy routine.
Responding to criticism from President Oscar Berge concerning deportations of illegal aliens, the president actually had the gall to claim that America is a nation that operates under the rule of law, and that the U.S. would continue to enforce the law.
When the laughing finally died down, Bush grabbed a crate of lettuce, hoisted it onto the back of a truck, and declared himself just one of the hombres, and an illegal alien at heart himself.
In Mexico, the final stop on the president’s trip, Bush was confronted by Mexican President Felipe Calderon who appears to have lost his mind after just three months in office.
Calderon expressed outrage over the pending fence at the U.S.-Mexican border, and demanded that the America do more to accommodate Latinos who want to invade America, whether or not America needs or wants them.
Bush could have responded with lectures about rule of law, Mexico’s own harsh immigration program, America’s vulnerability to terrorism, U.S. sovereignty, and preservation of American language and culture.
Instead, Bush promised to put more pressure on Congress to speed up America’s unconditional surrender to Mexico.
Bush also invited Calderon to visit the White House once it is renamed the Brown Palace, after comprehensive immigration reform (amnesty) is enacted.
Despite the spin coming from Bush handlers, there were negative developments.
For example, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez followed Bush around like a liberal activist looking for new voter fraud strategies and tactics.
This portly commie hurled insults, accusations, and lies at Bush while screaming “We are going to take this battle to Brazil, Uruguay, Columbia, Guatemala, and Mexico!” in a mental collapse reminiscent of the Dean Scream in 2004.
Note: Howard Dean’s office vehemently denies that the Chavez rants were sourced from the DNC anti-Bush handbook and media talking points guide.
But the best story line of the trip involves Mayan spiritual leaders who protested Bush’s visit to Guatemala because “he (Bush) angered the gods.”
Maya leaders in the ancient site of Iximche in Guatemala say they will have to cleanse the ground that Bush walked on during his visit.
They plan to do this by laying flowers, burning incense and then throwing water on the ground where his feet have touched their sacred land to clear the bad energy his visit has caused.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated that a similar procedure may be needed by Democrats in Washington, D.C., especially if Bush persists with his wrong-headed troop surge in Iraq!
Speaker Pelosi Discusses Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzales, and Guns
March 14, 2007Satire by John W. Lillpop
Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to make headlines with her revolutionary views and attitudes.
I caught up with the speaker at Pier 39 in San Francisco where she was fishing for a pet shark.
John:
Well, good afternoon, Madam Speaker. So very good to see you again! Any bites?
Speaker Pelosi:
Good to see you again as well, John.
Regrettably, the only bites so far are to my backside, and those were inflicted by those darn southern Blue Dogs!
John:
So sorry, Speaker Pelosi. How about the anti-war leftists–they are putting pressure on as well are they not?
Speaker Pelosi:
Well, yes, to a certain extent.
But the difference is that most of the anti-war folks are from California–plus they are 100 percent right! We need to get out of Iraq before the American people start blaming Democrats for Bush’s folly.
John:
I understand. We have had some really big news recently, starting with the guilty verdict for Scooter Libby. How does that verdict sit with you?
Speaker Pelosi:
Well, of course he was guilty. Good heavens, who in the world could doubt the word of Tim Russert? That man is an institution and certainly more credible than anyone working in the Bush White House.
John:
So you are opposed to a presidential pardon for Libby?
Speaker Pelosi:
Yes. In fact, I believe that President Bush should recuse himself if a pardon request is filed.
John:
But that would effectively deny Libby a constitutional remedy available to U.S. citizens. Surely that would be unfair, even to a member of the Bush administration?
Speaker Pelosi:
Not really. Although I am not a constitutional scholar, I believe that the president’s pardon authority could be delegated to the next individual in the chain of command.
John:
But with all due respect, Madam Speaker, that would place the matter in the hands of Dick Cheney. Doesn’t he have an even greater conflict of interest when it comes to Libby?
Speaker Pelosi:
Of course he does, which is why we Democrats would insist that Cheney recuse himself as well.
John:
Then what, Ms. Speaker? The next in line would be…the Speaker of the House.
Are you saying that any pardon request for Libby should be adjudicated by yourself?
Speaker Pelosi:
Uh, well, you know, I had not really thought it through. But I guess you are right–I would have to decide the issue for America.
John:
And how would you handle it? Could you be fair?
Speaker Pelosi:
Fair? Absolutely!
We would give Libby his day in court–and then we would ship his corrupt rear to Leavenworth.
John:
But that sounds so spiteful. Doesn’t America stand for true objectivity and higher principles of law in dealing with the accused?
Speaker Pelosi:
Right again, John. I am thinking we could probably work out something with Libby. You know, an unconditional pardon in exchange for some good juicy testimony against Dick Cheney and or George Bush.
After all, this IS America–I am sure we would be able to find a democratic way to send Cheney to jail in Libby’s place.
John:
I guess I understand, Madam Speaker.
The next big issue concerns Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Mr. Gonzales is facing calls for his resignation from folks like Senators Clinton and Schumer.
My question, Madam Speaker: Do these attacks have their roots in racism? After all, Gonzales is Hispanic.
Speaker Pelosi:
In all honesty, John, while it is true that Gonzales is a Mexican, he is entirely the wrong kind of Mexican.
For example, most real Mexicans with law degrees stay in their barrio communities to help disadvantaged Mexicans get out of trouble.
In other words, educated Mexicans with good hearts become DUI defense attorneys. Or they fight for illegal aliens against deportation and other injustices. Clearly, Alberto Gonzales is not of that ilk.
John:
But Gonzales is a licensed attorney. Are you challenging his credentials to practice law?
Speaker Pelosi:
All I am really saying, John, is that we need to be very careful about folks who hail from Texas, are friends of George Bush, and who claim to have risen to heights uncommon for people from sullied socio-economic backgrounds.
Remember Harriet Miers? Bush tried to snooker the Senate into placing a lottery queen on the U.S. Supreme Court!
But we smoked him out on that one, and we must do likewise with this Gonzales character.
John:
But what about Silvestre Reyes, the Democrat who is your Chairman of the Intelligence Committee?
It is reported that Reyes does not even know the difference between a Sunni and Shia. Is he qualified for the job, or is he there only because he is of Mexican descent?
Speaker Pelosi:
John, you must be getting your news from right-wing extremist outlets like CQ or ABC, for heaven’s sake.
QC distorted the Reyes interview completely, and did so with malice. To begin with, the interview was conducted in English, an obvious attempt to confuse Mr. Reyes into saying something he did not fully understand.
As it turns out, in Spanish Sunni means Shia, and Shia means Sunni, or something like that.
The point is that Silvestre Reyes is a former border patrol man who knows a terrorist when he sees one–whether or not the terrorist is Sunni or Shia is just superfluous pap not vital to homeland security.
John:
Good point, Madam Speaker. Now what about that big set back for gun control in Washington, D.C., where an appeals court ruled that the anti-gun law was in violation of the 2nd amendment. Your response?
Speaker Pelosi:
Well, of course, all Americans of good will and high intelligence are outraged that activist judges would let the archaic Constitution interfere with good urban law.
We must never forget that the Constitution is over 220 years old. America has changed a lot in those 220 years, and it is our duty to make laws that address the needs of contemporary people in the 21st century.
Besides, the Constitution was never intended to be interpreted so rigidly. As Howard Dean points out, the framers intended the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to used mainly as guidelines, rather than unalterable law.
In any event, we believe that new and even tougher gun control laws will eventually be enacted, once Alberto Gonzales and Scooter Libby are booted out of Washington D.C.
John:
Thank you ever so much for your time, Speaker Pelosi!
Satire by John W. Lillpop
Tags:Commentary
Posted in Commentary | Leave a Comment »