Feminist Author of She Inc., Laments Hillary's Demise!

Satire By John W. Lillpop


Whether or not one is a feminist has more to do with what is lodged between one's ears than what is dangling, or not, between one's legs.

Kenneth J. Gross, author of "She Inc.," a sort of perverted wish list for feminist fascists seeking to take over the globe via group Vagina channeling, is a perfect example.

We understand that Gross is indeed a male feminist, a sell out to the darker side of humanity. The anti- Jetti in the war between the sexes, is he, to paraphrase Yoda.

Mind you, Gross's breezy little novel is entertaining and captivating, provided one hates the natural order of things, ergo, male superiority and dominance in all of life's war zones.

To chagrined feminists suffering from psychic abuse, real or imagined, at the hands of men, Gross weaves a fanciful tale which enables forlorn old maids, and young, unattractive ones, to escape reality through Pat Stenson and her five bosom buddies.

Using their superior brains and fertile uteruses in a joint venture known as "She Inc.," Stenson and friends work tirelessly and ruthlessly toward their goal of replacing male dominance with female fascism.

Not a particularly noble calling, but for some women She Inc., is about as close as they will ever come to self-actualization and real power.

Although Gross is not likely to win any awards for writing excellence, he does deserve some credit for being masterfully clairvoyant:

She Inc., hit the book stands just as Hillary's Clinton fairy tale about becoming the first woman to serve as president of these United States was about to bear fruit.

The derailing of Hillary's Oval Office scheme by a young black man with Muslim first, middle, and last names must have distressed Gross to no end; it could not have happened to a more deserving scalawag.

As it turns out, the fruit reaped from the tree of Hillary was nothing but sour grapes.

Still, Gross can celebrate in the knowledge that Hillary's aborted presidential campaign will cause millions of distressed feminists to seek solace in chocolate, shopping, and fictional accounts of women with power.

That being the case, it could be quite a boom year for Gross and She Inc. after all!

SheInc. http://sixoutrageouswomen.com/she/

Abortion Is a Constitutional Right--Right?

By John W. Lillpop

Those who question the existence of rampant liberal hypocrisy need only consider two major issues of the day to be disabused of all such doubt.

Consider please: Liberals oppose the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, and do so allegedly out of concern for human life and safety. However, those same liberals are bitter proponents of abortion, which is all about terminating human life.

Consider further how the right to bear arms and abortion are reflected in law.

With respect to arms, the second Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

By definition, gun control is an attempt by government to infringe on the right of the People to keep and bear arms. That makes gun control a violation of the Second Amendment, plain and simple.

Unfortunately, liberal politicians and bureaucrats have snubbed their arrogant noses at the Bill of Rights by promulgating gun restrictions specifically prohibited by the Second Amendment.

However, the Supreme Court ruling of June 26, 2008, overturned a leftist-inspired ban on firearms in Washington, D.C., thereby upholding the Constitutional right to bear arms.

That victory for the People should be very helpful in thwarting future attempts by the left to violate a citizen's right to bear arms, which is second only to free speech in the Bill of Rights.

While liberals have fought tooth and nail against the Second Amendment, despite its clarity and non-ambiguous language, they have fought just as ferociously to enact a right that simply does not exist in the US Constitution.

That would be the right to an abortion, more factually known as infanticide, the liberal version of human genocide that has resulted in the wanton murder of 50 million innocent lives in America since the Roe V. Wade death sentence was handed down in 1973.

Unlike the provisions of the Second Amendment, the so-called right to abortion is not codified in any of the governing instruments that make our democracy sustainable under the rule of law.

In many ways, abortion is similar to the unseemly manipulation of men and sperm by unethical, immoral women in Kenneth J. Gross's intriguing book titled, "SHE, Inc."

In that frightening feminist fantasy, intellectually elite liberal women use science and medicine to assure that their offspring are only female, as part of a grand scheme to usurp abusive male dominance with even more onerous female fascism.

Liberals like those in "SHE, Inc." have fabricated a non-existent constitutional right out of whole cloth in order to sanctify the brutal extermination of human life deemed too costly, inconvenient, or both, by the women involved.

Those who really care about human life must abandon attempts to neuter the constitutional right of the People to bear arms, and focus instead on the stealth right to abortion that has destroyed 50 million human lives since 1973.

Water on Mars? What About Oil Under the Golden Gate Bridge?

Satire by John W. Lillpop

As one who listens to network "news" only when the only alternative is an afternoon strapped to a waterboard, I am convinced that the FCC has a constitutional, legal, and spiritual obligation to protect the American people by including a health warning before and after every news broadcast.

FCC-sanctioned news disclaimers should read something like this:

"Conservatives are warned that listening to this broadcast may result in hypertension, hardening of the arteries, and other potentially lethal health conditions, particularly among those who are unduly insistent on unbiased and factual presentation of the news.

"No adjustment to your radio is required."

That sort of disclaimer would have eased the distress of being stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge recently, with no choice but to listen to the latest claptrap from the local affiliate of a major network.

Network propaganda falsely bills this hourly recitation of Democrat Party talking points as "Here's the Latest!" but a foul air alert would make more sense.

On this day, the top news item was the possible discovery of water on Mars. Although the newscaster did not use these exact words, it was clear that he was frothing at the mouth to say,

"NASA scientists are reporting tonight that water may have been found on Mars. When confirmed, this discovery will immediately debunk everything in Genesis and the rest of the Holy Bible. Film at 11!"

With all due respect to so-called news professionals, even if there is, or was, water on Mars, so what? Unless Martian water will burn in a combustion engine and fuel a 757 jet non-stop from LA to New York City, who gives a tinker's dam?

Meanwhile, the media ignore the most urgent news of the young millennium: There is oil under the Golden Gate Bridge and all along and off the California coastline.

In fact, there may even be enough "Black Gold" in California to end US reliance on oil from terrorist states, Russia, and Venezuela.

The big question: With gasoline approaching $5 a gallon, why are there no derricks, drilling rigs, and other instruments of energy independence under the Golden Gate Bridge and on California's pristine beaches, which are instead wasted on parties, fishing, and other unhealthy fads?

"From My Cold, Dead Hands"

By John W. Lillpop

Rebounding smartly from horrific rulings that protect terrorists at Gutamano Bay and child rapists here at home, the United States Supreme Court has redeemed itself, at least partially.

By refusing to delay erection of the fence at the US-Mexico border and by upholding the Constitutional right of Americans to bear arms as set forth in the 2nd Amendment, the Court has restored a measure of confidence in their ability to act on behalf of the American people.

Today's ruling against unlawful gun meddling is particularly sweet and should be enormously helpful in thwarting liberals on gun control from this point forward.

Affirmation of gun ownership as a basic American right also provides another fitting, final tribute to Charlton Heston and the noble cause that he championed. Heston, who passed away on April 5, would be greatly encouraged to know that attempts to pry weapons "from my cold, dead hands" were put to rest, with great finality, by the highest court in the land.

Of course, there are some on the very far left who are unwilling, or unable, to accept the bitter pill that has been dealt their anti-Bill of Rights agenda when it come to guns.

For example, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the following after the ruling:

"I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a law that’s less pervasive," Pelosi said at her weekly briefing Thursday. "I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools."

Brief:
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/06/26/pelosi-says-dc-should-continue-gun-regulation/

Pelosi is obviously still in a state of shock and or denial. Furthermore, her statement is curious given the recent history of gun control in Pelosi's hometown of San Francisco.

In 2005, San Francisco voters passed Measure H, which would have forbidden residents from owning hand guns. If H had been implemented, only law-abiding residents would have been disarmed, because criminals would simply ignore the law. That, by definition, is what criminals do!

Common sense eventually prevailed in this case as well, as the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Measure H, thereby aborting this foolish bit of chicanery by liberal troublemakers.

Bottom Line: Liberals like Nancy Pelosi must be forced to accept that gun ownership is a basic tenet of American democracy, and is among the most cherished freedoms and liberties enjoyed by American citizens.

Madam Speaker, unlike the fabricated, non-existent right to have an abortion, the right to bear arms is specifically identified in the Bill of Rights, second only to free speech as a fundamental of American democracy.

That is the case, whether you like it or not.

Do not even attempt to deny or tamper with the second Amendment rights of American patriots!

And by the way, Happy Independence Day!

Pregnancy Pacts: Liberalism Run Amuck?

Satire By John W. Lillpop

For those who believe that America is in a state of steep moral decline, the latest phenomenon known as "Pregnancy Pacts" will do little to restore waning confidence in the innate superiority of American culture.

Thanks to the pioneering spirit of seventeen teenage girls in Massachusetts, Pregnancy Pacts are poised to usurp cable television as the preferred source of summer entertainment for teenage girls with too much time on their hands-- and other body parts as well.

For those unfamiliar with the term, Pregnancy Pacts refers to an accord between a group of like minded, unmarried teenage girls who agree to become pregnant in order to share the pain and glory of pregnancy, delivery, and raising of new born infants.

This sort of bonding used to take place in traditional families as an integral part of the marriage rituals between one man and one woman. However, with the advent of non-traditional unions in Massachusetts, mom and dad families are "old school," definitely "not cool," at least not in some high schools.

Because this shocking news originates in the only state in the union that is even close to being as liberal as California, I decided to interview Speaker Nancy Pelosi to get her views and feelings on this extraordinary development.

I caught up with Speaker Pelosi at an abortion cell on Alcatraz Island where she was donating blood for an unwed girl who was about to undergo an abortion.

John:

Greetings, Speaker Pelosi! Great to see you again, especially in such a positive and rewarding role as donating blood.

Speaker Pelosi:

Thank you, John. I believe that giving blood is a great way to help save an innocent life and that is my passion!

John:

But is that not somewhat contradictory, Madam Speaker? After all, your blood will sustain the mother during the willful termination of an innocent fetus. Does that not bother you at all?

Speaker Pelosi:

Damn it, John! I was referring to the innocent life of the mother! Please, vacate all the insane hyperventilating about unborn fetuses!

The damn things are nothing more than a few blobs of undeveloped flesh. Remember, that every fetus is the private property of the woman involved--it is in the Constitution!

Besides, most fetuses are butt ugly and have damn little value except to right wing goof balls that could care less about the precious little darlings once they come bouncing out of the womb!

John:

I understand your position very well, and apologize for bringing up an issue settled long ago.

I would, however, like to get your reaction to the latest social fad-- so-called pregnancy pacts between groups of teenage girls.

Speaker Pelosi:

Well, as you can imagine, I am very concerned about this.

But at the outset let me say that I am encouraged by the fact that these young girls are not campaigning for John McCain or pulling some other outrageous stunts that will only harm the Democrat Party in November.

Truth is, I would prefer to see these gals pregnant and bare-footed, rather than in the clutches of old white Republican vipers like John McCain.

Besides, we can always abort unwanted brats-- reversing the damage caused by old bastards like John McCain could be damn near impossible.

John:

That makes sense. But what has caused these pregnancy pacts to become "cool"?

Speaker Pelosi:

Well, to be perfectly honest, the Hillary Clinton spectacle over the past several months did not help at all. Hillary made a damn fool of herself and, in doing so, did irreparable damage to the self-esteem of millions of young girls.

Some girls reacted by working harder at school, or joining the Obama campaign. Others, usually less educated kids from bitter rural families with handguns, have turned to pregnancy pacts to express their anger.

John:

So it is all Hillary's fault?

Speaker Pelosi:

Not entirely. There are other root causes for this unhealthy fad.

For example, George W. Bush's evil and illegal war in Iraq war bears much of the blame.

John:

The war in Iraq? What in the world does that have to do with pregnancy pacts?

Speaker Pelosi:

Quite simple, really: If Bush had not shipped so many young men to Iraq, those men could be living in Massachusetts where they could fall in love with and marry young girls like those involved with these crazy pregnancy pacts.

John:

I still do not understand Madam Speaker. How do you know that any of those troops in Iraq would have married any young girl in Massachusetts? What is the basis for that argument?

Speaker Pelosi:

You know, John, you bore me. You bore me a lot!

I have tried to explain this in the simplest terms possible. You are obviously suffering from a right-wing bias that makes it impossible to communicate with you.

Besides, I have a life to save in less than 30 minutes. Please leave this cell immediately so that I can get back to donating blood for this brave teen girl who is sacrificing her own to help save the planet from overpopulation.

Good night, John!

John:

Thank you, Speaker Pelosi.

What Would President Obama Do About the Price of Gasoline?

By John W. Lillpop

As soaring gasoline prices continue to wreak havoc among poor and near poor American families, presidential nominee Barack Obama has made headlines by telling the poor what he will not do to resolve the energy crisis.

Specifically, as president, Obama would not:

Advocate domestic drilling;

Seek additional refining capacity; or

Encourage development of nuclear power.

Having ruled out all reasonable ideas for increasing supply, Obama seems obsessed with reducing demand, even though oil is the mother's milk of America's economy and fuels the way of life that Americans adore.

So, what is a card-carrying Marxist to do when the well being of the unwashed masses conflicts with the socialist agenda of the Democrat Party when it comes to insects' rights?

Should government seek to lower gasoline prices at the expense of the cross-eyed gay mosquito, an endangered species found only in Alaska and off the coasts of California and Florida?

Nuclear power might be plausible, but surely liberal-minded scientists can find a greener way to boil water?

Installing more refining capacity is out because it would take at least five years to implement. By then, science will most likely have perfected the technology needed to convert conservative talk show commentary--ergo, hot air--into affordable home heating products and fuel pellets for compact imported cars.

What to do, in the here and NOW? Especially since most of the folks suffering from high gasoline prices are die-hard Democrat voters?

Perhaps Obama should lift a page from the play book of the last American president who actually took a pro-active step(s) on energy and gasoline prices?

That would be one James Earl Carter, 39th president of the United States and the American politician most responsible for the Reagan Revolution.

Immediately after being inaugurated on January 20, 1977 , President Carter and his wife Rosalynn jumped out of their limousine and walked down Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the White House.

Mind you, Jimmy Carter was setting an example for the American people and the entire globe about the urgent need to conserve energy.

After all, gasoline was all of $.65 a gallon as Carter and his family walked to the Oval Office, where the new president immediately exercised his awesome powers by mandating a non-negotiable schedule for the White House tennis courts.

Unfortunately for America and western civilization, Carter's stroll down Pennsylvania failed to prove anything, except that Jimmy was even more of a loon than Republicans had alleged.

Still, Carter's walk showed the unwashed masses that he was doing something.

Since then, Americans have come to understand that sometimes something is worse than doing nothing at all, especially when Democrats are involved!

Further proof of this truth came when President Carter created two new cabinet-level departments: the Department of Energy and the Department of Education, which dang near ruined energy and education in America.

But back to 2008.

Perhaps Barack Obama should sprint down Pennsylvania Avenue, in light of the fact that gasoline is nearly ten times more expensive than when Jimmy Carter rained on America's parade in 1977?

Lord knows that Obama should be fit enough to jog down Pennsylvania Avenue without even working up a sweat, especially after spending nearly two years running for office.

Better still, Mr. Obama: For the sake of America, don't do something, just stand there!

Listen Up, Mexico: Beggars Can't Be Choosers!

By John W. Lillpop

In the latest example of incomprehensible mindlessness coming from south of the U.S. border, politicians in third-world Mexico are "angry" because of conditions imposed by the United States as part of the Merida handout.

Merida is the latest rip-off proposed by Mexican mole George W. Bush and his pals in Congress. It would cause $1.4 billion dollars of hard-earned taxpayer loot to be deported to Mexico.

LATIMES: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-merida5-2008jun05,0,5969683.story

The purpose of Merida? Allegedly, to help bolster crime fighting by the Mexican government and, ultimately, to keep that nation's drug traffic out of America.

In other words, America would pay Mexican authorities $1.4 billion to enforce the law, and keep their dangerous and illegal drugs on their side of the border.

However, Mexican "pride" has caused some officials to balk at that $1.4 billion because of a contingency that would require Mexico to improve its deplorable human rights record.

That is analogous to a hobo- beggar refusing to accept a $100 bill if forced to take a much-needed shower!

To keep this issue in proper perspective, please remember that Mexico's human rights record ranks among the worse in the world.

For example, in March of 2008, the United Nations reported that Central American migrants traveling through Mexico to the United States face violence and abuse by Mexican authorities.

Jorge Bustamante, the U.N.'s Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, said that there are "reports of rampant impunity for instances of corruption, including bribery and extortion, violence against women, and trafficking in children…[and] that the impunity seems to be linked to abuses of power at the municipal, state and federal levels."

UPSIDEDOWN: http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1192/79/

Corruption, bribery, extortion, violence against women, and trafficking in children by Mexican authorities?

And for those minor indiscretions, the United States has the audacity to interfere in Mexico's internal affairs before sending loco locals $1.4 billion?

Outrageous!

Even more outrageous: Despite its own sub-human human rights record, Mexican leaders from Felipe Calderon, on down, are goofy enough to complain and whine non-stop that illegal aliens from Mexico are being mistreated in America!

That charge is profoundly idiotic given that illiterate peasants from Mexico continue to come to America by the millions!

If life here is so unbearable for Mexicans, why have upwards of 38 million illegal aliens risked life and limb just to invade America?

And why do they continue to stay, despite being unwelcome parasites?

Perhaps American officials should engage in "Corruption, bribery, extortion, violence against women, and trafficking in children." as a means for discouraging illegal aliens from coming here, and for causing those already here to migrate back to Mexico?

Finally, an appropriate word of counsel to daft Mexican officials: Beggars cannot be Choosers!

Can America Afford Barack Obama's "Change" ?

Satire By John Lillpop


Should voters be foolish enough to elect Barack Obama on November 4, the following Changes will be America's just rewards:

The 44th president of the United States will take the Oath of Office in a cave at an undisclosed location in Pakistan or Afghanistan. He will place his left hand on the Koran, while swearing (in Arabic) at the U.S. Constitution, capitalism, and bitter white rural Christians with handguns;

Presidential Inaugural Balls will be held in Mecca, the Dome of the Rock, Madina, and other venues with large populations of American-hating Jihadists, like San Francisco and Detroit;

Abortions will be mandatory--for pregnant Jews;

The Iraq war will be officially declared a "Hate Crime" against Islam;

Lethal injection will replaced by beheading, hanging, or public stoning, especially for morally corrupt women who allow themselves to be raped, or whom are audacious enough to hold public office;

Women will be prohibited from driving automobiles, thereby reducing gasoline consumption in America by at least 50 percent, immediately ending the need for offshore drilling;

Reverend Jeremiah Wright will serve as Secretary of Defense;

U.S. Marines will invade the site of 9/11 to destroy all commemorative symbols as well as any plans to rebuild Twin Towers;

The term "Under God" will be replaced by "As ordered by Allah" in the Pledge of Allegiance;

Every Friday afternoon will be reserved for mandatory mosque attendance and praying in an easterly direction, as prescribed by federal law;

Enjoying Miller Time, Happy Hour and other Friday traditions savored by America's unwashed masses will be cause for immediate beheading, or worse!;

Ramadan will replace Christmas and Thanksgiving as national holidays; celebrating Yon Kipper will be a felony, punishable by death on the first offense;

Burning the American flag will no longer be a crime, unless Al Gore decides that the smoke from smoldering flags causes global warming;

All citizens will be automatically covered by universal health care insurance at birth; illegal aliens will be covered only after registering as Democrats;

An "Excess Initiative Tax" will be paid by households with annual incomes exceeding $200,000;

A "Global Warming Tax" will be levied on SUVs and luxury cars registered to Republicans and southern Democrats;

Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger will be appointed Director of Homeland Security;

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, General Petraeus, and Donald Rumsfeld will be sent to Guantánamo Bay for their roles in the Iraq war. Habeas corpus will be denied all four, and

Terrorists held at Guantánamo Bay will be set free to make room for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, General Petraeus, and Donald Rumsfeld.


Barack Obama: Can America survive his extreme brand of change?

Of Course, Liberals Want to Nationalize Oil!

By John W. Lillpop

The Democrat Party has a single objective when it comes to the vital issue of energy: Obstruction!

By opposing drilling, additional refining capacity, and the development of nuclear power, the Left has left no stone unturned in assuring that America will never achieve energy independence. At least not through private enterprise, that is.

After all, $10 a gallon gasoline is worth the price to liberals if they can destroy the American oil industry.

Privateaphobia is the correct medical term to describe this mental disorder found only in sick liberals.

Privateaphobia reared its ugly head again this week when liberals responded to President Bush's common sense proposal to end offshore drilling with another senseless counter offer:

The solution, according to the left, is to nationalize the petroleum industry!

WND:


Mind you, these are the same hapless dim wits that could not manage a primary election without disenfranchising millions of voters and nearly igniting a race war while doing so.

Imagine what would happen to our economy, homeland security, and national defense if America's "Black Gold" were in the hands of kooky socialists like Barack Obama, Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, and Nancy Pelosi.

The mind boggles!

To begin with, supplies to the military would be hijacked in order to provide free gasoline to millions of illegal aliens.

Environmentally abusive refining plants would be seized and converted into affordable housing for low-income malcontents and Mexicans still living in Mexico but with designs on invading America within the next 30 days.

And on and on.

Liberalism: Bad for gasoline price stability, bad for America!

John Murtha's Unhappy 76th Birthday: Haditha "Massacre" Debunked

By John W. Lillpop

June 17, 2008 was a huge day in the life and time of America's demented old lefty from Pennsylvania, the dishonorable John Murtha, Democrat, of course.

To begin with, this corrupt anti-American celebrated his 76th birthday. How the good people of Pennsylvania have seen fit to elect and reelect this unrepentant fraud over the years should be the subject of an immediate Congressional Blue Ribbon investigation.

Notwithstanding Murtha's birthday, there was some good news on June 17.

Namely, a military judge dismissed charges against a Marine officer accused of failing to investigate the killings of 24 Iraqis in the so-called Haditha massacre.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hNUaTPsL6OBHarjCDUGxJ0EYsm9AD91BVVI80

That means that seven of the eight American troops vilified by the ill informed and hateful Murtha have been subsequently vindicated by military justice, with an eight victim awaiting trial.

Zero for seven. Even by liberal standards, that is a poor showing.
While Lt. Col. Chessani, Lt. Andrew Grayson, Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum, Capt. Lucas McConnell, Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, and Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz have had their lives all but ruined by reckless allegations, leftist enemies of America like John Murtha are not held accountable.

Remember, John Murtha was instrumental in igniting the Haditha firestorm of misinformation when the irresponsible lefty said the following:

"Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

For that statement, surely an act of treason, John Murtha should be removed from office and subjected to civil and criminal prosecution of behalf of Lt. Col. Chessani, Lt. Andrew Grayson, Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum, Capt. Lucas McConnell, Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, and Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz, and their families.

Matthew 7: 16-20, the California Supreme Court, and Gay Marriage

Satire By John W. Lillpop

California is renowned for being on the cutting edge of technology, education, culture, politics, and just old fashioned kookiness.

Take for instance the latest headline grabber from the West Coast: Gay marriage became a reality here starting at 5:01, PDT, on June 16, 2008.

Notwithstanding the prestige involved in being the first to dabble in gay marriage, several crucial questions remain unanswered concerning this latest California phenomena.

Namely:

1. Given the miserable failure rate of heterosexual marriages, why in the world would any sane gay or lesbian couple want to get married?

2. Should, God forbid, the military draft become necessary in the future, would a married man, married to another man, be exempt from the draft?

If both men sought military deferments, which partner would be spared, and which one would be sent off to war, and why?

3. When Jesus said, in Matthew 7:16-20, "By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them," was he referring to the California Supreme Court and their bombshell ruling which overturned the will of the people vis-à-vis gay marriage?

4. Should California voters reject (again) same-sex marriage at the ballot box in November, will San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom declare the election unconstitutional and proceed with plans to marry all San Francisco gay and lesbian couples via one grand C-Span interactive broadcast at midnight, Christmas Eve?

5. If Fred, a gay American citizen, weds Ricardo, a gay illegal alien from Mexico, will Ricardo automatically become an U.S. citizen?

6. If the answer to five is YES, is there a procedure whereby Representative Barney Frank could marry all 38 million illegal aliens in America in one ceremony, thereby granting immediate citizenship to all said invaders, and locking up the Hispanic vote for Barack Obama?

7. Given the fact that the California Supreme Court has wielded a wrecking ball to the institution of marriage, are there any guidelines as to whom or what can become "as one" by taking the marriage vows?

For example, what if Fred, Ricky, and Harry decide that a gay threesome would make a nifty family, what would stop them from doing just that?

Or what if Gina decides to betroth Doe, a female deer, and Ray, a lesbian barber who specializes in butch cuts? Would the state of California blithely take their marriage license fees, and speed the two ladies and their dear deer on their way to everlasting marital bliss?


These are but a few of the crucial questions that immediately come to mind on this complex issue. However, one thing seems perfectly clear: Untangling the inevitable messes will be anything but gay!

It's MarX, Not MarK, Comrade!

By John W. Lillpop

In my recent column titled, "I am Voting Democrat," the very last item read "Karl Mark was smarter than George W. Bush."

It should have read, "Karl Marx, in whose name the Democrat Party seeks to destroy America and the entire free world, was smarter than George W. Bush."

That typo provided interesting commentary from both sides of the political aisle:

Conservatives defended the president and were offended by my attempt to satirize his alleged lack of brain power.

Why anyone would take my remark, or George W. Bush for that matter, seriously defies explanation.

He is without question, the worstest president in U.S. history.

Liberals, on the other hand, fumed at the misspelling of the revered name of Karl Marx.

Forget George W. Bush and the obvious spoof: Brain-dead liberals who worship at the altar of communism and anti-American anarchy demanded that the record be made right.

Accordingly, let it be known, far and wide, to every voter and potential voter:

It is Marx, not Mark, to whom liberalism owes its most regrettable existence

For the record, Karl Marx died in 1883!

All of which proves that those who scheme to ruin our way from the left side of the aisle are in love with a failed ideology from nearly a century and a quarter ago.

And they call themselves "Progressive"?

Mexican "Family Values" Won't Improve America?

Posted By John Lillpop

Allan Wall is an American citizen who has lived in Mexico since 1991. As a long-time resident of Mexico, Wall is obviously aware of many things that the American media is unaware of, or deliberately chooses to ignore.

Wall recently authored an excellent article that examined the notion that Hispanics (including illegal aliens) share "family values" with Americans, and should, therefore, be welcomed into America with open arms.

Wall's piece, titled Mexican Family Values Won't Improve America?, begins with a look at the Hispanic "family Values" stereotype that permeates our dialog about immigration at the highest levels, including president of the United States.

Wall continues by pointing out that, to some, Hispanics are just better people than Americans and are going to improve the moral fiber of our country.

He describes that argument as "downright un-patriotic, " and opines that the if the moral fiber of American society has declined, and he believes that it has, then the solution is to work to improve it, not to replace Americans with foreigners.

In discussing traditional values, Wall uncovers an inconvenient truth: Hispanic women in the U.S. have higher illegitimacy and abortion rates than white women. Which leads one to the inescapable conclusion that mass immigration is definitely not improving the moral fiber of American society!

Another inconvenient truth bites the dust when the facts are exposed: The notion that American society is responsible for corrupting Mexican immigrants.

Wall takes that on by quoting Catholic Bishop Arizmendi whom laments the fact that young Mexicans grow up without hope, taking refuge in drugs, sex, videos, music, and fashion.

Wall reminds readers that the Bishop was referring to young Mexicans who live in Mexico—not those who have migrated to the U.S.

Additional statistics and discussion concerning child pornography, divorce, illegitimate birth, abortion, marital infidelity, and HIV in Mexico lead to Walls' withering conclusion:

"There is simply no reason to suppose that the current mass immigration of Mexicans and other Hispanics is going to improve the moral fiber of America!

Wall ends his professorial masterpiece with a stern warning:

"Don't be deceived. Today's mass Mexican immigration—the 'Mexodus'—is not improving the moral fiber of the U.S.A.
Nor of Mexico either."

The entire article is available at
http://californiarepublic.org/archives/Columns/Wall/20080613WallFamily.htm

Mexican "Family Values" Won't Improve America?

By Allan Wall

"Old stereotypes die hard. How many times have we heard that Mexican and Hispanic immigration is good for the U.S., because Mexican and other Hispanic immigrants (including illegal aliens) have "family values"?

"Our own president is particularly fond of this argument. For example, at a National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast in 2006, Bush proclaimed (to applause) that , "The daily example of our Hispanic communities reminds us that strong faith and strong families can build a better future for all. We are more—we're a more hopeful society because men and women of Hispanic descent have put their faith and values into action."

"In fact, as long ago as 1993, Francis "End of History" Fukuyama said that 'But it would also seem a priori likely that third-world immigrants should have stronger family values than white, middle-class, suburban Americans, while their work ethic and willingness to defer to traditional sources of authority should be greater as well.' [Immigrants and Family Values, Commentary, May 1993].

"In 2003, former Mexican political operative Fredo Arias-King described interviewing pro-immigration social conservative U.S. congressmen on behalf of the PAN Party and Vicente Fox. Here's his impression of why they supported immigration:

'Congressmen in this group mentioned that the immigrants ‘bring family values’ that compensate for the perceived deterioration in the morality of Americans. Their preoccupation seemed to be a return to an America they feel is slipping away.' "

"That argument is downright un-patriotic, I don't care who makes it.

"If you believe that the moral fiber of American society has declined, and I do, then the solution is to work to improve it, not to replace Americans with foreigners.

"Any social conservative who wants to replace Americans with foreigners is an unpatriotic social conservative. "

"But, as it turns out, the argument is bogus even on its own terms. Mass immigration is definitely not improving the moral fiber of American society.

"As VDARE.COM's Edwin Rubenstein has documented, Hispanic women in the U.S. have higher illegitimacy and abortion rates than white women. That's quite an accomplishment when you think about it!

"Nevertheless, some clueless pro-lifers support mass immigration, despite the fact that mass immigration increases the American abortion rate! Figure that out!"


"Another argument: Mexicans have wonderful family values, but immigrants to the U.S. who have these social problems are being corrupted by American society.
"As Fukuyama put it in a review of Huntington's Who Are We?,
'The problem, as Alejandro Portes, a professor of sociology and immigration studies at Princeton, has pointed out, is not that Mexican and other Latino immigrants come with the wrong values, but rather that they are corrupted by American practices.' "


"And "Crunchy Con" Rod Dreher echoed the argument in a Beliefnet blog entry entitled "Leaving Mexico—and Strong Family Values":

'I heard from a Catholic friend today …(who) said that in his charity work, they're seeing lots of Mexican immigrant families shattered by the experience of living in America. Mostly men leaving their wives and children, but a startling number of women leaving their husbands and children. His theory is that the strength of the Mexican family is true... but only in Mexico. When they immigrate here, to a vastly different culture and lose their cultural reference points, many immigrants can't handle the freedom. He said they're seeing so many become unmoored from the kinds of traditions and restraints that probably kept them sound in Mexico, but which many of them cast aside once they get to America.' "

"Well, there's a little truth to this argument. Mexican immigrants to the U.S. do have higher illegitimacy rates in the U.S. than Mexicans do at home.

"But, on the other hand, Fukuyama and Dreher don’t seem to realize that illegitimacy rates in Mexico are in fact higher than rates in the U.S. overall. (More on that later).

"The problem with the 'Immigrants Corrupted by America' argument is that it goes too far in implying that Mexico is some sort of Family Values Moral Arcadia. As I've tried to tell people since my very first VDARE.COM article in 2001, there are all sorts of home-grown social problems in Mexico. Mexican society is not immune to the vast social changes occurring in other countries. Today social and moral values are under dispute in Mexico, as in other countries.

"On balance, there's simply no reason to suppose that the current mass immigration of Mexicans and other Hispanics is going to improve the moral fiber of our own country.

"And hey, I'm not the only one who is pointing out the social problems of Mexico—the Catholic Church is concerned about them as well. A recent article in El Universal, Mexico's paper of record, was entitled Preocupa a Iglesia descomposición social en México (“Social decomposition worries the Church”, April 2nd, 2008). It started out by reporting that 'The bishop Felipe Arizmendi Esquivel stated that the greatest concern of the [Catholic] church is not the decline in the numbers of Catholics, ‘but the lifestyle of many of them, the situation of violence and social decomposition.’ He [Bishop Arizmendi] said that the young people grow up disoriented, without a well-defined paternal figure, without personal identity and without hope, taking refuge in drugs, sex, videos, music, and fashion.'

"The Mexican youth the bishop is discussing, remember, are young Mexicans who live in Mexico—not those who have migrated to the U.S.

"As a high school teacher and college professor, I'm well aware that American pop culture is very popular with young Mexicans. They listen to American music and watch American TV shows and movies. My students are much more familiar with contemporary American pop music than I am (but I don't think I'm missing much).

"I freely admit that commercial American pop culture contains many bad influences for Mexican youth. But, if you know anything about Mexican pop culture and its celebrities, you know it's just as decadent.


"It was recently announced, incidentally, that Mexico is now #2 in the world in the quantity of Internet child pornography published. [Ocupa México segundo lugar en producción de pornografía infantil, El Universal, June 2, 2008]

"As far as divorce rates, Mexico still lags behind the U.S., which has one of the world's highest (36 for every 100 marriages as of 2005).

"Nevertheless, Mexico's divorce rate is increasing, and quite substantially. Just having lived here since 1991, I've seen the marriages of couples I know fall apart. And looking at it percentage-wise, in 1970 there were 3.2 divorces for every 100 marriages, in 1980 there were 4.4, in 1990 there were 7.2, in 2000 there were 7.4, by 2003 there were 11.0, in 2004 there were 11.8 and by 2006, for every 100 marriages there were 12.3 divorces.

'In other words, the Mexican divorce rate has quadrupled since 1970. The U.S. is still far ahead, but Mexico is working to close the gap.

'During the same time period, illegitimate births have increased in Mexico.

"They've increased in the United States too. According to UN statistics, in 1970 out-of -wedlock births accounted for 10.7% of U.S. births; by 1999 they had climbed to 33.0%, and by 2006 had reached an all-time high of 37%. Which is sad and disturbing.
But even back in 1970, the Mexican out-of-wedlock percentage of all births, 27.3%, was already higher than that of the U.S. And by 1993 the percentage of illegitimate births out of total births was 37.8%.

'There's even a curious Spanish euphemism for a bastard child—the baby is called an "hijo natural" (natural child), as if to imply that legitimate offspring are somehow unnatural! (A term also used by pre-Victorian English aristocrats, but no longer much used in English.)

'There was a recent publicized case of a "natural" child who was born to two very famous white Mexicans.

Santiago Creel (see photo here) is a prominent politician of the right-wing (by Mexican standards) PAN (National Action Party). Creel was former president Vicente Fox's handpicked successor, but was defeated in the party selection process by Felipe Calderon, who went on to win. Now Creel is president of the Senate, the Mexican equivalent of Harry Reid (but Creel is whiter).

"In 2004, Mexican actress Edith Gonzalez (photo here) gave birth to a daughter. As sometimes occurs with single Mexican female celebrities who get pregnant, she refused to reveal who the baby's father was.

"Well, Creel just got around to admitting that he is the father of the child, conceived when Creel was Secretary of the Interior and married to another woman. The reason it was discovered: Edith and Santiago (who are no longer in a relationship, Creel is divorced and has a new girlfriend) finally got around to registering Constanza, their blue-eyed child, in 2008, though she was born in 2004. Now those are some real family values for you! (Mother and daughter photo here ).

"Despite some attention in the celebrity press, it wasn't even considered much of a scandal. I think it would've been a bigger scandal in the United States.

"In recent years, the number of out-of-wedlock births and female-headed households has increased in Mexico. But most Mexican single moms are not as well-heeled as Edith Gonzalez.

"As of 2003, in the U.S. 8% of households with children were female-headed. This year, CONAPO (Mexican Population Council) reported that as of 2000, 20.6% of Mexican homes were female-headed. That was up from 13.5% at the end of the 70s.

"And in 2007 CONAPO announced that 23% of Mexican households were female-headed.

"In 2006, CONAPO (Mexican Population Council) reported that 20% of Mexican mothers are (for whatever reason) single mothers. Among younger women (under 30), one out of five got pregnant when they were single. [Madres solteras desafían estereotipos, (“Single Mothers Defy Stereotypes”—itself a very stereotypical headline.)By Cristina Pérez-Stadelmann, El Universal, August 30 2006]

"Some other telling statistics from CONAPO: Of the nearly 2 million births in Mexico in 2008, 15.5% were to females between the ages of 15-19, and around 7,000 girls from 12-14 years of age had had at least one child.

"So how about abortion? On paper, Mexican abortion law is stricter than U.S. law. But Mexican abortion law is hardly enforced.

"Estimates of how many illegal abortions are performed vary wildly. But some activists on both sides agree that there are somewhere between 500,000 to 1.5 million abortions performed annually in Mexico. If true, that would be comparable to the number of annual legal abortions in the United States—which has three times Mexico's population.

"And just last year the Mexico City municipal government legalized abortion on demand for the first trimester.

"Regarding the spread of HIV, a recent study carried out in rural Mexico cast the local men in a very unflattering light. The purpose of the study was "to investigate the factors that outline HIV risk among married women in…one of Mexico's rural communities." Marital infidelity by the husbands was the principal factor in HIV infection among the wives.

"And it was related to migration both within Mexico and in the U.S.:

"A major aspect in the study was that married men in the community left their homes to travel to the United States or large Mexican cities for jobs. While away for long periods, they engaged in extra-marital and unsafe sex, which can lead to HIV infection. When men return home, they infect their wives with the deadly virus during sexual intercourse.

"This leads once again to the emigration factor—how mass emigration of Mexican men worsens family disintegration in Mexico. Besides HIV infections, it encourages some men to abandon their families, as I reported in my 2004 article 'Deadbeat Dads Don't Stop at the Rio Grande."

"Allowing mass emigration from Mexico exacerbates family disintegration and causes all sorts of problems for family members left behind.

"To provide just on example, in one of the schools in which I worked, I had a divorced co-worker whose ex-husband never sent her any sort of alimony or child support for her or for their daughter.

"Why? Because he was living in the U.S. and nobody could (or would) track him down.

"How many other Mexican women and children are in similar situations—or worse? These are the victims that the Open Borders lobby doesn't give a hoot about. That's why they try to change the subject and smear immigration reform patriots, lobbing accusations of "racism" and other such red herrings.

"Certainly, contemporary American society has many social problems, and it's not fair to blame them all on immigration.
Nevertheless, there is not one of our social problems that is improved by immigration. Instead, immigration is making existing problems worse. "

"Don't be deceived. Today's mass Mexican immigration—the “Mexodus”—is not improving the moral fiber of the U.S.A.
Nor of Mexico either."


"

Why is Government Forcing America to Switch to Digital?

By John W Lillpop

Apparently the sticky problems confronting our nation, including wars in two foreign nations, the very real threat of terrorism, gasoline near $5 a gallon, rising inflation and unemployment, spiraling health care costs, record federal deficits, old, declining infrastructure, and massive illegal immigration from the third-world, are not enough to keep Washington bureaucrats busy.

How else to explain the fact that, as of February 17, 2009, the federal government has mandated that all analog television broadcasting is to be discontinued and replaced by digital vibes?

Thanks to the Digital Television Transition And Public Safety Act of 2005 (the Act) signed into law by President Bush on February 8, 2006, that 1986 Zenith console sitting in my living room will officially die at midnight on February 16, 2009.

On that sorrowful date, my 30" Zenith will pay for the sin of being analog in the digital age. It's sort of like being a Smith-Corona electric typewriter in the era of word processors, e-mail, text messaging and all of the other modern means of communication that no longer require carbon paper or white out.

OK, I freely admit that analog is old school, but so what? I happen to like old school, and find it infuriating when any government entity chokes off my freedom to choose whatever suits my fancy!

Besides, where in the US Constitution are the president and the US Congress empowered to force me to watch one type of television over another?

Why is that any of the government's damned business?

Propaganda geeks in the FCC and other worthless federal departments claim that digital will dramatically improve the picture and sound of America's television viewing. A multitude of new channels will be avaiable, so they say.

That, in my opinion, is one damn pathetic excuse for allowing the federal government to stick its ugly nose and mitts into my affairs. In fact, given the utterly worthless garbage that is broadcast these days, the FCC should be doing everything in it's power to make television viewing less attractive and less frequent!

That would be the compassionate thing to do for a generation of TV-addicted chowder heads that, because of television and overly potent Marijuana, are unable to read their high school diplomas, eviction notices, or bankruptcy papers.

To add insult to stupidity, the government has established the Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Coupon Program, which is bureaucratic double-speak for a giveaway program for blokes unable to afford the converter box that will be needed to tap into the digital version of America's vast wasteland on February 17.

And so it is that your government will add another couple of billion dollars to the huge tab already awaiting your grandchildren and their grandchildren.

God bless analog, 1986 Zenith consoles, the US Constitution, and old school thinking!

Without Tim Russert Around, Who's in Charge of the Election?

By John W. Lillpop

Tim Russert was a great American, a man loved by nearly everyone regardless of political affiliation or ideology.

Besides being an affable, likable fellow, Tim was the consummate professional at a time when reporters and journalists are held in approximately the same public esteem as used car salesmen and liberals.

Tim Russert's integrity, truthfulness, and objectivity were never in question, so untarnished were his credentials and reputation.

However, since Russert's sudden death last Friday, America's television industry has inundated the airwaves with non-stop analysis and tributes over and over again, to such excess that Russert himself would be annoyed.

Breaking News: Despite television reports to the contrary, Tim Russert was mortal.

Although he expired on a Friday, no one expects that Russert will be lifted up into the heavens this Sunday morning, or on any other Sunday morning in the near future.

Tim Russert deserves to rest in peace. His surviving loved ones deserve to mourn his passing in quiet dignity.

The American people must remain strong and know that the elections are still on for November 4, and that we can and will hold important elections, even without Tim Russert around to guide us.

John McCain's "Anger" About Oil: Epiphany or Senior Moment?

By John W. Lillpop

As an independent conservative who refuses to salivate and or worship at the feet of any politician simply because an R is attached to his name, I was nonetheless momentarily tempted by a headline concerning the GOP liberal running for the presidency.

That would be John McCain, who earned a headline in the NY Sun reading McCain "Angry" About Oil.

NYSUN: http://www.nysun.com/national/mccain-on-wall-street-angry-about-oil/79981/

Hooray, I naively enthused, thinking that McCain had launched a hard-hitting attack on Congressional Marxists who have obstructed every effort to make America energy independent and free from addiction to oil from the middle east, Russia, Venezuela, and other entities hostile to Uncle Sam.

I was most eager to read that McCain had targeted reckless liberals who have blocked drilling for new oil reserves, obstructed the installation of additional refining capacity, and who have sabotaged the rebirth of America's once vibrant nuclear option.

Alternatively, perhaps the old boy experienced an epiphany and finally realized that deporting as many as 38 million illegal aliens could have a dramatic impact on demand for gasoline, causing prices to pummel at the pump?

Much to my dismay, McCain appears to have had a "Senior Moment" rather than a common sense epiphany. How else to explain this mumbo jumbo:

"I am very angry, frankly, at the oil companies not only because of the obscene profits they've made but at their failure to invest in alternate energy to help us eliminate our dependence on foreign oil," the senator said.

"They're making huge profits and that happens, but not to say, 'We're in this so we can over time eliminate America's dependence on foreign oil,' I think is an abrogation of their responsibilities as citizens."

Obscene profits? Private companies have a patriotic duty to spend money on alternative energy?

With all due respect Senator, one would expect those words from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or even Jimmy Carter.

But from a "conservative" Republican?

Paying $10 per Gallon for Gasoline Is a Spiritual Experience!

By John W. Lillpop

After two years of listening to and watching hundreds of debates and town hall meetings, I have finally reached a conclusion.

I am voting Democrat because:

Soaring prices at the gas pump will ultimately squash demand, thereby reducing global warming;

Drilling for oil in Alaska is an immoral, preventable form of animal abuse;

Paying $10 or more a gallon for gasoline is the morally correct thing to do if it will save the life of even one endangered fruit fly;

U.S. troops in Iraq must be brought home immediately and made available for deployment to Haiti, the Dominican Republic, or other obscure nation in which the United States has absolutely no vital interest;

Thanks to Roe V. Wade, America has been spared the burden of approximately 50 million unneeded people at a time when natural resources like petroleum and water are in short supply;

Universal health care will bring American medicine down to the standards of Britain and Canada, thereby reducing the influx of Brits and Canadians who flock here in pursuit of high quality, timely treatment;

Shaira law is superior to the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the several states;

School prayer is evil because it programs children to rely on religious faith and superstition rather than government;

America needs Supreme Court justices who will rule on behalf of terrorists, against lawless renegades in the U.S. military;

Gay marriage is better for the environment because it does not contribute to overpopulation;

America must grant amnesty to ~38 million illegal aliens in order to prove our commitment to diversity and the eradication of racism;

Drugs with the potential to save the lives of poor people of color must be made available, free of cost, regardless of impact on the development of new medicines at pharmaceutical companies.

Appeasement is the only way to deal with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
and other Islamofacists intent on destroying America, Israel, and all western democracies.

Gays need Constitutional protection from religious and medical bigots who would unjustly shield 98 percent of the population from victims afflicted with AIDS or HIV.

No person is "illegal," except for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney;

Meeting America's energy and economic needs must never take precedent over the welfare of Sumatran rhinos, pygmy hogs, polar bears, and other endangered species.

Windfall taxes must be imposed on huge oil corporations and on CEOs who are guilty of indecent profits. Orphan Winfrey, George Soros, black athletes, liberal Hollywood stars, and Bill and Hillary Clinton are exempt;

Gun control laws and the death penalty would be unnecessary if human fetuses with criminal profiles were aborted before birth;

Treating illegal aliens under a universal health care scheme would be far less costly, thus saving illegals hundreds of billions of dollars that they can use for other expenses, or send home to Mexico;

Every American child deserves a college degree: Discriminatory practices such as final exams and grading on a bell curve can do irreparable damage to a lesser child's self esteem, and must be outlawed;

No child should have to share a classroom or teacher with another child or children, except as needed to enforce integration and or diversity quotas;

Higher taxes are needed to offset greed, abuse, and slothfulness among the rich;

The United Nations and most other nations in the world are morally and spiritually superior to the United States, and

Karl Marx was smarter than George W. Bush.

See you on November 4th!

Mahalo and Aloha, Jihadist Dudes!

Satire By John W. Lillpop


Of all the bloody cheek!

No longer content with just ramming airplanes into skyscrapers, devotees of the "Religion of Peace" have raised the terror bar another couple of notches.

Now these neurotic stowaways from the 7th century have flexed their financial muscle by threatening to boycott Northwest Airlines. It seems as though agents at Northwest had the audacity to demand that Muslim travelers follow international and airline rules by checking in least one hour before scheduled departure time.

It had something to do with security, 9/11, terrorism threats, etc. Nothing that would concern any card-holding Jihadist, right?

In any event, travelers returning from a pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, allegedly arrived just twenty minutes before departure, rather the required hour.

That is when Northwest Airlines personnel acted responsibly and refused to allow 40 of Allah's best and brightest to board the plane.

Of course, lawyers from CAIR subsequently gathered to address the issue in the spirit of fairness, reasoned logic, and common sense.

When all of those approaches failed, CAIR resorted to their standard policy book and screamed Racism! blah, blah, blah. And they then threatened to boycott the company, meaning that Muslims would get even by not flying Northwest Airlines.

Excuse me, did I read that correctly? The Muslims threatened to stay away from Northwest Airlines?

Good grief, how lucky can any airline get?

Immediately after confirming this report, I checked the itinerary for my Hawaii vacation in May and dispatched the following letter to the Northern California branch of CAIR:

Dear CAIR:

Knowing how racist and belligerent some airlines can be, I thought it my civic duty to inform you of a situation that is untenable for any devoted Jihadist.

I refer to XXX Airlines, Flight XX, on June 15,2008. This flight is non-stop from Morgan Hill International Airport in California to Hana, Maui, and leaves at 730 am, PDT. Gate 2a, Terminal 3.

In addition, please make note of the return flight from Hana to Morgan Hill on June 30, 2008.

Both of these flights are to be avoided by Muslims at all costs. The pilots, stewardesses, security personal, bartenders, and Red Caps at these airports are all bigoted, anti-Islam racists. Some may even be Jews.

Please confirm receipt of this advisory and CAIR's firm commitment to boycott the identified flights.

Praise be to Allah.

Mahalo and aloha, dudes!


JWL
Infidel, Second Class

Help Wanted: Executive Position in Washington, D.C.

Satire By John W. Lillpop

America is in a dilemma of catastrophic proportions since neither of the major party candidates is qualified to serve as the 44th president of these great United States.

Both Barack Obama and John McCain are certified socialists with fascist tendencies. We simply must not trust either of these fellows with the future of the world's greatest economy and only superpower.

America needs a new direction--change from "Change," if you will.

Before it is too late, someone needs to place the following ad in all major communications media. Cost unknown, but probably not insignificant.

The help wanted ad to save America:

"Full time Executive position in Washington, D.C., starting January 20, 2009 and ending January 20, 2013. Second four-year term possible, depending on performance during first term.

Must be an ultra pro-America, pro-life, pro-rule of law, pro-military, pro-business, pro-English only, and pro-traditional family values Christian capitalist.

Must be a fervently anti-illegal aliens, anti-gay marriage, anti-tax, anti-government, anti-Jihadist, anti-abortion, anti-affirmative action, and anti-mainstream media conservative with impeccable credentials.

Must have excellent English (only!) communication skills and be unolingual. No exceptions.

All applicants subject to hostile vetting and outrageous mud slinging from other applicants who will be vigorously aided and abetted by the biased media.

Interviews with approximately 140 million employers scheduled for November 4, 2008.

Successful applicant will be projected by CBS News several hours before all employers have had a chance to vote.

Moderate scalawags, closet terrorists, and RINOs with MBA and third grade Spanish-language skills need not apply.

Mormons with prior executive experience and several hundred million dollars in the bank encouraged to apply."


Are you listening, Mitt Romney?

The McCain Plan for Punishing Exorbitant Initiative and Success

John W. Lillpop

Despite 18 months of Democrat majorities in both chambers of the US Congress, America is still the land of opportunity, where one's horizons are limited only by one's ability to dream and produce.

Concepts like free markets and free enterprise are the incubators of creativity and innovation, which have made America the most prosperous society in human history.

That may change, at least partially, if John McCain is elected president in November. McCain is expected to say the following in his ongoing war of wars with Barack Obama, the other liberal running for the presidency.


"Americans are right to be offended when the extravagant salaries and severance deals of CEOs ... bear no relation to the success of the company or the wishes of shareholders," he will say, adding that some of those chief executives helped bring on the country's housing crisis and market troubles.

"If I am elected president, I intend to see that wrongdoing of this kind is called to account by federal prosecutors. And under my reforms, all aspects of a CEO's pay, including any severance arrangements, must be approved by shareholders," he is expected to say."

How is that for a "conservative" position on matters related to the economy?

Remember, John McCain admitted that he does not understand the economy, and his latest babbling confirms that self-assessment.

Do conservatives really want to install a president who considers certain CEO pay to be "wrongdoing," which should be subject to investigation and action by federal prosecutors?

What about folks like Alex Rodriquez, Kobe Bryant, and other superstar athletes who make $20 million or more per year? What about Hollywood stars who make scores of millions for performing in trashy films unsuitable for viewing?

Where do you draw the line? What about socialist couples who make over $100 million by writing books and lying for dollars all across the nation--ergo, the Clintons?

Bottom Line: John McCain will need plenty of new revenue sources to pay the scores of billions of dollars it will cost to fund foolish socialist programs that he and Ted Kennedy would push, including amnesty for 38 million illegal aliens.

The Big Question: Why in the world is John McCain intent on punishing successful American entrepreneurs while rewarding illegal aliens?

McCain-Clinton?

Satire By John W. Lillpop


One of my favorite editors chided me over a recent column titled "Celebrating the Death of Inevitability," written to gloat, in a chortling, disrespectful way, over the demise of Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton.

AKA, Hildabeast, and AKA, the Queen of Inevitability.

Hillary, this astute editor suggested, might not be politically dead after all, particularly were she to somehow triangulate herself onto the Republican ticket as John McCain's running mate.

McCain-Clinton? Could that really happen?

Impossible, you say? Think about it:

John McCain and Hillary Clinton are virtually indistinguishable on issues like immigration, global warming, and tax cuts.

Like McCain, Hillary voted to authorize the military incursion into Iraq.

Like Hillary, McCain has never met an illegal alien who does not deserve immediate citizenship and all the benefits accruing thereto.

Fact is, McCain may be more liberal than Hillary, but they can work that out.

However, how electable would a McCain-Clinton ticket be?

How many Republican voters would McCain lose because of Hillary, and how many Democrat voters would Hillary bring to the ticket?

To begin with, selecting Hillary as a running mate would be the last straw in McCain's decadent and persistent submission to liberalism. That alone would cost him all support from genuine conservatives and open-minded moderates.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton fanatics, mostly over the hill, old school, desperate women looking for a Feminist hero to worship before they die, might vote for McCain just to get a fascist female in a position to conquer the White House.

And just to spite that uppity colored fellow who, according to Hillary fanatics, is an inexperienced sexist who probably belongs to a terrorist sleeper cell masked as a Christian Church run by folks like Reverend Jeremiah Alvesta Wright.

In addition, Hillary fanatics familiar with the 25th Amendment might conclude that voting for McCain-Clinton would put their gal in a perfect spot to seize the Oval Office should the president pass.

McCain is, after all, 72 years old.

Then there is always the remote chance of an untimely and tragic assassination that would catapult Hillary into the Oval Office.

Given the fact that Hillary and her fanatics earnestly believe that the presidency is her birthright and spiritual destiny, and because 18 million of these rascals voted Hillary in the primaries, one must conclude that this is a force to be reckoned with.

McCain-Clinton? Perhaps Inevitability is not dead after all!

More Offensive: Confederate Flag or Illegals With Mexico's Flag?

By John W. Lillpop


One of the most disconcerting aspects of liberal bigots is their insatiable appetite for tearing down anything American in order to build up anti-American sentiment and people.

The issue over the Confederate Flag is an excellent example.

Most liberals have nothing but contempt for one the most lasting and cherished symbols of the South; preferring to label those who revere the Confederate Flag as red-necked racists and hate mongers.

To most liberals, diversity is a terrific concept, except when it spawns tolerance for ideas and practices that the left opposes.

Long live liberal fascists?

Amazingly enough, those same self-righteous liberals who are so anxious to disembowel American citizens for flying the Confederate Flag will defend millions of illegal aliens who take over our streets while boasting the Mexican flag!

If ever there was a flag that should be banned in America, it is the flag of Mexico, our third-world neighbors who dump their illiterate peasants on the US side of the border for US taxpayers to feed, house, educate, and provide medical care for.

Bottom Line: Give me a redneck with a Confederate Flag any day over a brown-necked illegal alien with a Mexican flag!

End Discrimination Against the Confederate Flag and America's South

By John W. Lillpop

Why is it that those who preach that "our diversity is our greatest strength" the loudest are often the least tolerant and the most non-inclusive?

A perfect example is the endless and mindless controversy over the Confederate Flag that reared it's ugly head in Bloomington, Minnesota this week.

Specifically, three seniors at John F. Kennedy High School were suspended and restricted from the diploma ceremony because they were "carrying and waving" Confederate flags.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5005519&page=1

Rick Kaufman, a spokesman for the Bloomington Public School district, actually said the following while attempting to justify the suspension of the students:

"We believe — and have communicated with students — that the Confederate flag represents hatred, bigotry, intolerance, slavery, civil rights issues and discrimination."

Why is it not a federal crime for any educator to deliver such a bigoted, intolerant, and hateful message to young students? Kaufman clearly does have any appreciation of free speech or tolerance.

And he certainly has zero understanding of America's South.

America has fought many foreign enemies over the life of this republic, including Japan and Germany in World War 11.

But in 2008, the Japanese are an important ally of America, and Americans no longer discriminate against Japan because of December 7, 1941 and Pearl Harbor.

Likewise Germany, where America works in partnership with our German friends, notwithstanding the Holocaust and other atrocities from Hitler's reign.

Even more outrageous, over the past few years, Americans have seen foreigners (illegal aliens)take over our streets whilst flying the flag of Mexico in order to demand non-existent rights.

If ever there was a flag that should be banned in America, surely it is the flag of Mexico, our third-world neighbors who dump their illiterate peasants on the US side of the border for US taxpayers to support!

How is it that some Americans can forgive and forget when it comes to foreign enemies, but cannot tolerate the flying of the Confederate Flag by our Southern brethren?

To many, the Confederate Flag represents a slower pace of life, pretty belles with charming Southern drawls, down home folks who are honest, open and friendly, blistering hot summers, baseball, car racing, and Southern fried chicken.

When I see the Confederate Flag, I think of country music, eating watermelon and BBQed steak in the back yard in July, fighting off mosquitoes bigger than most dogs, swimming in creeks, and the soothing, reassuring melody orchestrated by country crickets.

Best of all, the Confederate Flag conjures up images of tranquil and serene Southern churches, black congregations being among the most colorful and spiritual.

It is true that many African-Americans see only "hatred, bigotry, intolerance, slavery, civil rights issues and discrimination" in the Confederate Flag.

To such people, one bit of advice seems appropriate: Get over it and give diversity a chance!

Celebrating the Death of Inevitability!

By John W. Lillpop


When Richard Millhouse Nixon boarded a US Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most tyrannical, paranoid and dangerous administrations in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said at the time, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to rejoice the end of a political career that would have spelled ruin for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, America's leftist imitation of Richard Nixon, was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of lies, corruption, and fascist manipulation from a feminist socialist like HRC is clearly more repulsive than eight years of abuse at the hands of the deluded Nixon.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Stimulus Checks from Uncle Sam: Fool's Gold Wrapped in $$$ Bills?

Satire By John W. Lillpop

How utterly clever and gracious of arrogant oafs in Washington to "gift" American taxpayers with a pittance of the funds previously pinched from we the people by a federal government that should be in foreclosure because of fiduciary neglect wrought by wholesale corruption and incompetence.

People who should know better are making a big deal over the fact that W and fellow conspirators in Congress are sending out checks of $1,200, $600, or some lesser amount arbitrarily determined by IRS scientists using a table of random numbers to assure fair and balanced pandering to the unwashed masses.

Taxpayers at least as bright as a trellis of decayed zucchini will immediately realize that not a damn penny of that $1,200 was earned by the federal government, or any of its many affiliated contractors, subcontractors, or other whores on the public trough.

No goofy liberal in Congress or demented conservative in the White House is doing you any favors!

It's your money, brothers and sisters!

And just where will Dubya and Congress get the dough to send we the unwashed so that we might "stimulate" the depressed economy created by these knot headed servants of the people?

As the old adage goes, "What goes around, comes around!" and that is clearly the case when it comes to windfall rebate checks.

Here is how it works:

Experts in Dubyanomics and other voodoo science decide that $20 billion dollars is urgently needed in the hands of the American public, as soon as possible.

To get the ball rolling, IRS launches a $5 billion advertising campaign just to let taxpayers know that our federal father figure will be sending out $20 billion, via the US Postal Service.

IRS economists cleverly calculate that about 30 percent of the rebate envelopes will be lost by the Post Office, thereby saving the nation billions in unredeemed treasury checks!

Even so, IRS administrative costs for processing the rebates add about $10 billion to the tab, so the total cost is now about $35 billion, sans rebates lost in the U.S. mail.

Now where in Hades will Dubya, Congress, and IRS come up with $35 billion?

This problem is particularly vexing since the national debt is already measured in trillions of dollars, thanks in no small part to Dubyanomics and six years of Congress in the hands of complicit conservatives.

Americans caught in the throes of credit card hell will immediately connect with the following solution: When unable to meet a current commitment, simply borrow some cash from Credit Card A and use that cash to make the minimum required payment on Credit Card B.

Sounds familiar, right?

Yes, of course, the result is greater debt and more interest obligations and less responsible stewardship of financial resources.

But that is precisely what happens when Uncle Sam sends you a "stimulus" check.

Rather than sending taxpayers a sack of what really amounts to "Fools Gold" from your grandchildren and their grandchildren, our federal fathers should enact deeper tax cuts and withhold less money from the paychecks of working Americans.

Washington needs to stop taking so damn much in taxes and stop wasting hundreds of billions on illegal aliens and other nonsense!

The only stimulus that America needs is for our federal father figures to get the hell out of the way of hard working, enterprising middle class citizens!

Are Liberals to Blame for Soaring Gasoline prices?

John W Lillpop


In the throes of the Great Gasoline Crisis of 2008, many irate citizens are wrongly blaming President Bush and the Republicans for it all, vowing to install veto-proof Democrat majorities in both chambers of congress and a socialist black Muslim as president come November.

My fellow Americans, electing liberal Democrats to deal with the gasoline crisis makes about as much sense as hiring members of the MS-13 gang to manage U.S. border patrol. Or trusting Bill Clinton as your guiding light for marital fidelity and sexual modesty.

To prove that point, consider the bassackwards way that Democrats think when it comes to energy:

When asked to identify the cause of soaring gasoline prices, liberals will almost always reply that the crisis at the fuel pump is the direct result of:

A vast right-wing conspiracy to stop poor people of color from driving to the polls, or

Republican greed, or

Bush lies about WMD.

Ask a liberal about drilling for new oil reserves, and you will be told that:

Drilling for new oil reserves is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, or

Doing so is sure to irritate Iran’s president and other Islamic business leaders that Bush should be working with, rather than against, or

Is completely unnecessary if automobiles are outlawed.

Inquire about additional domestic refining capacity and liberals will respond that such a policy will:

Increase demand, causing more global warming, or

Would be OK if built in blue states by brown illegal aliens.

Liberals believe that the best idea for dealing with the high cost of gasoline is to:

Ignore it. Americans drive too much as it is, or

Ignore it because higher prices will drive Bush’s poll numbers even lower, or

Raise gasoline taxes $2.50 per gallon to reduce demand, or

Cut off supplies to Red states.

According to liberal theology, SUVs and larger cars are:

Anti-American. Anyone owning one should be arrested & charged with treason, or

OK if operated by union labor working to elect Democrats.

All of which proves that America cannot trust liberals to do the right thing when political gain can be achieved by waging a partisan food fight!