Gay Exorcism: A Spiritual Approach to Sexuality

Satire by John W. Lillpop

Regardless of which side you come down on the issue of homosexuality, it is undeniable that romances featuring Tom and Fred and Kathy and Sarah make things one hell of a lot more complicated.

Its "free will" gone mad, in my humble view.

From my right wing extremist mind set, why not leave things as they were when Adam and Eve fell in lust after a snake talked to Eve in the Garden of Eden?

Note that the whole concept of marriage and being manacled to one person for eternity originated with a damn snake who snookered a dizzy broad!

Things were so much less complicated back then. No need for Proposition 8 to define marriage, or a silly Defense of Marriage Act at the federal level.

Marriage was supposed to be between a dude and dudess, and everyone accepted that.

Historically, relations between the sexes started their descent to hell in a hand basket at precisely 139 AM, EST, on July 19, 1969.

At that very moment, a completely drunk Ted Kennedy left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown to death at the bottom of Poucha Pond, in what has come to be known as the Chappaquiddick Incident.

Since then, men have been ogling men and women have been flirting, and more, with other women.

Decent society ended right then and there when a rich and powerful man drowned a poor powerless woman and paid no penalty for said evil.

Starting at that moment, homosexuality has spread all across the planet, clearly a sign of the Higher Power's anger with Kennedy.

Until now, nothing could be done. Thus, about 10 percent of the population is destined to have sweaty palms and a racing heart when contemplating members of their own sex.

According to my religious learning, God was imposing the Kennedy Hex in a very random and arbitrary fashion.

Gayness is known as Hell on earth, except in San Francisco where hell is heaven, black is white, bad is good, and Nancy Pelosi continues to be sent to Washington to remind all Americans that hell does indeed exist!

Still, there is hope!

As reported at Breitbart.com, in part:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9916G6O0&show_article=1

"A Connecticut church has outraged gay rights advocates by posting a video of members performing an apparent exorcism of a teen's "homosexual demons."

"The 20-minute video was posted on YouTube before it was taken down.

"Gay youth advocate Robin McHaelen (mih-KAY'-lehn) says the video appears to show abuse. She says she plans to report it to the Connecticut Department of Children and Families. "

The burning question of the moment: Did the exorcism work? Is Tom no longer lusting for Fred, but now panting for Kathy? Is Kathy now enamored of Fred and so over Sarah?

Clearly, this entire subject needs to be investigated and documented. We need a human volunteer, someone who is intelligent, gay, and close to Connecticut.

Say, wait a minute. Nut ball Barney Frank is gay, and is close to Connecticut. Two out of three ain't bad!

What say you, Rep. Frank? What are you doing next Sunday evening?

Why not bring a pair of asphalt pajamas and a Bible to this church in Connecticut and let the good people here kick the ass of the devil within you?

Send your "inner devil," packing, as it were?

If this works on old Barney, the F-22 bomber could be saved and hundreds of billions in defense cuts avoided and America could be saved!

God Bless America, Barney Frank, and gay exorcism!

Janet Napolitano's "Passive Surveilance" for Swine Flu

Homeland Security guru Janet Napolitano looks out the window of Airforce One for veterans, tax protestors, abortion and illegal alien opponents, and other "right wing extremists" in need of smiting by the government.




Satire by John W. Lillpop

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano has stressed that the swine flu crisis is being handled properly and with the full weight and authority of the United States government behind the effort.

She has repeatedly stressed that there is no need to restrict flights to and from Mexico, and that there is no need to close the borders.

In fact, it is the contention of the top dog at DHS that her "passive surveillance" is the most effective protection measure that can be implemented.

This reporter caught up with Napolitano as she was about to execute a "Passive Surveillance" stress test on a flight that had just landed at LAX from Mexico City.

As the 157 passengers deplaned at Gate 22A, America's feisty DHS girl started the process by selecting a few passengers for surveillance.

Most of the passengers were Hispanics in the 25-40-age bracket, several of which coughed incessantly while complaining of anemia and stomach cramps.

None of the Hispanics was waved aside for surveillance.

However, Napolitano personally selected 15 Caucasian males in the 55-80-age bracket for examination.

The "passive surveillance" questionnaire was read to each of the 15 white passengers who were placed under oath and advised that false responses could lead to prosecution for perjury.

Each passenger was asked five relevant questions

( ) Are you a veteran, conservative Republican, right-leaning independent, evangelical Christian, or member of any other subversive group commonly known in law as a "right-wing extremist?"

( ) Do you own a firearm, more than two Bibles, a surgical face mask, a broad band Internet connection, or any other weapon of mass destruction?

( ) Have you ever protested the tax policies of the Obama administration while under the influence of tea?

( ) Do you support closed borders, rigid enforcement of immigration laws, deportation of illegal aliens, English only, and other anti-Mexican torture?

( ) Have you ever refused sexual advances from another male based on religious, moral, or medical biases?

Any passenger who answered YES to one or more of the questions was confronted with a sixth question:

( ) Why do you hate President Obama and CHANGE?


Those who answered YES to three or more questions were immediately placed under arrest and returned to Mexico on the next flight.

Asked what her "passive surveillance" questions had to do with detecting the deadly the swine flu, Napolitano flashed a wicked smile and admitted, "Not a whole hell of a lot. But it does help weed out some of the far more dangerous right-wing extremist kooks!"

Which Will It Be? Your Righteous Indignation, Or Los Angeles?

By John W. Lillpop

Jack Benny, late, great comedian from days gone by, was renowned for being a penny-pinching tightwad. In one of his more memorable gags, Benny was confronted by an armed robber who issued the challenge, "Your money or your life!"

In his inimitable style, Benny paused momentarily and replied, "Let me think about!"

As funny as that line is, it is no more nonsensical than the Obama administration's position on "harsh interrogation techniques."

Indeed, President Obama recently announced that he is "open" to prosecuting former Bush administration members who authorized CIA interrogators to use water boarding on terrorists, which would include an uncooperative Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who masterminded the 9/11 attacks.

Obama may wish to rethink his "kinder, gentler" approach based on a report which indicates that harsh interrogation techniques yielded information that enabled law enforcement officials to thwart a planned terrorist attack on Los Angeles.

As reported, in part, at cnsnews.com:

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=47003


'Soon, you will know.'

"That is the ominous statement an uncooperative Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, told his Central Intelligence Agency interrogators when they initially asked him, after he had been captured, about additional planned al-Qaida attacks on the United States.

"As CIA Acting General Counsel John A. Rizzo explained in a 2004 letter to then-Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel. On Tuesday, the CIA confirmed that it stands by assertions credited to the agency in this 2005 memo that subjecting KSM to “enhanced techniques” of interrogation—including waterboarding—caused him to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to stop a planned 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.

"Before they were waterboarded, both KSM and Abu Zubaydah did not believe Americans had the will to stop al-Qaida, the 2005 Justice Department memo says, citing information from the CIA.

“Both KSM and Zubaydah had ‘expressed their belief that the general U.S. population was ‘weak,’ lacked resilience and would be unable to ‘do what was necessary’ to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals,’” said the memo. “Indeed, before the CIA used enhanced techniques in its interrogation of KSM, KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, ‘Soon, you will know.’

"After he was waterboarded, KSM provided the CIA with information that allowed the U.S. government to close down a terror cell already “tasked” with flying a jet into a building in Los Angeles.

"According to the CIA, it produced cooperation in the mastermind of 9-11 and thus yielded information used to stop a 9-11 type attack on the West Coast.

"President Obama says he has prohibited the interrogation techniques described in the Justice Department memos he released. Next time the CIA catches a KSM, they must be kinder and gentler with him."

The saddest part of this story is that if the Obama administration had been in power when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was being interrogated, Los Angeles might be the west coast version of Ground Zero.

How Do You Say "Commie Homophobes" in Spanish?

By John W. Lillpop

Sean Penn used the occasion of the 81st Academy Awards to express his dislike for free speech and contempt for those who disagree with him on the issue same sex marriage.

In thanking the academy for the Oscar he received for his portrayal of Harvey Milk in the movie Milk, Penn addressed the assembled lefties as, "You commie, homo-loving sons of guns!"

A bit gruff and insensitive, perhaps, but, without question, it was the most honest sentence to flow from the lips of Sean Penn on this big night in Hollywood.

He went on to say:

"For those who saw the signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight, think it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect, and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that way of support. We’ve got to have equal rights for everyone.

I’m very proud to live in a country that is willing to elect an elegant man president. "

Penn's gooey eyed pride over that "elegant man" is particularly odd since President Obama is on record as being against gay marriage.

Mind you, Obama is OK with gay "unions" which is to be expected from a dedicated Marxist!

Penn has another problem involving lack of consistency and hypocrisy: While he is quick to slam Americans for opposing gay marriage, he ardently supports communist dictators like Fidel Castor and Hugo Chavez who not only oppose gays, but whose regimes have persecuted and murdered homosexuals, because of sexual orientation.

Perhaps Penn should explain his fondness for "Commie Homophobes" who speak Spanish?

Rethinking the Fairness Doctrine!

By John W. Lillpop

Based upon a cursory review of the proposed resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine, the notion appears unfair at best, unconstitutional and un-American at worst.

Still, a real Fairness Doctrine could actually help if it included all television and radio broadcasts, print media, Hollywood films, and Internet sites, and further provided that:

*Mainstream media were required to employ the same number of conservative and liberal reporters, editors, and production staff;

*To counter films like W., Hollywood should produce films that highlight the frailties of a Democrat president, such as the sexual perversion that drove President Clinton to commit perjury;

*For every skit in which Tina Fey ridicules Governor Sarah Palin, SNL should run a skit exposing the hypocrisy and muddled thinking of Nancy Pelosi;

*MSNBC should run "Meltdown" to track lies and mistakes by the Obama administration, including a daily countdown of real jobs created by the trillion dollar stimulus, versus jobs lost since the Inauguration;

*For every column in which a liberal columnist confesses to sexual dreams involving President Obama, the New York Times should publish an Ann Coulter column about liberal bias in the media;

*PBS should follow the "Jim Lehrer News Hour" with a live segment of "The Savage Nation;"

*Following 60 Minutes, CBS should run an investigative expose co-hosted by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity;

*ABC should hire Bay Buchanan and Phyllis Schlafly to replace two liberals on "The View";

*Spanish-language media should give equal voice to those who advocate secure borders, aggressive enforcement of immigration laws, and mass deportation of illegal aliens;

*Weather Channel should replace half of its global warming believing staff with skeptics who believe climate change is liberal pap, unsubstantiated by real science, and

*Oprah Winfrey should be required to interview Governor Sarah Palin and devote as much time to the conservative dynamo as was lavished on Barack Obama.

If administered fairly (not likely), the fairness doctrine could help dislodge the liberal bias pervasive in television and radio broadcasts, print media, films, and the Internet.

In which case, BRING IT ON!

Why Not "Test Drive" the Fairness Doctrine--At the Oscars?

By John W. Lillpop

With liberal heavy weights like former President Bill Clinton and Shreeker of the House Nancy Pelosi clamoring for a return to the Fairness Doctrine, perhaps we who dwell on the right wing side of the universe should open our tiny minds, just a smidgen, to the concept?

After all, fairness is all about balance and the absence of bias, right?

That being the case, why not "test drive" this fairness notion during a major public event where narrow-minded and ill informed folk are known to congregate?

Why not impose a "Fairness Doctrine" on the Academy Awards show scheduled for this Sunday evening in Hollywood?

Just as an experiment to see how it works out, mind you.

With luminaries like Sean Penn, Brad Pitt, and Angelina Jolie in the running for Oscars, there are bound to be several liberal outbursts to 1) Thank goodness for the arrival of the New Age Messiah, Barack Obama, and or 2) Thank goodness for deliverance from former President George W. Bush, a man of low degree with a drink problem.

So when, say, Sean Penn dedicates his Oscar to the memory of Harvey Milk and pronounces the planet "saved" by the grace of BHO, once the wild applause and cheering subside, the stage and microphone would be turned over to Mel Gibson and Clint Eastwood.

These stalwart conservatives would proceed to remind Hollywood and the world that, in just over 30 days in office, Barack Hussein Obama has:

*Escalated the war in Afghanistan with a "surge" of young Americans sent in harm's way;

*Signed, without reading, an 1,100 page bill that will drown future generations in red ink, but which includes funding for liberal programs that will do nothing to create jobs or stimulate the economy;

*Decided to close GITMO and reverse other anti-terrorist measures, thereby making America more vulnerable to terrorist attacks;

*Nominated tax cheats and others suspected of felonies to important cabinet posts;

*Promoted the official decline of America into the abyss of Marxism.


And the winner for the most egregious failure by the Obama administration after 30+ days is:

Osama bin Laden is still on the loose!

Kooky Cokie Lectures Conservatives About Being Irresponsible

By John W. Lillpop


Kooky Cokie Roberts of ABC believes that conservatives who voted against the $1 trillion dollar stimulus outrage are irresponsible and deserve punishment.

As reported, in part, at Newsbusters:

"ABC's Cokie Roberts denounced as 'irresponsible' conservative opposition to the “stimulus” bill and suggested those who voted against it should be punished, declaring on Sunday's This Week: 'I just think that when you're in a situation like this, to do nothing is so irresponsible that you can't, you can't get away with it.'"

No doubt, Cokie is well intentioned and patriotic in her concerns.

However, Cokie's rage would more appropriate if directed at the Democrats and three Republicans who voted for the bill.

Did you realize, Cokie, that NONE of those who voted for the bill actually read its 1,100 pages? If sufficient time was not available to read the damned bill, the responsible thing would have been to vote NO!

As far as "doing nothing" is concerned, conservatives were blocked from doing anything by hard-core liberals like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Looking for irresponsible? Consider the fact that Democrats took advantage of a national crisis in order to fund liberal projects that will encumber the American people, their children, and their grandchildren, with debt unrelated to job growth or economic stimulus.

Now that is irresponsible!


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/02/16/roberts-resistance-stimulus-bill-irresponsible-stephanopoulos-pushes-ba