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!

How Liberal Is SF? Here, DA Says Illegal Aliens "Follow the Rules"

By John W. Lillpop

San Francisco has been called many things over the years.

Being called a city that is richly blessed with leaders who practice common sense in enforcing the rule of law is not among them.

This is the city where Mayor Gavin Newsom decided, unilaterally, that the state Constitution and the majority of voters were dead wrong about same-sex marriage, a situation he personally attempted to "right" by marrying gay and lesbian couples on the steps of City Hall.

San Francisco is sooooooooooooooooooooooooo liberal that they keep sending Nancy Pelosi back to the US House.

Mind you, there is no other place on earth that would elect Ms. Pelosi to any position higher than village idiot. She is that daft!

Breaking news: It is time to add the name of San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris to the list of liberal scalawags who should be in jail rather than elective office.

As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, in part:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/24/MNP718CIOR.DTL

"San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris said Tuesday that half a dozen illegal immigrants whose drug convictions were expunged as part of a job training program that she oversaw were "following the rules" and deserved to be exonerated even after prosecutors learned of their status."

You read that correctly. This is not made up.

The District Attorney of San Francisco worked on behalf of illegal aliens in order to expunge drug convictions from their records.

And she now says that the illegal aliens were "following the rules."

One must read this sort of gibberish at least or four three times to make sure that the words are not truncated or a reporter's very bad joke.

The referenced report continues, in part:

"Prosecutors tightened guidelines, the district attorney said, after learning last summer that a man enrolled in Harris' Back on Track program was an illegal immigrant who allegedly robbed and assaulted a woman in Pacific Heights.

"The suspect in that case, Alexander Izaguirre, was the only one of the seven enrollees who turned out to be illegal immigrants who did anything wrong while in the program, Harris said."

Aha! Now it is starting to make what we call "San Francisco Sense."

In the minds and hearts of ding bats here, everything is cool because only one of the illegal aliens sponsored by the DA "did anything wrong."

Provided, that is, that you overlook the fact that being here illegally is---well, illegal, and to most people, wrong.

More from the report:

"This is an innovative program that has actually been proven to work, except with this one issue, which we corrected when we learned about it," Harris said.

"Once Izaguirre happened, bright lights flashed," she said. "It was crystal clear when that happened, and we fixed it."

"Harris said that although it was implicit that people in the program need to be able to obtain and hold jobs legally, her office had not made that explicit until after she learned about the Izaguirre case. "We needed to make it explicit," she said.

"Then she faced the question of what to do with the six other offenders her staff learned were already in the program but could not legally hold jobs - presumably because they were in the United States illegally.

"When the issue was presented to us, a group of knowledgeable people - good legal minds - made a decision that I agreed with, to go ahead and (let the six) graduate," Harris said.

"The reasoning as presented to me was very sound," Harris said. "They were following the rules of the program, following and abiding by the arrangement, the contract."

Good legal minds, Ms. DA?


ONLY in San Francisco would the District Attorney, charged with prosecuting criminals in most sophisticated large cities, work on behalf of illegal aliens using taxpayer funds, and then defend her madness as based on "sound reasoning."

Another wrinkle from the same report:

"Prosecutors did not tell federal immigration authorities about the undocumented offenders. The city attorney has said "custodial agencies," in this case the Sheriff's Department, have that responsibility, Harris said.

"The Sheriff's Department does not know whether it reported Izaguirre and the other illegal immigrants to federal authorities when they were in county jail. Sheriff's officials say that in some cases the offenders may have been released or posted bail before deputies could learn their immigration status.

"Izaguirre, however, was deemed to fit the department's criteria for notifying the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency when he was arrested on cocaine-dealing charges in December 2007, sheriff's spokeswoman Eileen Hirst said. There is no record that the department ever alerted federal authorities; Hirst said it has since improved its record keeping."

Imagine living in a city where the DA works on behalf of criminals and the Sheriff's department cannot keep simple records.

Now for the biggest laugh of all: San Franciscans call themselves The City that Knows How!

Advise to President Obama for Kicking Smokes: Do NOT Inhale!

By John W. Lillpop

After signing into law the most aggressive anti-tobacco bill in US history, President Obama has conceded that he has been unable to kick his addiction to cigarettes.

As reported, in part, at Politico.com:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0609/A_smoking_struggle.html

"The cap of an entertaining, wide-ranging press conference that included a spirited defense of the public health care option: A carefully-framed, detailed question from Obama on his smoking habit."

"You just think it's neat to ask me about my smoking," he told the reporter, before conceding that he has "fallen off the wagon sometimes."

"Am I a daily, a constant smoker? No," he said. "I don't do it in front of my kids. i don't do it in front of my family."

"Obama said he was "95% cured" and compared himself to a recovering alcoholic.

"Once you've gone down this path, it's something you continually struggle with," he said.

"It's a rare admission of personal weakness in a politician whose personal discipline has always been notable."

Perhaps Obama could gain experience, strength and hope from Bill Clinton, America's first black president.




Clinton, it will be recalled, claimed that he smoked marijuana without inhaling.

So incredulous was Clinton's claim to a nation that knew better, that he became an object of unrivaled ridicule and light-hearted humor, a presidential distinction that has followed Slick Willie for nearly twenty years.

Still, Barack Obama should at least try the "not inhaling" ploy as a means for breaking the grip of nicotine.

Moreover, because exhaling toxic smoke is not exactly consistent with Obama's image as America's first "green", but second black, president, and puts him at direct odds with Al Gore, Obama will have no option but to kick the habit permanently, 100 percent!

Go ahead, Mr. President, try not inhaling or exhaling. Do it for the children!

"Miranda Rights" for Intrusive Census Questions?

Satire by John W. Lillpop

Thinking back to the sight of civilians jumping from the Twin Towers to escape death by fire on September 11, 2001, how would you have answered the following question the next day?

"Given the horrific events of yesterday, what sort of punishment do you expect America to use in dealing with terrorists and suspected terrorists captured on the battlefield in the future?"

Circle the answer that most closely matches your expectations:

A. They will be subjected to mass executions without trial, civilian or military;

B. They will detained at a fortified US military base such as Gutananmo Bay, where they will isolated as "enemy combatants" to assure the safety and well being of American citizens; or

C. They will be advised of their Miranda rights and brought to American cities and tried in civilian courts.

Who in his or her right mind would have circled "C" eight years ago?

Yet, here we sit, in precisely that situation after electing an arrogant, wrong-minded leftist president, buttressed by an equally contemptible Congress.

Consequently, what would have been unthinkable just a few short years ago has transcended common sense and logic to become a bizarre reality!

Because of the esteem with which felons, especially ACORN volunteers, are held by Barack Obama and the Democrat Party, there is a growing concern about another problem, which although not nearly as grave as a terrorist attack, poses a significant threat to the American people.

At issue is the integrity of the 2010 Census among people who fear political manipulation and outright fraud.

Perhaps We the People need the equivalent of "Miranda Rights" for dealing with Census takers and their intrusive questions?

Miranda generally confers protection upon those being held against their will with language such as this:

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?"

Given the fascism in the White House and Congress, why not require that when that Census Taker knocks on your door, he or she be obligated to advise you of the following:

"The US Constitution requires an "enumeration" every 10 years. Enumerate means count.

"You have the right to remain silent after answering one basic question: How many people live here?

"Any information that your provide beyond that can, and will be, used against you by the US government."

How does that sound? Fair and balanced and likely to be passed and signed into law?

A more likely scenario would have the Census Felon handing you a letter signed by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid stating:

"The US Constitution requires that, for your protection, prosperity, and freedom, you be fitted with a microchip to track your movement at all times. This is essential in providing you with immediate access to all the financial and social benefits owed you, regardless of your immigration status or other superfluous categorization.

"All US microchips are preceded by three digits, 666, which signify ONLY that you are a blessed treasure and worthy of the American Dream. Other nations have other symbols, but because you are special, 666 has been reserved for you.

"The Constitution also requires that Census pollsters ask you 1,349 simple questions to determine how we can help you better.

"For example, if you earn $10,000 a year and another family across town earns $10,000 a week, we need to find a way to "spread the wealth" as brother Obama says.

"Refusing to answer all 1,411 questions (updated total) honestly and completely, and or refusing to accept implantation of the assigned microchip here and now, is a very serious crime, punishable by on the spot waterboarding.

"Thank you for your patriotic support!"


jwl

The Rohde Less Traveled at the Old Gray Lady!

By John W. Lillpop

Hypocrisy, thou are the New York Times! Treason, thou are the New York Times!

Apparently, editors at the New York Times have overcome their addiction to publishing news that might endanger Americans and or national security, at least when it comes to their own.

As reported, in part, at Powerlineblog.com:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023866.php

"Today the New York Times reports that its David Rohde had been kidnapped and held by the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan over the past seven months. Why did the Times sit on this story? The Times states: "Until now, the kidnapping has been kept quiet by The Times and other media organizations out of concern for the men's safety." The Times explains:

"From the early days of this ordeal, the prevailing view among David's family, experts in kidnapping cases, officials of several governments and others we consulted was that going public could increase the danger to David and the other hostages," said Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times. "The kidnappers initially said as much. We decided to respect that advice, as we have in other kidnapping cases, and a number of other news organizations that learned of David's plight have done the same. We are enormously grateful for their support."

"Well that's great. Now the story can be told because Rohde is free and the telling does not compromise his safety.

"The Times's concern for the safety of its reporter, however, provides a macabre contrast with the Times's illegal exposure of the NSA terrorist eavesdropping program in December 2005, as well as its exposure of the Treasury Department's terrorist-finance tracking program in June 2006. Whereas the reporting of "Rohde's apprehension may have endangered his life, the disclosure of the NSA terrorist eavesdropping and terrorist finance tracking programs only threatened the security of the United States.

"Ed Morrissey notes that he learned of the Rohde story this past March and held off reporting it at the Times's request. I think both Ed and the Times did the right thing in Rohde's case. Ed takes the occasion to reflect on the Times's behavior in the case of the NSA terrorist eavesdropping and the terrorist finance tracking programs. Unfortunately, the Times shows no such inclination in its story on Rohde's escape."

So, where is the front page apology to George W. Bush and the nation for the Times' reckless and foolish behavior in the past, Mr. Keller?

What Next from Old Gray Lady? Approval of Waterboarding to Help Reporters?