About IMAO



Giving money to Frank J. makes you happy!

Buy funniest book ever!
Buy funniest book ever!




IMAO Podcasts
IMAO Merchandise and Newsletter

Cool shirts, mugs, stickers, and what-not!

About IMAO
Then conquer we must, for our cause is just, 
And this be our motto--'In God is our trust.' 
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave 
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.


If you want to send something by snail mail, e-mail with subject "P.O. Box" to get mail information for Frank J. and SarahK.

Bloggers:
Frank J.
Harvey
RightWingDuck
Cadet Happy
spacemonkey
Laurence Simon
SarahK


Popular Categories
Fred Thompson Facts
John Edwards Fabulous Facts
lolterizt
IMAO Condensed
Know Thy Enemy
Editorials
Frank the Artist
In My World

Other Content
Ode to Violence
Brief Histories
IMAO Audio Bits



Read the Essay
Own the Shirt
Peace Gallery

Search IMAO
Google
Web www.imao.us

Testimonials
"All quotes attributed to me on IMAO are made up... including this one."
-Glenn Reynolds

"Unfunny treasonous ronin!"
-Lou Tulio*

"You, sir, are a natural born killer."
-E. Harrington

"You'll never get my job! Never!!!"
-Jonah Goldberg

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And He did despair, for in His omniscience, He did know that His creations had but three-fifths of the splendor of that which would be IMAO."
-No One of Consequence

"A blogger with a sense of humor."
-Some Woman on MSNBC
Blogroll
Ace of Spades HQ
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Blackfive
Captain's Quarters
Classical Values
Conservative Grapevine
The Corner
The Daily Gut (with Jim Treacher!)
Dave in Texas
Eject! Eject! Eject!
Electric Venom
Hot Air
Puppy Blender
La Shawn Barber's Corner
Michelle Malkin
Pereiraville
Protein Wisdom
Rachel Lucas
Right Wing News
Scrappleface
Serenity's Journal
Townhall Blog

IMAO Blogroll
Bad Example
Cadet Happy
The Flying Space Monkey Chronicles
mountaineer musings
Right Wing Duck
SarahK & Cadet Happy snark TV
This Blog Is Full of Crap

Fred Thompson Links
Fred File
Blogs for Fred
Fred Thompson Facts
Awards

 

July 07, 2008
You Should Vote for Me
An Editorial by Senator Barack Obama
Posted by Frank J. at 12:05 PM

 I'm Barack Obama! I'm running for president. You should vote for me. I'm a new politician. Remember when M&Ms came out with blue M&Ms and you ran to the store yelling, "Yay! A brand new candy!"? Well, I'm just like that. I'm a brand new politician. I promise hope and change. No politician has ever promised that before. Also, my opponent is not new. I think pretty much everyone agrees he is a very old politician. Also, he might get angry and hit you. I heard that somewhere.

 But know what makes me newest and bestest? This is a secret, so you can't tell anyone. Do you promise you'll keep this just between you and me? You promise? Okay, here it is...

Read More...


Rating: 2.6/5 (14 votes cast)

Comments (17)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
May 08, 2008
Liberals on FOX News: Why They're Right
Posted by Frank J. at 12:45 PM

I probably use a million things as a starting point for this post, but I might as well pick on Kevin Drum as he's one of the few left-wing bloggers I still kinda like. I saw this through Hot Air, and it's a post on how the blogosphere doesn't have as much influence as it thinks (to me it's like the internet bubble, for a while the blogosphere had influence simply because politicians believed it had influence). In the post, Drum agrees with the Democrats on ignoring the whining of the tykes at the Daily Kos and going on FOX News, but he also says this off-hand:

"Objecting to Fox hosting a Democratic debate is one thing: it really doesn't make sense to have a Democratic event hosted by an obvious arm of the Republican Party."
Another thing to fight against if real world problems are too scary.
Now, I'm not very old, but I still remember back when conservatives had pretty much nothing. There was a couple papers and the National Review, but those didn't get much circulation outside of people who weren't already conservative. The rest of the media was completely liberal.

Now, there are flat-earthers who will deny that the media is liberal despite all the surveys of journalists' political leanings. I've never quite understood why its death to these people to admit liberal bias because that doesn't imply liberalism is wrong. Maybe they just really want to believe their fringe beliefs (and liberals in America have always been a small minority and always smaller than conservatives) are mainstream.

Anyway, conservatives somehow kept on going. Reagan was even elected and reelected in these conditions because its hard to keep good ideas down even when they're filtered through so much crap (and it's not framing; you have to have ideas that appeal to humanity).

Then there was Limbaugh. Liberals freaked out. Conservatives had completely taken over one small, insignificant part of the media, and liberal fascists came out in full force. Now, most of them are at least self-aware enough not to try and just throw Rush Limbaugh off the air, so their efforts were more to marginalize him with things like the Fairness Doctrine. They also ridiculed him every chance they got. In fairness, he ridiculed them -- it's just his ridicule was more accurate while they attacked him for made up things like that the purpose of his call screener was to keep off people who disagreed with him and that Rush was a racist (he is a conservative).

Capitalism being what it is, it became obvious that people were starved for different media than the liberal crap that was available. So there was FOX News. I remember the first time I saw it and noticed something different. They had a positive story on gun ownership. My initial reaction was, "That's blatantly right-wing!" Then I thought about it. A very significant portion of Americans are for gun ownership, but I had never seen a positive story on gun ownership in the news before. While such a story seemed right-wing in comparison to the other media, it was actually just balance and reflecting the viewpoints of America. The media was so horrible that something actually "fair and balanced" would appear right-wing.

As we all know, FOX News was a huge success, and has garnered hate and ridicule like no news station before it. Now, from our perspective, the liberals constantly complaining about FOX News is extremely silly. All the complaints they make about FOX News could be made ten fold of about any other news channel. Liberals object to FOX News being "a wing of the Republican Party" but the other news had been openly routing for Democrats for decades. It's not even very right-wing; we just have it on all the time because we like to know the news and the other channels are just too irritatingly liberal for us to stand the condescension. So why would liberals complain when they have all the other media and even publicly funded liberal media like PBS and NPR which conservatives are forced to pay for?

I think I know the answer, and it's not all that liberals are fascists who feel the need to crack down on anything that challenges their viewpoints (though, that is a part of it). Let's reflect a moment on how unnatural FOX News is. If all the rest of the media was naturally liberal, then it took some intervention to make FOX News not so. It's clearly artificial. If you look at it that way, you can somewhat understand liberals objections to it. Even if FOX News is really a fair and balanced channel (I see it as slightly right of moderate) it took very clear right-wing bias to move it to moderate from the liberalism it should naturally exist in. FOX News is a product of much more blatant right wing bias than other media is of left wing bias. None of the other channels went left wing to win viewers; they're just there because journalists tend to be liberal idiots. It's like a dog that doesn't chase after squirrels. It's in the dogs instinct to chase and to kill. It might be good for the dog not to chase, but the fact that it doesn't points to that someone intervened on the dog's behavior. Similarly, journalist like to educate the dumb folk in the fly over country about how liberal viewpoints are better. If journalists aren't doing that, then someone obviously intervened.

So, FOX News is the product of right wing bias. Not only that, it is a threat to liberals. We can laugh off most of the liberal crap out there because it's stupid and will only influence the gullible. Liberals, on the other hand, think they're the only smart ones and that everyone else is a gullible dupe waiting for right wing ideas to activate their inner Nazis. It is true, though, that simply by having right-wing ideas discussed openly anywhere converts way more people than left-wing ideas repeated over and over everywhere. As a kid, I was naturally liberal because I didn't know any better. My parents are conservative Republicans, but they didn't discuss politics much, so my political ideas were the touchy feely concepts I'd pick up from school and TV. I thought all problems could be solved by taking away all the guns and giving lots of money to poor people. It only took a couple of times of my parents having Rush Limbaugh on in the car for me to say, "Wow. That viewpoint makes a lot more sense." And I've never looked back.

Most people aren't very politically active. Obsessing on politics like many of us do is really a geeky thing. For most people, they'll seize on whatever sounds most logical and appeals to their values, and that's where conservatism wins out. If you have a fair and balanced channel watched by many people where conservative ideas are given a fair shake, then it's going to convert many people to the conservative viewpoint. So liberals are right to worry about right-wing views appearing anywhere average people may see or hear them. Why are college campuses so liberal? Because it provides a place where liberals can be completely free of alternative views or even one person saying, "That's completely insane." And it often only takes one to shatter illusions as fragile as inhibited liberalism will produce. While having something like FOX News doesn't insure conservatives will triumph and liberalism will be as marginalized as stupid ideas should be, it certainly helps. Also, its a huge obstacle to liberals taking over in America, and they're well aware of it.

Liberalism often seems like less of an ideology and more of a system of coordinated hissy fits, and their railing against FOX News seems to be very emblematic of that. If you look closely, though, you can see the rationale behind they're anger about it. When you understand that, it's less frustrating. And then you can just go back to ignoring it.

Rating: 2.5/5 (13 votes cast)

Comments (22)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
April 07, 2008
A Great Day for People of Pallor
An Excerpt from George Washington's Inauguration Speech
Posted by Frank J. at 01:50 PM

 It has been a long hard road here. As a little boy growing up in America, I honestly did not think such a thing was possible. But we have a grown as a nation, and now I stand here breaking this barrier once and for all by becoming the first white male president of the United States of America.

 I still remember how much it stung when people made fun of my lack of rhythm and predilection for putting mayo on everything. Then there were the bombings of expensive coffee houses -- some of the worst examples of hatred against white males. But we are a less ignorant society now, and my election now shows that white males are now as accepted in America as anyone else.

 I want my inauguration to serve as example to every white male out there that you can achieve anything you put your mind to. I'm not saying discrimination against us is not still out there, but it can be overcome. Here I am as proof: a white man and president of the United States of America.

George Washington was the first while male president of the United States of America.

Rating: 1.8/5 (11 votes cast)

Comments (7)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
March 17, 2008
I Don't Hate White People; I Don't Even Believe in Jesus
An Editorial by Senator Barack Obama
Posted by Frank J. at 11:11 AM

 Wow. Do I have egg on my face. Ends up my preacher was saying all sorts of crazy stuff. In my defense, how in the world was I supposed to know that he was off the deep end? Far as I'm concerned, all this worshiping an invisible sky fairy stuff is completely insane, so I don't understand how I'm supposed to sort one crazy from the other. Come on; just look at me. I'm a liberal elitist; far as I'm concerned, all this religion crap is for the rubes in fly over country.

"Far as I'm concerned, all this worshiping an invisible sky fairy stuff is completely insane, so I don't understand how I'm supposed to sort one crazy from the other."

 While Wright was preaching that blacks are the chosen people, I just assumed all the white churches were talking about how whites are the chosen people. It made little difference to me as I'm only half either. Now people are telling me his words were beyond the pale. Okay. So "the U.S. government created HIV" is crazy but a believing some guy fed thousands with a couple loaves of bread and fish is perfectly sane? Whatever, red states.

 The only reason I was even in church is because I needed some street cred in Chicago. Apparently I wasn't "black enough" so the advise was to go to Trinity. I figure I just attend a few times a year, and up goes my election chances. Apparently, I wasn't looking far enough ahead, though. Whoops. So, what was Wright preaching when I did attend? I have no idea. I was usually doing a crossword puzzle. Really, what do you want from me?

 So do I hate America like Jeremiah Wright does? Of course, but not for his crazy mythology-based reasons. I hate America because I'm an elitist liberal. I feel you're lucky I take time out of my important schedule to tell you how to lead your lives. I look down on America, American ideals, and the American people. I especially look down on religion. How hard is that to understand? The reason my wife has never been proud of America isn't because Wright has infected her brain with his crazy hatred; it's because she's a liberal too. How could she be proud of this country? It expects us to sit through church to be electable. Well, I guess you reap what you sow.

 I think that's from the Bible.

Barack Obama is a U.S. Senator from Illinois who only hates white people because of their privileged status... same reason any white liberal would hate them.

Rating: 2.4/5 (11 votes cast)

Comments (4)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
March 14, 2008
And God Said to Moses: I Hate Those Honkey-Ass Crackers
A Sermon by Jeremiah Wright
Posted by Frank J. at 10:54 AM

EDITOR'S NOTE: This sermon has been edited for language. This is a political blog, not some church Democrats go to.

 When Moses finally escaped the Egyptians, he turned to God and asked, "There could surely be no one as bad at those people?" God said to Moses, "Yes there are. Beware the honkeys. Beware the crackers. Especially beware the Jews. I hate all those people. Frankly, if you blow up their buildings, that's okay with me."

"That's right: NASA is going to send the black man to Venus where it is inhospitable to life and we will all die."

 That wisdom speaks even more to us today as we are beset by honkeys. America is a country founded by crackers and run by Jews that exists for no other reason than to kill black people. They invented AIDS to kill us. They made crack to drug us. They use hidden ninjas to stage black on black violence. Hillary does not understand this. In fact, she's busy in her hollowed out volcano working on AIDS version two. That's why they are scared of a black man being president, because he will cut the millions of dollars that go to black genocide and instead invest that money where God says it should be: In killing honkey!

 Yes, they will stop at nothing to keep the black man out of power and from his rightful job of cracker-cide. That's why they spread the rumors about Obama. They say he's inexperienced and he'll be a disaster. That's not an argument against him, because America deserves a disaster! So they try to say he's secretly a Muslim. Again, that's not an argument against him, because maybe he should be a Muslim. They're doing God's work: Blowing up the honkeys and the Jews. So only reason that all those crackers oppose Obama is that they know he's going to succeed at what he promises: Killing the honkeys!

 Now some tell me that we shouldn't be for killing the honkeys. We should just turn the other cheek. Who says this? That cracker Jesus! Well, answer me this: Has Jesus ever been called a [n-word]? Did anyone invent AIDS to kill Jesus? Well, maybe Jesus should not be lecturing the black man on what he should and should not be doing. As we speak, the government is working on plans to send all black people to Venus! That's right: NASA is going to send us to Venus where it is inhospitable to life and we will all die. So what does Jesus have to say about that? Nothing! God bless Jesus? No. God [expletive] Jesus! To hell with him! Throw his cracker ass out of here!

 Remember the story of Samson. When the Jews tricked him out of his strength, they chained him up so all the crackers could come and laugh at him. So, he turned to God with one last prayer and screamed, "I hate the honkeys!" which granted him a final burst of strength to kill them all. Though the crackers may now be keeping us down, we can have one final prayer to kill them all. That prayer is Obama... though his campaign would like me to remind you that I in know way speak for him. Amen.

Jeremiah Wright was until recently the Pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, and has been the spiritual adviser of the Obamas for twenty years (though he would like to distance himself from some of the anti-American statements of Michelle Obama). Now retired, he hopes to finally read that Bible he's been hearing so much about. He hates the honkeys.

Rating: 2.8/5 (10 votes cast)

Comments (20)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
March 11, 2008
It's Time to Get the U.S. Out of the Democratic Party
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 01:09 PM

 My father taught me a lesson that sometimes you just have to cut your losses. Having tried for the umpteenth time to teach me to clean up my room after playing with Legos, he decided it was a losing, pointless battle and drove me out to the woods and abandoned me. Eventually, by making my way to the road and hitchhiking (most people aren't too wary of six-year-old hitchhikers) I made it home and was much more diligent about picking up my Legos. Of course, I could have never made it home, and my father knew that. The point was, that wasn't his problem anymore. He washed his hands of it and it was up to me now to sink or swim. It's time to apply that perspective to the Democratic Party.

"We even tried introducing them to democracy, but they came up with idea of superdelegates to subvert that."

 The Democratic Party is on the verge of civil war. Two charismatic leaders are pulling it apart, setting the factions of black people and elite white women against each other. There will be blood, and I don't see any reason why America should be in the middle of it when it happens. We've interfered enough, trying to prop up one of this leaders we think will be friendlier to us, but there is nothing but disaster on the horizon. We need to cut our losses and abandon the Democratic Party.

 I know many of you will be resistant to the idea as we've invested so much time and money in it, but what have we gained? Democrats have always been a stumbling block for our country, and so much of our tax money goes to their aid. Do you ever see that changing, or do you see it getting worse? Be honest. And you can't say we haven't tried all we can to help the Democrats. We even tried introducing them to democracy, but they came up with idea of superdelegates to subvert that. As many argued, the culture of the Democrats just won't allow them to ever accept democracy or other American ideals, so why do we keep banging our heads against the wall trying to change them?

 America should have no more involvement with the Democratic Party. No matter what we do, it is going to collapse into chaos. When that happens, we should not be anywhere near the Democrats. I know its harsh to say we should abandon them, but it should not be our problem anymore. Maybe one day they'll find their way out of the woods and learn to pick up their Legos, but if they don't, we should not lose any sleep over a fate of their own doing. I know my father wouldn't.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of numerous abandoned manuscripts.

Rating: 1.8/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (32)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
March 10, 2008
I Would Like to Distance Myself from This Website and Everyone Who Reads It
An Editorial by Senator John McCain
Posted by Frank J. at 11:03 AM

 I would like to thank Frank J. for the opportunity to officially distance myself from this website and all the crap on it. I plan to run a campaign respectful to Senators Clinton and Obama and disrespectful to you annoying little "conservatives" who try and make me look bad.

 I swear, I'm going to win the presidency, and I don't need your whining about campaign finance reform and the illegal brown people to ruin it! You right-wing weirdos -- especially you freaks on the internet -- are nothing but a liability. If you could just learn to shut up about your pansy-ass issues, I could cruise to victory. I hate you people so much, but if you could just be quiet vote for me at the end of the day, we can all get through this. I just need you to cut down on crap like this website.

"You guys are nuts and I hate you."

 You know how you don't like my campaign finance reform bill? Well, I'm starting to think it was a bad bill since sites likes this IDBO -- or whatever the hell you call it -- are still legal. A staffer showed me it the other day, and it's just a bunch of crap about monkeys and fighting the moon. I don't want the taint of any of you people on my campaign. I'm not a pariah among elite society like you jackasses, and I want to keep it that way. You think putting an afro on Senator Obama to make him look like a black man is funny? Know what else is funny? My foot up your ass!

 Let me make this clear: You guys are nuts and I hate you. If I didn't need your votes, I would never come within a hundred miles of you "conservatives." I'm starting to think I hate you more than the gooks who tortured back in Vietnam. That said, you snot-nosed punks better get in line and rally behind me even while I curse your mothers for having given birth to you. If you want to win the war in Iraq and keep this country strong, I'm your only option you little snot-nosed punks. If you think some of the bills I've sponsored are bad so far, just wait until what I introduce if I'm still in the Senate in 2009, bitches. I will make your lives hell.

 That's your choice. You can stay home and let someone surrender our country (with all due respect the honorable Senators Clinton and Obama) and have me forever seeking revenge against you, or you can vote for me come November. And if you all behave really well, maybe I'll choose a running mate who doesn't live to piss all over you right-wingers every chance he gets.

 But don't count on it. I just hate you all so @#$% much.

 And I need your vote.

John McCain is a U.S. Senator from Arizona and the presumptive Republican nominee for president in the 2008 election. His favorite hobbies are being angry and pissing off conservatives.

Rating: 3.8/5 (248 votes cast)

Comments (33)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
February 28, 2008
My Solution to Iraq Is to Never Have Gone There
An Editorial by Senator Barack Obama
Posted by Frank J. at 11:02 AM

 Iraq continues to be a serious problem, and the Bush administration has done nothing but increase the problem and cause unnecessary deaths. It is a mess, but I have a solution: I would never have gone there.

 The Iraq War will be a big problem to inherit, but it would not be if we hadn't have gone there. That's why that is my solution. People ask me, "Won't leaving Iraq now be abandoning the Iraqi people?" Well, it wouldn't be abandoning them if we hadn't had gone there. "What about a civil war?" others ask, to which I say there would be no civil war if Saddam were still in charge because we didn't go to Iraq. As you can see, not having gone to Iraq easily solves all these problems.

"I do have experience: Experience at not going to war."

 As for Al Qaeda in Iraq, I don't think they would be a problem if we hadn't had gone. Maybe they already were there and working with some support from Saddam, but I still think not having gone there is a risk worth taking. You may worry about all the terrorists there and whether they have intentions for attacking America, but you wouldn't if we hadn't had gone.

 Senator John McCain questions whether I have experience enough to deal with Iraq, but the fact is that he's old. No one faints at his rallies... unless they forgot their heart medication because they're as old as he is. And I do have experience: Experience at not going to war. That's why not having gone to Iraq is the perfect solution for me. It's one I'm uniquely able to espouse and have been consistent on. Years ago I said we shouldn't invade Iraq, and that is still my solution.

 A few have said that not going to Iraq isn't a solution anymore since we already have gone there. I hear your concern and I have three words for you: Hope. Change. The future.

 That's right: The future. And not just any future; a future where we look forward and say, "We shouldn't have gone to Iraq."

Barack Obama is a U.S. Senator from Illinois who enjoys nap time and finger painting. He is running for president.

Rating: 2.6/5 (26 votes cast)

Comments (49)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
February 21, 2008
Can We Combine Hope and Change? Yes We Can!
An Editorial by Senator Barack Obama
Posted by Frank J. at 01:55 PM

 Chocolate. Peanut butter. Each great things on their own, but when Albert Einstein discovered the two could be combined into something even greater, he was rightly hailed as a genius. Hope and change are each great things on their own, but I say it's time we combine them into a tasty peanut butter cup of progress.

 The American people seem to be desperate for hope and change. At each of my campaign stops, people come to me and say, "Osama..." -- not my actual name, but I'm used to it -- "...I like hope. I like change. I like kittens and bunny rabbits. But which should I choose?" I say to these future hopers and changers that there is no need to choose. We can have both hope and change, and then the kittens and the bunny rabbits will come when they sense the great hope and change that America has. With hope and change, anything is possible.

"I call that 'hange' which should not be confused with 'chope' which is the changing of hope."

 People talk about all the problems in the Middle East and how it seems America can do nothing but make it worse. To them I ask: Have you tried hope? Have you tried change? Have you tried hoping for change? I call that "hange" which should not be confused with "chope" which is the changing of hope. If we are worried about Iran getting nuclear weapons, then we should sit down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and offer him hope. Who needs nuclear weapons when you are protected by hope? As for Pakistan we should offer them change in the form of bombing them or something. If that doesn't work, then we can try offering them hope as well. And, as you know, I vow that we will get our troops out of Iraq. Better yet, I hope we will get our troops out of Iraq. Why? Because it's a change. A change backed by hope.

 Some say I'm arguing we should change in small jumps, but a small jump is a hop, not a hope. What I offer you that no other candidate does it change together with hope. Try and keep that straight even if you keep confusing my name with America's number one enemy. And these are not empty words; hope and change are solutions. They are things I believe in. In the eight times I showed up for a vote in the Senate, when they called my name I said loudly and proudly, "I vote for hope!" When they told me I couldn't do that, I changed my vote to "present." But know that each of those are really a vote for either hope or change. Hope and change are what solve our problems. If you have a problem, I say you try applying hope to it. If that doesn't work, try change. If the problem persists, try hope once more. Then make sure it's plugged in. This should solve most any problem, or at least it helped when I had trouble with my new computer.

 So why do we need both hope and change? Isn't hope enough? Let me tell you a story. One night when the baby was crying and smelled horrible, my wife and I tried to solve the situations through hope. It didn't work. Change was needed. Similarly, once a homeless man came to me and asked for change. I offered him hope, but he was not satisfied. You see, hope must be backed by change.

 Am I saying all hope and change is good? No. One change I don't like is when people change my name to "Osama." Please stop that. I know it's only a one letter difference and easy to confuse, but come on. As for hope, I am against hope that America will be destroyed. That's just something my wife and I will have to agree to disagree about. Am I saying that hope and change can solve everything? No. I have yet to come up with a hope and change solution to an asteroid heading towards earth, but I am working on it. So as your president, I will do my best to sort good hope from bad hope and good change from bad change and occasionally use something other than hope or change if needed. Still, I will strive to use both hope and change for most everything, and I will task our best philosophers on using hope and change to protect us from all things, including asteroids. And zombies.

 So, for the cause of a greater America, can we combine hope and change? Yes we can, America. Yes we can.

 Or so I hope.

Barack Obama is a U.S. Senator from Illinois whose greatest accomplishment is having written this editorial for IMAO... though most of it was borrowed from a previous work by Deval Patrick.

Rating: 3.3/5 (23 votes cast)

Comments (49)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
February 12, 2008
Are Our Kids Punching Hippies?
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 11:17 AM

 One day when I was but a young boy, I was walking down the street with my dad to the hardware store. He suddenly stopped, crossed the street and punched a man. When he returned, I ask, "Father, why did you punch that man?"

 He turned to me and said, "That's a stupid question." Then he punched me.

"After punching a hippie, do you take the time to explain to those around you why you punched the hippie?"

 It was a stupid question, because who my dad punched was a hippie. Back then, everyone knew that you punched hippies, but I've noticed that this knowledge may not be being passed on to the next generation. If there's one thing I've realized over the past few years is that hippies are not being punched quite enough, and I think the recent incident with Berkeley and the Marines shows the problem of not enough hippie punching. If hippies aren't punched on a consistent basis, they get cocky and will try all sorts of crazy thing. I mean, really, hippies insulting Marines and not expecting a punching? That's a major breakdown in our societal structure.

 So what has led to this dearth in hippie punching? Breakdown in family structure? Loss of prayer in school? Increasing childhood obesity? Prevalence of non-violent videogames? Whatever the reason, I think we need to spend more time telling the next generation the importance of striking hippies in the face with a fist. No functional society has survived hippies running around unpunched, and America will be similarly doomed if we don't change our ways.

 You may say, "Well I punch hippies; I'm doing my part." But after punching a hippie, do you take the time to explain to those around you why you punched the hippie? This may seem like a lot to do for someone who has a job and personal responsibilities -- which you have since you're not a hippie -- but if even just one man hears your words of inspiration and then punches some filthy hippie, wasn't it time well spent?

 We have a war right now. Our military is overseas killing terrorists -- the violent form of the hippie -- so they can't be here punching hippies for us. We have to do that ourselves. To keep this a country safe for soldiers to kill evil foreigners without hearing whiny protests, we have to make it unsafe for hippies.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such children's books as "My First Hippie I Punched" and "Don't Feel Sorry for Poor People".

Rating: 2.2/5 (13 votes cast)

Comments (54)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
December 03, 2007
A Path to Citizenship
An Editorial By Spacemonkey
Posted by spacemonkey at 10:30 AM

smart monkeyThough it may be unpopular to some who are obviously motivated by racial bigotry, I support a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. This path will provide the fair shake they deserve and does not discriminate against them based on their race, creed, country of origen, or wetness of back. This enlightened path will lead them home, a home where local culture is respected.

Many illegal immigrants are hard working souls. The miniscule amount of work this path requires of them shouldn't scare them even a little bit. If it does, then well maybe they aren't nearly as hard working as we've been led to believe.

A Path To Citizenship.

Step 1: The path starts where the illegal immigrant currently is. It will vary from individual to individual. This is an obvious step because if it started somewhere else there would be no way for these hard working, well intentioned people to begin.

"The path to citizenship did not drag them here, the path will however drag them out of here."

Step 2: Next the path to citizenship leads to a country where they hold legal citizenship. This part of the path should be simple for the illegal immigrant to identify and follow as it can involve the same means of transportation that brought them to the Step1 location. Answers to questions such as "where was I born" and "where do I send my checks?" will be clues to locating a suitable country. This is an important step as it removes their illegal status as well as their immigrant status. What if they are very far from a land where they have citizenship? Good news! The path also does not discriminate on the basis of distance to the illegal immigrant's home country. The path to citizenship did not drag them here, the path will however drag them out of here.

Step 3: The path proceeds to a US consulate or embassy in the nation they end up at (see step 2). On arrival there, the intended emigrees should be escorted directly to the back of the line. This is the traditional and time honored place in line that they have earned. There is no skipping down the path or in the line! The work begins here and it's paperwork. A process has been designed to enable them to petition for legal entry into the U.S. The document created by this process is called a VISA. Until a VISA is obtained the path ends, as it is the ticket for the rest of the path.

Step 4: Now that a VISA has been obtained, the path leads back to the U.S. through a legal border crossing or port of entry. There are several kinds of VISA but they will all allow foreign nationals to enter the U.S. 100% sneak-free! It is the document that an undocumented person doesn't have. Some VISAs also permit non citizens to reside in the US legally for a set period of time limited by certain conditions such as law abidance, student status, employment and a few others.

Step 5: The path now doesn't have a particular direction other than from a place of residence to a place of employment. But as long as they reside in the US for the period of time required by law, learn the native language, take and pass the citizenship test and swear the oath of citizenship, then they will have followed this novel path to citizenship.

It isn't a perfect path but for over 231 years not uncounted and not untold thousands upon thousands of their former and our current countrymen and countrywomen have been using it successfully. We truly are a nation of immigrants. But If it were a nation of illegal immigrants we would not be one nation.

Illegals, Get A VISA,
We Don't Offer American Express.

Spacemonkey is the author of such books as "No, te puede!", ".45 Caliber Amnesty", and "If Your Culture Is So Frickin' Great, Why Can't IT Make You A Job?" published under the pen name Celestial Simian.

Rating: 2.3/5 (9 votes cast)

Comments (11)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
November 28, 2007
The Abomination of American Imperialism
An Editorial by Harvey
Posted by Harvey at 01:00 PM

The venerable Archbishop of Canterbury has criticized America's imperialism, saying that the United States wields its power in a way that is worse than Britain during its imperial heyday.

I find myself agreeing with him.

Britain TOTALLY kicked ass at imperialism! They had subject nations all around the globe. Back when England actually owned a set of bollocks, billions of primitive brown & yellow peoples learned to speak English, dress in suits, and drink tea instead of cow urine.

Ok, so that last one wasn't necessarily a step up, but I think I make my point. England RULED! They were naming entire races of people "Indians" and subjugating the crap out of them centuries before the first Kennedy crashed his Oldsmobile into Plymouth Rock.


"The only Iraqis who should have inky fingers are the indentured servants in American-owned Iraqi newspaper factories,"
And speaking of Kennedys, judging by Ted, we're doing an unconscionably poor job of starving the Irish, too.

How have we fallen so far? Our heritage is rooted deeply in the tyrannical stock of our jackbooted British ancestors, yet when Americans crusade across the ocean to liberate their little brown brothers... they actually liberate the PEOPLE! What incompetence! First you liberate their land, their cattle, their gold,... and a few of the comlier wenches (strictly for purposes of pleasure, mind you, not to actually - heaven forbid - breed with the filthy savages), THEN you start getting around to tossing out a bone or two of political liberty. IF they can prove their worth through prolonged armed resistance.

Or dressing in diapers & letting themselves be clubbed into bloody pulp. Either one.

Yet what have we so-called "imperialist" Americans accomplished in Iraq? NOTHING! The Iraqis can vote! They can own property! They don't even have to bow and avert their eyes when an American walks by! Why, the arrogant sand-mongrels aren't even possessed of sufficient decency or gratitude to make English their country's official language - AND WE'RE NOT FORCING THE BASTARDS TO DO IT!

That whirring sound you hear is Queen Victoria spinning in her grave at around the same speed as a NASCAR motor at redline.

And those post election-pictures coming out of Iraq, showing people celebrating their political freedom by holding up their freshly-inked fingers - Digusting! Horrid! Blasphemy against the very notion of imperialism itself! The only Iraqis who should have inky fingers are the indentured servants in American-owned Iraqi newspaper factories, which should DAMN well only print headlines like "American Benevolence Cheered by Unworthy Yet Devotedly Loyal Middle Eastern Slave Scum".

I take no joy in writing these words, but America's attempts at imperialism are so half-hearted, so feeble, so stupefyingly inept, that we might as well hoist le Tricolore, print all our legal documents in French, and subjugate ourselves to our superiors in Paris.

Maybe being forced under penalty of death to drink their lighter-fluid-flavored wines and laugh at Jerry Lewis movies will teach us how an empire is SUPPOSED to be run.

---

Harvey is a non-disabled Navy veteran accidentally hired to fill an affirmative action quota at IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Ronald McDonald: America's Archbishop" and "Bootlicking & Genuflection: An Iranian Survival Guide for the Coming Invasion".

Rating: 2.7/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (17)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
November 12, 2007
Elect Cave Troll for President
An Editorial by Cave Troll
Posted by Frank J. at 12:07 PM

 Many uneasy of electing evil, hideous, inhuman beast, which is why cave troll offers himself as alternative to Hillary in Democratic primary. While cave troll can not honestly claim to care about puny humans, he promise only to kill them if hungry. Will you get a similar promise from Hillary? Do not make cave troll laugh! Seriously, that causes cave ins.

"Cave troll not only give opinions. Cave troll also offer solutions."

 Cave troll has long accomplished record of guarding cave (it's not like me claim experience for being married to one who guards cave). I smash many human and tiny hobbits. I bring this direct problem solving to the presidency. Unlike Hillary, cave troll will tell you exactly what he thinks on issues. Like torture: Cave troll against torture. Torture too complex for cave troll's giant hands. Cave troll only like to smash and make dead. And if you ask cave troll about drivers license for illegal immigrants, cave troll will not dodge question. Cave troll smash!

 Cave troll not only give opinions. Cave troll also offer solutions. Here is cave troll's solutions for important issues:

* Tax Cuts for Rich: Cave troll smash with club!

* Illegal Wiretaps: Cave troll smash with fist!

* Social Security: Cave troll smash with war hammer! (but leave benefits for seniors and those about to retire unaffected; cave troll not stupid)

* Homelessness: Me eat homeless!

* Racism: Cave troll stomp!

* Illegal Immigration: Unsolvable.

 You should also know that cave troll was always against invading Iraq. Why does Iraq have to do with cave troll's cave? Nothing, so it of not importance to cave troll. Great wisdom there. If you elect cave troll, you know troops will come home soon. They will have to so they can fight cave troll! Graaah!

 If you look at issues, you will see that cave troll obvious better choice for president than monstrous Hillary. Me hope you consider voting for cave troll in Democratic primary and bring Democratic party back to its roots. And, though me eat humans, know that afterwards I always leave tip.

Cave troll is a cave troll.

Rating: 2.7/5 (18 votes cast)

Comments (24)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
October 25, 2007
America Can't Win the "War On Fire"
An Editorial by Harvey
Posted by Harvey at 11:00 AM

After the all of endless days of the California fire quagmire, it's time for America to admit that it can't win this battle. We must immediately withdraw our forces and go home. But until our so-called "leaders" in Washington wise up to the folly of their current course, all we can do is ask ourselves, "why does fire hate us?".

The roots go deep.

"it's no wonder fire hates us. We've been demonizing it ever since the first cinematic Frankenstein monster said 'Fire bad!'."
In the 12th century, when Europe was suffering through it's Dark Ages, fire was the most enlightened thing on the planet. It provided warmth and illumination to those who were wise in its ways. Truly it was the engine of civilization.

Fire has never forgotten this, though apparently WE have, and our ingratitude to our betters galls them.

We think ourselves so sophisticated with our electricity and our central heating, but if fire hadn't paved the way for us, we'd be lost.

We offend fire by occupying the holy lands of burnable, burnable forests with our "fireless" nuclear power plants, claiming that we are "better than mere flames". We laugh at fire's "primitiveness" and "simplicity".

Well, apparently fire is stronger than we think, as it continues to prove itself unstoppable despite our recent surge of extinguishing agents. Water, and by extension America, is no match for such a primal force.

How foolish fighting fire is. And what a waste of resources in a country where there are children without health insurance.

And it's no wonder fire hates us. We've been demonizing it ever since the first cinematic Frankenstein monster said "Fire bad!". We tell our children not to play with matches or they'll wet the bed. We won't even allow lighters on airline flights! Even before the fire is made, it's assumed to be evil by its very nature. Plus we only allow fire the most menial of jobs in this country - barbecues, fireplaces, scented candles - is it any wonder that fire resents us so deeply?

I, for one, don't blame it. And I am ashamed to be an American.

Of course, even though I understand fire's anger, I certainly don't think violence is the answer. Naturally, like all decent people, I don't approve of fires raging through California. Still, I think we should at least consider containment as an option, rather than direct confrontation. Give fire a certain area of land to live as it pleases, and only react if it takes the initiative to cross borders. At that point, we should definitely consider economic sanctions.

I believe in co-existence. I think we can get along peaceably with fire if we just set our pride aside and give it some of what it wants.

After all, it's not called "the combustion of peace" for nothing.

---

Harvey is a non-disabled Navy veteran accidentally hired to fill an affirmative action quota at IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Genocide: Smokey the Bear's Brutal Crusade Against Fire" and "Heat + Fuel + Oxygen = Fun!".

Rating: 2.3/5 (19 votes cast)

Comments (167)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
September 21, 2007
It's Time to Legalize Beating Up White People
An Editorial by Harvey
Posted by Harvey at 01:06 PM

I never thought I'd see the day, but I agree with Jesse Jackson.

Reverend Rhymes-A-Lot is defending the actions of six black youths who beat a white kid into blood-soaked unconsciousness because they were angry at something some other white people did.

"it's been scientifically proven that beating up white people will give you better grades in school and greater financial success if you're also stealing their lunch money and making them do your homework."
Personally, I can't see anything wrong with what the Jena 6 did. Let's face it - white people have gotten away with so much for so long that there's no reason NOT to beat them up. They must've done SOMETHING wrong lately - after all, they're WHITE - but just because the punishment doesn't directly fit the unknown possible alleged crime that they probably committed when no one was looking doesn't mean that the beating wasn't well-deserved in some greater cosmic-karmic sense of the word.

And I speak from personal experience. I grew up in a small and agonizingly Caucasian town in Wisconsin. I wasn't lucky enough to have African-Americans around to administer the beatings I so richly deserved for being an overweight, undermuscled, pale-skinned, chess-playing, glasses-wearing twerp. And look at me NOW! I'm just some nerd hiding behind a keyboard, whoring out my writing talents by typing up right-wing satires of left-wing parodies of stories about right-wing politicians. If only there'd been a dozen strong, brown hands to encourage me to mend my ways by teaching me the meaning of pain!

But it's not just MY life that could be improved by inter-racial pummelling. The fact is, it's been scientifically proven that beating up white people will give you better grades in school and greater financial success if you're also stealing their lunch money and making them do your homework. Don't you want this for YOUR children? Do you honestly want to risk having them grow up like ME? Do you hate your blessed offspring THAT much?

If you care about the future, you will join Jesse Jackson and I our quest to make it possible for people of color to batter any white devil into a coma without fear of unfair and racist legal retribution.

And let me toss out an idea that'll make this country even safer from the terror of uncontrollable white-itude. We should have a government program that actually PAYS young black men to travel the country to put the whup-ass on honky skulls. Sorta like the Peace Corps, except with violence.

It's just a dream at this point, but I think it's one worth pursuing. After all, is there REALLY any price too high to pay to keep another white child from turning out like me?

---

Harvey is a non-disabled Navy veteran accidentally hired to fill an affirmative action quota at IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Walloping Whitey for a Better Tomorrow" and "I Like My Assailants Like I Like My Coffee - Strong, Black, and Bitter".

Rating: 1.7/5 (12 votes cast)

Comments (25)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
September 13, 2007
Noose at University of Maryland is Disgraceful!
An Editorial by Harvey
Posted by Harvey at 02:29 PM

On the University of Maryland campus, a small noose was found hanging from a tree near a cultural center that houses the black faculty association and a black newspaper. I, for one, am absolutely outraged by this travesty!

Look at that pathetic thing! You call that a noose? The damn thing's so small, you couldn't even hang a Democrat's sense of decency with it! It took 'em two weeks before anyone even noticed it was there.

"you'd think they could toss in just one lousy credit of Stringing People Up 101."
And what'd they make it out of, anyway? That sure as hell isn't rope. Looks like a bunch of hippies pooled their hemp necklaces and braided them all together. And what in the name of John Edwards kind of sissy-pants braiding IS that? If you're going to make a respectable noose, you make it out of three strand hawser-laid jute or don't even bother tossing it over the tree branch.

And don't even get me started on the knot at the end. Hell my mother gets closer to a Hangman's Knot when she's knitting. It's supposed to have 13 coils.

THIRTEEN, people!

How can you send a man to hell if you don't have thirteen coils?

Heck, even that turd Saddam got seven.

This miserable twist of emo-goth neck-deco didn't even have three.

Look, I understand that colleges these days mostly only teach PC BS like bi-lesbian tree-dancing and whatnot, but you'd think they could toss in just one lousy credit of Stringing People Up 101. What are these poor kids gonna do if someone steals their horse someday? You don't put a horse thief in time out! Ya hoist 'im up like a bird feeder & let the vultures do the rest.

Yeah, I know people don't ride horses anymore, but we've still got plenty of Congressmen & journalists whose necks are too short, so I think my point remains valid.

---

Harvey is a non-disabled Navy veteran accidentally hired to fill an affirmative action quota at IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Executioning: A Career Guide For Teenagers" and "Rope: Not Just For Kinky Sex Anymore".

Rating: 1.9/5 (7 votes cast)

Comments (16)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
September 12, 2007
I Think the U.S. Military Should Kill Terrorists
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 12:06 PM

 I remember that back in the 80s when I was but a wee child there were a people called Communists. They were very bad, but we also had Rambo and he killed them. Thus we felt safe and happy and would say, "Yea, though there be Communists, verily there is John Rambo to kill them. Things are well in the world."

 Today, there no longer are Communists since Rambo killed them all with explosive arrows, but there are terrorists. "Who will kill the terrorists?" we ask, and it is a good question. I think it is the responsibility of the government to kill terrorists. My reasoning on it is thusly: Terrorists live and plot in many different foreign countries with lots of different wacky laws. Thus, it's much easier for the U.S. government to stomp around ignoring those laws than it is for individuals. If I went into those countries to kill terrorists, those countries would say, "Hey, Frank. You are ignoring are laws. You go to prison now." And they would take me to wacky foreign prison, and I would not be able to resist because there would be many of them and they would be mean. But the U.S. government is even bigger and meaner and thus can ignore stupid foreign laws to kill the terrorists.

"When I think of who in the government could be good at killing terrorists, I think of the military."

 Since it is resolved it's the government's job to kill terrorists, who in the government should kill them? The I.R.S? Congress? Those nine old people who tell us what the Constitution means? No, I don't think any of those people are properly equipped to kill terrorists. When I think of who in the government could be good at killing terrorists, I think of the military. They have guns and training at killing. They seem to be the perfect candidates for killing terrorists. Thus I say that our military should be tasked with killing terrorists.

 Now that I've logically proved that the U.S. military should kill terrorists, it seems strange that some people would want to pull troops out of the Middle East. That's where the terrorists are! I guess eventually they'll come to us a few at a time, but it is so much more efficient to go over there and kill them en masse. When people say, "No! Bring the troops home!" I say, "But there aren't many terrorists at home. They are over there. You are being silly." Why would we move the troops? Who is more important to kill than the terrorists? The Swedes? Certainly not.

 When someone tells you we should bring the troops back, ask him who does he think will then kill the terrorists. When he inevitably gives you a dumb answer, punch him in the face as should be the punishment for answers that are stupid. As is obvious, the U.S. military should kill terrorists.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "The Police Should Arrest Criminals" and "Tax Collectors Should Collect Taxes (Or, Preferably, Drop Dead)."

Rating: 2.4/5 (10 votes cast)

Comments (38)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
August 10, 2007
You Kids Today Don't Know Nothin' 'Bout Scarin' Minorities!
An Editorial by Harvey
Posted by Harvey at 11:20 AM

Last Monday, two punk kids threw a plastic soda bottle containing pool cleaner and tinfoil at "Flying Imam" Didmar Faja outside a mosque in Phoenix, Arizona.

And they missed him by 25 feet.

TWENTY FIVE FEET!

What the hell's the matter with kids these days? Why, back in my day, when folks threw bottles of caustic chemicals at troublesome minorities, the brown fella usually ended up with a concussion from getting hit right in the noggin, in addition to chemical burns.

Of course, back then, soda bottles were made out of glass, not that faggoty plastic crap you see nowadays. Yes sir, they cared about QUALITY back then! You could drop a freakin' ELEPHANT with a Coke bottle when I was a kid.

"All I know is that the more minorities are runnin' scared, the better off America is."
And the chemicals! We had gallons of lye & sulfuric acid just laying around under the sink. And they didn't have those stupid "child-proof caps" - which are just a conspiracy by the Democrats to allow retarded kids to live long enough to vote, anyway.

Yup. Folks knew how to keep those uppity minorities in line back in the good old days. Why, if a colored guy were to file a law suit over a bunch o' nuthin' like these "Flying Imams" jerks did, they'd burn a cross on his lawn. Shut him right up.

Course, you can't burn a CROSS on a Muslim's lawn. Partly 'cuz Muslims don't have lawns. Just big piles of sand in their front yards, so they don't get so homesick for the "old country". Keep their furnaces roarin' straight through the summer, too. Anyway, a cross wouldn't work, because it don't mean anything to them goofy camel-riding carpet-lickers. You'd have to use something that they cared about. Like a moon, or a star, or a horseshoe, or whatever Lucky Charms marshmallow they worship.

But it wasn't just chemicals & burnin' stuff that kept the brownies in line back then. We'd chase 'em around with dogs, too. That probably wouldn't work with a Muslim, though, 'cuz they eat dogs. Or maybe that's Koreans. Poofy-haired bastards. I've got half a mind to throw a bottle at one right now. Anyway, I know you could scare a Muslim really good by chasing him with a pig. Or a shrimp cocktail. At least, I'm pretty sure there's some bunch of Middle Easters that're frightened by shellfish. All I know is that the more minorities are runnin' scared, the better off America is.

Or WAS. You dirty punk kids with your piercings & your iPods... ya can't even fling a decent projectile with your tatted-up spaghetti-arms. Nah. Not you, ya lazy bastards. Maybe you should put down your NinSony WiiStations, get out in the back yard, and play a little Pepper until you can at least hit the broad side of a barn!

I tell ya, the whole generation's a disappointment. Pretty soon the colored's are gonna be runnin' the place.

Now get offa my lawn and go practice throwing eggs down at the 7-11 until you can knock the turban off the clerk's head.

---

Harvey is a non-disabled Navy veteran accidentally hired to fill an affirmative action quota at IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Why Can't More Black People Be White Like Michael Jackson?" and "America's Youth Will Never Amount To Diddly Squat".

Rating: 2.3/5 (13 votes cast)

Comments (28)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
August 02, 2007
A Happy Editorial About America
By Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 12:38 PM

 America makes me happy. It is full of sunshine, trees, and shiny buildings, and anytime you want a burrito, it is very easy to obtain one. It is the happiest country in the world. It has a flag of red, white, and blue which are very happy colors. Any time I see the flag, it makes me happy. America is such a happy country, it makes me happy just thinking of America... and even happier to be in America while thinking of America.

 One of the happiest things in America is its freedom. You have freedom to say whatever you want in America, even if you want to say unhappy things. You can walk out and say, "The government is suppressing my speech!" and no one will stop you because we are free in America. In other countries, if you said, "The government is suppressing my speech!" mean men from the government would come and beat you with sticks because they suppress speech in those countries and don't like you talking about it. Many people there are unhappy. I hope that knowing there is an America at least makes them somewhat happy.

"America is an unstoppable bringer of happiness; it is a happiness steamroller."

 America likes to spread its happiness. When we have thing that make us happy like Big Macs and Coca-Cola, we send them to other parts of the worlds so they can be happy too. America is an unstoppable bringer of happiness; it is a happiness steamroller.

 Scientists have determined the reason America is so happy is that God is happy and he likes America. He blesses us with many things. Other countries don't seem to make God as happy. Sometimes they do mean things and say it is in God's name. This must make God upset. If someone did mean things in my name, I would send them a plague or a cease and desist letter. Perhaps those other countries can stop doing mean things and be happy too.

 Sometimes bad people try to make America unhappy by doing bad things, but we have a military that stops bad people. They are very good at what they do; this is part of being happy. They will stop bad people and they can quickly go to anywhere in the world to do it. They are like Superman. Knowing Superman is there to protect people makes them happy.

 Even though America is a happy place, there are still some unhappy people here. They are unhappy that the president stole an election and that the government is spying on their phone. That's how happy America is: In other countries, people have real things to be unhappy about, but in America you have to make things up to be unhappy about.

 If you are ever feeling unhappy, just go out and buy a burrito and you will be happy again. Because this is America.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "Buying This Book Will Make Me Happy" and "Yay! Reading Is Fun!" (co-authored by SarahK).

Rating: 2.8/5 (13 votes cast)

Comments (16)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
July 26, 2007
Samurai vs. Monkey: Daily Kos
Posted by Frank J. at 12:11 PM

Is Daily Kos a hate site as O'Reilly contends or is it a mainstream Democratic site as Markos Zuniga says? To find out, here are the opinions of noted right-wing pundit Musashi and left-wing pundit Scary Evil Monkey.

The Daily Kos Is a Hate Site
By Musashi

 Many people have fought valiantly and lost their lives in the defense of the freedom of speech, but if any of them had ever seen the Daily Kos, they would lay down their arms and say, "Oh, enemies of America, come take this crap from me." Daily Kos does not honor the first amendment; it dishonors it with its moronic conspiracy talk and its visceral, toothless hatred. Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is not protected speech, and neither should it be protected to yell extremely retarded things while others are trying to watch a movie. This is Daily Kos, and it must be ended to honor the first amendment.

 Some say all should be left to talk, even the foolish for they may one day say something wise. Obviously, one who would say this has never seen the foolishness that is the Daily Kos. It has less chance of producing something intelligent than a thousand monkey at a thousand typewriter. It itself is feces covered monkeys at keyboards, pounding away at their keyboards all day for they are too useless to do anything else. We are all dumber for their existence. It should not be tolerated.

 Daily Kos should be shut down and everyone who participated on it will be forbidden from speaking again having now lost their freedom of speech in their stupidity. Any politician who thought so little of America as to actually patronize the fools from Kos should be run out of office and run out of the country; they are no longer Americans. If anyone from the Daily Kos dares try speaking again, he will be thrown down a well and the top will be sealed with a large rock so no human shall ever hear his voice. Perhaps when driven mad from having only themselves to listen to their insane prattle, they will kill themselves and thus, for once in their life, do something useful.

The Daily Kos Is Mainstream
By Scary Evil Monkey

dum stoopid heelbilly neocon jues! u tink u is samrt wons? do u not see poll numbers for yer savior boosh? hee has 25%. dis meens dat 75% OF AMERICA WANTS TO EET UR EYEBALLS AN TURN DEM INTO POO AND THROW DE POO AT U!!!! dat manestreem opinyun now, u dum stoopid heelbilly neocon jues!

dis is opinyun of kos site. dey samrt site. dey all for eeting eyeballs. dis not hate. dis wut samrt peepul doo. der sum disagreement, tho. many at kos like to eet de poo stead of throwing it. i not agree wit dat but i got troll rated wen i say wee shud throw poo an not eet it. I NOT TROLL! U SUPPOSED TO THROW POO AN NOT EET IT KOS STOOPIDS! maybe sum problum der on open debate but we doo all agree on eeting ur eyeballs. much open discussion on dat topic. very intelleegent.

so u dum stoopid heelbilly neocon jues shud stop calling kos hate site when it samrt site of manestreem thot. we majoritee now. so be redy for wen WE EET UR EYEBALLS AN TURN DEM INTO POO AN SUM EET DAT POO WHILE I THROW DAT POO AT U!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

* * * *

I hope you enjoyed this debate and hearing both sides of the issue. Please give us feedback so we here at IMAO can serve your needs better.

Rating: 2.1/5 (9 votes cast)

Comments (15)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
July 20, 2007
America Can't Win the ''War on Steam''
An Editorial by Harvey
Posted by Harvey at 01:01 PM

During New York's Wednesday rush hour, a steam pipe exploded, killing one person and injuring 44.

Incidents such as this make it obvious that the only sensible course of action is to withdraw from America's insane War on Steam.

"When left unmolested, steam lives up to its name as 'the vapor of peace'"

President Bush's Hitler-like scheme of rounding up steam and putting it in concentration camps - or "pipes", as he euphemistically calls them - is a dismal failure. It does nothing but anger the steam and cause it to lash out uncontrollably, as it did in New York, spewing a "dirty bomb" of carcinogenic asbestos into the air. We don't have to ask "why does steam hate us?". The answer is obvious - because America is a brutal, oppressive country with no rights, whose only goal is to prevent steam from living free.

The Bush Steam Doctrine of "contain, concentrate, condense" is absurd and unnecessary. When left unmolested, steam lives up to its name as "the vapor of peace", seeking only to be left alone to expand or contract inversely proportional to its pressure in accordance with the sacred texts of the Prophet Boyle.

It's only Bush's fascist policy of trying to maintain complete control over steam's movement that has brought this current horror upon us. To be truthful, we deserve it. Who are we to judge the rightness of wrongness of our moist and gaseous fellow-travelers on Spaceship Earth? Should we consider ourselves "superior" to warm, dissipated moisture?

Hardly.

The time has come to admit our failures, both military and moral, and stop treating innocent steam with an automatic assumption of guilt. We must release the steam from the "pipes" we've confined it to and let it roam freely.

The only sensible course of action is to bring our plumbers home, and end our government's policy of cruelty. It's time to withdraw from the War on Steam.

America must stop trying to be the world's teakettle.

---

Harvey is a non-disabled Navy veteran accidentally hired to fill an affirmative action quota at IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Boiling Mad: Stihad in America" and "Hot & Wet: A Pictoral History of Steamy Love Scenes".

Rating: 2.9/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (19)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
July 09, 2007
Both Sides: Is Dissent on the War Patriotic?
Posted by Desmond Imao at 10:11 AM

Free speech is a sacred right in America, but is being critical of military actions in the time of war unpatriotic since it may help the enemy? To look into that question, IMAO is proud to present the opinions of noted right-wing blogger Frank J. and respected left-wing blogger Scary Evil Monkey to give you both sides.

Anyone Who Publicly Criticizes the War Is an Unpatriotic Little Douche
By Frank J.

 So we have a military conflict headed by generals with tons of knowledge and information none of us have access to, so why does anyone think they want the opinion of some goober who read a few newspaper articles online?

 Freedom of speech is important, but war is a special thing because lives and perhaps our entire country are on the line. The time to argue against a war is before it starts, and if the American people don't listen to your homo baby whining about how we can solve conflicts through hugs -- and they usually don't -- then once the war starts, it's time to shut your stupid mouth from which your intellectual diarrhea constantly flows.

 What does arguing against a war achieve? It convinces the enemy we might give up and keeps them fighting -- thus getting more people killed on both sides. If the loser whiny dillholes win out with their constant shrieking and finally cause us to retreat, then that will further convince our enemies we can be beaten causing them to draw us into even more conflicts and getting even more people killed. So why do people speak out against a war while their countrymen are currently getting shot at? Well, the chance of them knowing anything the generals don't know is essentially nil, so the only reason they speak out is for their own arrogance -- because it makes them feel smart. So, the public dissenters of the war think feeling good about themselves is more important than human lives and their country -- that sounds like someone we can definitively label an unpatriotic little douche to me.

 I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to speak, I'm just saying it would be less harmful if those people actually picked up a gun, went out on the battlefield, and shot at our troops -- at least then they'd be eliminated quickly. Also, I'm saying I should be allowed my own freedom of expression to bash their faces in. And, my speech expression will actually achieve something useful for our country -- namely bashing the faces in of unpatriotic douches. If those who feel they need to speak out against the war want to really help their country, they should kill themselves.

End the War Now or I Will Eat Your Eyeballs, Turn Them into Poo, and Throw the Poo at You
By Scary Evil Monkey

dum stoopid heelbilly neocon jues! u maid war too maik halleeburton rich but now u all weel die! ur surge has failed! u cannot defeet the islamomonkeys an dey weel cum an blow u up for trying! u worship boosh but hee dum stoopid heelbilly neocon jue just lik de rest of u. everee wun hoo not a dum stoopid neocon heelbilly jue now turn on u. merryica now becum home of us monkeys. den u no wut happens?

I EET UR EYEBALLS! DEN I TURN DE EYEBALLS INTO POO AN I THROW DE POO AT U! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

u ar dooomed! u weel soon leev irak. den wee weel mak u leev afganeestan. u reed daily kos. dat hoo rul frum now on. maybee u bee gud an dey let u dum stoopid heelbilly neocon jues liv... BUT PROBLY NOT! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

after wee eet ur eyeballs, turn de eyeballs into poo an throw de poo at u, mee an my kos freends WEEL EET DE POO AGAIN, TURN IT INTO MOR POO, AN THROW DAT POO AT U!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!!!!

* * * *

I hope you enjoyed this debate and hearing both sides of the issue. Please give us feedback so we here at IMAO can serve your needs better.

Rating: 2.2/5 (10 votes cast)

Comments (9)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
June 19, 2007
Save Our Endangered Terrorists!
An Editorial By Harvey
Posted by Harvey at 09:07 AM

Recently, the Humane Society of the United States protested the 21st Annual Star Island Yacht Club Shark Tournament. The HSUS - a fanatical animal rights organization - was incensed that sharks - which have declined in population by over 80% in the last 50 years - were being festively slaughtered for sport.

Their point being, I suppose, that it's unconscionable to kill vicious, flesh-eating predators if you have fun while doing it.

I have a hard time disagreeing. I mean, why would you NOT want more bloodthirsty, savage, aquatic killing-machines patrolling our coastal waters? Would YOU want to live in a world where it's perfectly safe to swim, surf, and scuba dive near the shorelines of a heavily populated area? I know *I* wouldn't! If nothing else, it helps keep the riff-raff & trailer trash off the beaches. I get enough of those visual atrocities at Wal-Mart, thank you very much!

Yet it seems to me that the HSUS is being elitist, if not downright speciesist, when it comes to choosing which spillers of innocent blood they fight to protect. It's common knowledge that the most dangerous predator on Earth is MAN. Specifically Chuck Norris and Fred Thompson, but other humans have been known to pose a threat on occasion, too.

"if HSUS can fight for the rights of an animal that smells like a Red Lobster dumpster in August, why can't it fight for an animal that likes to blow up women and children?"

Lately, the biggest non-Chuck-non-Fred threat to human life has been Islamic terrorists. Why isn't the HSUS doing something to protect them? Not a day goes by that the headlines don't splash the horrific death toll of our precious dwindling terrorist resources. Granted, five or ten splattered Hadjis may not sound like a big loss, but that constant trickle of corpses adds up. Coddling Allah's Islamic Radicals (CAIR) estimates that over 100,000 terrorists have been lost since 9/11, and their remaining numbers keep spiraling downward.

I find this repugnant.

A species is a species and endangered is endangered. Sure, terrorists lack the grandeur of the elephant or the cuddly, photogenic appeal of a Panda bear. And yes, they smell bad, oppress women, and plot the global genocide of all non-Muslims. Hey, they can't ALL be baby Harp Seals! But if HSUS can fight for the rights of an animal that smells like a Red Lobster dumpster in August, why can't it fight for an animal that likes to blow up women and children? At least it's a MAMMAL for cryin' out loud!

The fact is, if we don't stop the insane slaughter of our dangerously fanatical - yet charmingly quirky - Muslim brethren, soon there won't be a single terrorist left alive on earth! I can't imagine the shame of trying to explain to my grandchildren that - because I did nothing - he can only see filthy, butchering Jihadists in picture books or Guantanamo.

Well, if HSUS is going to drop the ball on this one, *I* certainly won't! It's time to get organized! Call your congressman! Call the President! Speak out in whatever forum is available to you! Worst case, start one of web-blob thingies! If you're a hot chick, post naked pictures of yourself on your MySpace page in protest. Or just send them directly to me. Whichever. It doesn't matter, as long as you make your voice heard!

If we don't do something now, there will soon come a day when crazed Islamofascists are just a faded memory, never again to grace our planet with their murderous majesty.

And I can't think of anything more tragic.

Can you?

Harvey is a non-disabled Navy veteran accidentally hired to fill an affirmative action quota at IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Red Lobster: Genocidal Hate Criminals" and "Nude Photography for Righteously Indignant Hot Chicks".

Rating: 1.5/5 (5 votes cast)

Comments (9)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
June 11, 2007
President Bush Has Been the Most Effective President Ever
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 12:29 PM

 Remember right after 9/11 how jumpy we were with each fire and explosion that was reported on the news. We knew that is was an inevitable that the terrorists would strike again and the only question was when and how. Yes, more than five and a half years later, there has been no terrorists attacks on U.S. soil. Some will point to other terrorist attacks abroad, but that even more emphasizes the point that, while terrorists are still effective in other, smaller countries, they have been unable to do another attack in the huge target that is the U.S. -- even when, as many argue, terrorists hate us more than ever. So, what's changed since that first attack?

"How do you improve on 'no terrorism'? Are you going to get the terrorist to come over here and bake us yummy cakes?"
* We're in numerous messy wars with no end in sight.

* We have an odd and incoherent homeland security.

* Our border situation is out of control.

* The President is hugely unpopular.

 Obviously, the only conclusion is that these are the ingredients to an effective defense against terrorism.

The only one who knows how to fight terrorism.

 Some may mock that conclusion, saying that President Bush's action have contributed to the risk of terrorism and that it's pure luck America hasn't been attacked again. That's an idiotic conclusion, though. President Bush has been batting a thousand in the area of terrorism and we have no idea how many curve balls he has been thrown. To argue that it's luck is like arguing that Mount Rushmore is a natural geological occurrence. The only logical conclusion is that President Bush has purposely orchestrated a effective strategy against terrorism that none of us has the wisdom to understand.

 Yes, it seems counter-intuitive, and many "terrorism experts" will argue that much of what President Bush has accomplished -- such as the border problems -- has increased the risk of terrorism, but ask yourself this: Who is the only actual terrorism expert? Who is the only one with experience of effectively stopping terrorism on U.S. soil? No one other than President Bush fits that description; everyone else is just a blow hard on that issue. If anyone, Democrat or Republican, says he can be more effective in fighting terror, ask him, "How do you improve on 'no terrorism'? Are you going to get the terrorist to come over here and bake us yummy cakes?" We currently have a so far a flawless stratagem against terrorism, and anyone who argues to change it is arguing suicide. If a Presidential candidate says, "I will end the war and unite the public behind me," he might as well add, "and get us all killed by terrorists."

 It's popular to be against the President right now, but if you think the most important job of the federal government is national security (because, without that, we have nothing) then you can't argue anything other than President Bush has been one hundred percent effective in office since 9/11. You may not like the policies or like him, but, unless an attack succeeds on our soil, you have to say that what he has done has worked despite your objections. I still don't like President Bush, though, but I don't think he wants me to like him... and he obviously knows what he's doing.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "Mustaches and Muttonchops: A Ranking of U.S. Presidents Based on Facial Hair" and "1000 Uses for a Dead Terrorist: A Rainy Day Fun Book".

Rating: 2.7/5 (9 votes cast)

Comments (12)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
June 05, 2007
Blowing Up JFK - An American Dream Denied
An Editorial By Harvey
Posted by Harvey at 11:25 AM

Like most Americans, accused terrorist mastermind Russell Defreitas had a dream.

In fact, his life was a series of dreams. Several of them fulfilled, one of them cruelly denied.

He left Guyana 30 years ago, seeking a dream of a better life in the US, which he realized. Then, he realized his dream of becoming a citizen of his new country. And after getting a job at JFK Airport as a cargo handler, he realized - as most working Americans eventually do - that his dream sucked. So he got a new dream.

Blowing up JFK Airport.

Sure, it's probably not YOUR dream, and it's definitely not mine since it contains neither cheerleaders nor Reddi-Wip, but does that really matter? Does our Constitution not say that "all dreams are created equal"? Are they not therefore all equally deserving of respect and admiration?

"I'll bet that if Mr. Defreitas had snuck into the US illegally, Bush would've given him government grants and all the explosives he wanted, just like he did for all the Mexicans!"

And what of Russell's motivation? He said that one reason for doing this was that he "wanted to do something to get those bastards". Who among us has NOT gone to work at one time or another thinking just that very thing? True, most people limit themselves to passive-aggressive pranks like unplugging someone's mouse or putting Ex-Lax in the coffee, but - magnitude aside - we can ALL relate, right?

The fact is, Russell was a visionary ahead of his time. The seeds of his ambitious plan to wreak deadly havoc on innocent civilians actually sprouted several years before the 9/11 attacks. One can just imagine his frustration on that September morning, realizing that his goal of grabbing world attention had been overshadowed by 19 people who had done it first and done it better.

But did he give up? Did he just sigh and mope and say "I'll never be as good as those lucky Saudis"?

HELL no!

He did what any good American would do. He cranked it up a notch! He dared to dream bigger! Bolder! Blow-uppier! He vowed to create a terrorist attack that would make 9/11 look like a damp firecracker!

He envisioned a plan to destroy not just an few planes, but terminal buildings, fuel tanks, and miles of fuel pipeline.

His lofty ambition, however, was not without its share of equally lofty obstacles to overcome.

He needed help bringing his project to fruition. Sadly, thanks to the depradations of George Bush's Crusade on Islam, the Al Qaeda members he tried to contact were either too busy or too dead to provide him with the assistance he needed. Still, his pluck and determination would not allow his hope to die. So, in the best MacGuyver-like tradition of Yankee ingenuity, he managed to make do with what he could find - some wide-eyed idealists from Trinidad. Yes, Russell had indeed taken lemons and made lemonade.

Things were looking up for this eager beaver. He even won the admiration of the FBI, who described Russell and his crew as "a very determined group". It's such determination which built this nation, so why shouldn't it destroy it, too?

Unfortunately, Russell's dreams were crushed under the jack-booted heel of President Bush, who had known about the project for months. I can't believe the thoughtlessness of this man! Why didn't he say something right away instead of teasing the poor guy and stringing him along like that? Even worse was Bush's complete lack of support for this plan. I mean, Russell played by the rules in coming to this country and he actually became a citizen. I'll bet that if Mr. Defreitas had snuck into the US illegally, Bush would've given him government grants and all the explosives he wanted, just like he did for all the Mexicans!

My theory is that, since the target was JFK airport, Bush couldn't stand the thought of competing for attention with headlines about a president who makes him feel inferior! Too bad Russell didn't plan to take out the Hoover Dam!

I think it's tragic that in Bush's America, Russell couldn't get the help or explosives he needed to reach his goal. More good American terrorist jobs go overseas, and our President does nothing!

Most of all, though, it makes me ashamed to live in a country where chasing your dreams is no longer considered a laudable objective. When Joey Chestnut broke the world hot dog eating record, he got a year's supply of hot dogs and a $250 gift card to the mall. But all Russell Defreitas got for trying to set a record for killing people in a domestic terrorist attack was the short end of the stick.

Shame on you, George Bush, you dirty dreamstealer.

Shame on you.

Harvey is a non-disabled Navy veteran accidentally hired to fill an affirmative action quota at IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as ""Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie, and Exploded Pipelines: What America Means to Me"" and "Terrorists in Trinidad: A Shopper's Guide".

Rating: 2.9/5 (7 votes cast)

Comments (10)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
May 29, 2007
We've All Been Elisabeth Hasselbeck
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 11:37 AM

 If someone came up to you and started rattling off the reasons that the moon landing was faked, could you respond?

 "You can see the flag wave in the wind! And the photos lacked stars! And they all would have died traveling through the Van Allen radiation belt!"

 If you're like most Americans, you'd know the guy is a crank but you would have no idea how to respond to each of his crazed points other than to punch him in his dumb monkey face and yell, "You're a crank! Stop with the mouth moving and the sound coming out of it, you nitwit!"

 A political ambush is hard to respond to in a reasonable fashion, because the crank controls the battlefield by spouting out "facts" you are ill-prepared for. Any idiot can read some article or some internet ramblings and then recite them to the unsuspecting... and many idiots do. The fool then thinks he won the debate when all he's done is left you confused and surprised.

There's no wind on the moon, but the flag is waving! And where are the stars?

 This is why many sympathized with poor Elisabeth Hasselbeck who was met with this scenario constantly and on live television with no escape. Hasselbeck already had to deal with the insufferable and pea-brained Joy Behar who could recite Democrat talking points with the near accuracy of a trained parrot -- annoying but predictable -- but then came the raging monstrosity of Rosie O'Donnell. She's pure hate and stupidity squished into one amorphous blob with but one goal: To make people think it's smart. Rosie had the public's laughter -- as any clown could claim -- but she wanted their respect. So she -- through either design or through accident of her chubby fingers mistyping as they mashed against her sticky keyboard -- came to websites with ideas even outside the mainstream of what's referred to as "liberal thought."

 "When I tell the people these things they don't know, I will be the smart one!" she burbled to herself as her many chins were lit by the glow of her nacho cheese-stained monitor. "They will love and respect me!"

 Of course, to look smart, it helps to have another look dumb, and Rosie had the perfect foil in Elisabeth Hasselbeck, as that woman dared to be everything Rosie wasn't: slim, blond, attractive, and heterosexual. Worst yet, Hasselbeck was a Republican, and, by the understanding Rosie had as taught by her friends in Hollywood, people only became Republicans as an expression of their love of evil.

 So Rosie spouted her shiny new ideas aimed at the young Hasselbeck with Behar snickering all the while out of a nervous habit of incomprehension. Many criticized Hasselbeck for not standing in front of the charging, lesbian rhino, meeting force with force, but that ignores the ambush taking place and that Hasselbeck is no pundit -- she is only as well informed as any regular American. How could she be prepared for the assertion that the World Trade Center Building 7 was blown up by the government? And if someone came up to you and loudly and obnoxiously stated that fire could not melt steel, how long would it take you to recover from the shock of the surrealness of the situation to respond?

 Hasselbeck had not signed on to fight against a hippopotamus thrashing about in waters of ignorance and conspiracy, but she tried in her own meek manner. The second time the WTC 7 was brought up, she was prepared to meet Rosie with some facts, but she was then broadsided by statements that Giuliani had shuttled steel off to China as a cover up. Lesson learned: You can't stay ahead of a crank -- not unless you're willing to search out the facts of every single wacko conspiracy out there like some sort of Wikipedia Brown.

 But while Rosie thought she won the debate on stage since Hasselbeck never rose to meet her fury, she was not prepared for the reaction of the public at large. Apparently people took the "facts" Rosie put out there and then followed them to their logical conclusions. This caught Rosie off guard because she lacks the mental capacity to reach those logical conclusions herself. It may seem obvious to you that if someone states that our troops killed 655,000 Iraqis and then asks, "Who are the real terrorists?", the implication is that our troops are terrorists. But Rosie was really just asking a question she didn't know the answer to. She thought she could just spout things she read on the internet and sound smart; she had no idea people would put any meaning to the things she was saying. Thus the real pain in her eyes when she asked Hasselbeck, "Do you believe I think the troops are terrorists?" The correct answer would be, "No, I don't believe you have any political thought quite that coherent."

 How the now despised Rosie lashed out at little Hasselbeck, a warthog snarling at a bunny. Her attempts to look smart and gain love and respect had failed horribly, and her only consolation was batting around the blond woman in front of a studio audience. But finally Hasselbeck struck back, meeting the blubbering intensity of Rosie with equal passion. Thoroughly defeated, she called Hasselbeck a coward and quickly waddled away to her swamp to write her faux-poetry on her blog which resembled what one would expect to be the result if one of those signing chimps were taught to type. And cheer we all did, for Hasselbeck, no greater than the rest of us, struck a blow for all those ever cornered by an obnoxious idiot so fool and pitiful as to convince himself that he's smart.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist who is against the idea of women being left alone to chat about politics.

Rating: 2.2/5 (13 votes cast)

Comments (20)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
May 17, 2007
Both Sides: Left-Wing Hate on the Internet
Posted by Desmond Imao at 10:51 AM

In reaction to the death of Jerry Falwell, there has been celebration on the left-wing side of the blogosphere. Similar things have happen when Tony Snow became ill again, with commenters and even posters in the left-wing blogosphere wishing ill will on him and his family. Is the wishing of violence and death upon those they disagree with an anomaly of the left-wing blogosphere or something indicative of a bigger problem with that culture? IMAO is proud to present the opinions of noted right-wing blogger Frank J. and respected left-wing blogger Scary Evil Monkey to give you both sides.

Conservative Bloggers Should Express Sincere Hope That Someone in Markos Zuniga's Family Will Get Cancer
By Frank J.

 I was never a fan of Jerry Falwell, but by reading all the elation on the left-wing blogosphere of his death, I can't help but think how there was no such celebration when Saddam was hung. Does anyone think they'll be this happy when Osama bin Laden dies? Absolutely not. They don't have hate for those who murder the innocent and cut off heads. No, it's people like Dick Cheney and Tony Snow they reserve such hate for, as the only "enemy" they really hate are people in America who dare have different viewpoints than them or espouse Christianity. Liberal are inhuman scum. Let me repeat that: They are scum of a non-human variety. And, like everything that isn't human, we are better off when it dies.

 In fact, I would argue that it is such a boon to America every time someone on the left-wing blogosphere dies, that it is cause for celebration. Real celebration with a keg of beer and phat tunes. Perhaps just a cheap keg of Coors Light when it's merely a comment poster or DU troll who dies, but it's certainly worth pulling out the checkbook and getting a keg of Guinness if a top left-wing blogger dies or gets a horrible, terminal illness. We should all draw strength from the suffering of these nutroots scum, and we should use that strength to party awesome hard.

 Remember how Markos Zuniga, the venomous Kos, once said "Screw Them" of contractors brutally murdered by terrorists in Iraq? I think everyone would agree with me on saying that it would be a glorious thing if he would get cancer and die painfully. In fact, it would be great -- and I'm sure other right-wing bloggers such as Glenn Reynolds, Michelle Malkin, and Jonah Goldberg would back me up on this -- if instead the person getting the cancer were someone in Zuniga's family that he deeply cared about. How cool would it be to know that Zuniga, whose viewpoints I don't care for, had to watch someone he cares about die slowly and in an extremely horrible fashion? It would be super cool. Thus, we should all wish death and disease on Zuniga's family. I'd say we should pray to Jesus for it, but He just texted me saying He doesn't want any part of this. Obviously, Jesus hasn't been reading the left-wing blogs if that's the way He feels.


I Will Eat Jerry Falwell's Eyes, Turn It Into Poo, and Throw the Poo at You
By Scary Evil Monkey

yess! happee happee day! a nother dum stoopid heelbilly neocon jue is dead! falwell bad dum christin man now ded. my freends at kos an huffy post agree dat we shood all pay proper respect to po dum ded christin heelbilly neocon jue. no how we pay respect to heem?

I EET HIS EYEBALLS! DEN I TURN THE EYEBALLS INTO POO AN I THROW THE POO AT U! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

u dum stoopid heelbilly neocon jues weel all soon be like falwell! u weel be ded with no eyes an covered in poo! we at kos and huffy post weel control merica! we keel u all with help of islamo monkey freends! dey hate dum bad christin jues like u but they like us cause dey no wee smart. dey weel join us in eeting ur eyeballs and throwing the poo at u while u run a round wondering wut happening since u no see since ur eyeballs ar now poo. u dum stoopid christin jues hoo want to yell at kos and hurt islamo monkeys deserve nothing better than to be covered in eyes made into poo. and then u die like ur hero falwell. reel problem for merica is not islamo monkeys. reel problem is that u dum stoopid heelbilly neocon jues ar alive and not ded.

now i go vote in kos poll on hoo won gop debate. ron paul only one of u hoo make sense. we agree he best. u all to dum to vote for heem which is why we hope u die like falwell and we eet ur eyes.

PREPARE TO DIE! I CAN ALMOST TASTE UR EYEBALLS NOW! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

* * * *

I hope you enjoyed this debate and hearing both sides of the issue. Please give us feedback so we here at IMAO can serve your needs better.

Rating: 2.5/5 (7 votes cast)

Comments (13)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
May 01, 2007
America Needs a War On Ham
An Editorial By Harvey
Posted by Harvey at 10:21 AM

 Recently in Lewiston, Maine, a middle school student was suspended - and rightfully so - for the hate crime of placing a ham steak on a lunch table where Muslim Somali students were sitting. Sadly, instead of treating this grotesque offense with the seriousness it deserved, insensitive jerk Nicholas Plagman of Associated Content actually wrote a parody of the original news story, treating this serious subject with levity, as though it were merely a harmless prank instead of a repugnant assault on someone's religious beliefs.

I am outraged.

"The simple truth is that if it weren't for all the ham in this country, 9/11 never would've happened"

 So I'm taking a cue from Toledo Blade columnist Dan Simpson, who wisely seized the opportunity of the Virginia Tech shootings to propose a sane and practical plan for forcibly disarming America's dangerous gun nuts. I've come up with a sensible program for de-hamifying our swine-flesh-saturated country. After all, it's not enough to complain about the problem. One must be part of the solution.

The first step, of course, is to admit that we, as a nation, have a problem. According to PeTA and other unimpeachable sources, ham and its associated hog-derived food items are directly responsible for over 200 million deaths in this country each year. Now, the government-controlled media craftily hides this fact by fudging the statistics, euphemistically blaming the deaths on "obesity" or "heart disease" or "falling into a rendering vat", but this doesn't chance the FACT that pigs are always the root cause. However, the MOST tragic consequence of America's Hoggy Holocaust is that these ham-tastic delicacies are an unforgivable insult to our Muslim brethren, driving even the calmest of Allah-worshippers into an uncontrollable, ululating, American-murdering frenzy. The simple truth is that if it weren't for all the ham in this country, 9/11 never would've happened.

Sadly, America's unconscionable hatred-by-ham has done nothing but escalate since then. I'm always reading people suggesting (as a "joke", of course) that our troops should dip their bullets in bacon grease before shooting terrorists in order to send them directly to Hell - do not pass Paradise, do not collect 72 virgins. I cannot begin to describe the depth of my disgust at statements like this. I don't have a problem with filling someone so full of lead that you could use them as nuclear reactor shielding, but I draw the line at callously insulting someone's religion!

So to save America from both cholesterol and terrorists, I say that the government needs to get serious about implementing a final solution to our porky problem. We could call it the "War on Ham" and model it after other successful government programs, such as the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, both of which managed to completely eradicate their target problems within a few short years of being implemented.

Here's how it would work (NOTE: for the sake of brevity, I'll use the term "ham", but it would also include bacon, pork rinds, chitlins, etc.):

First, pass a federal law making ham possession a felony punishable by a $1000 fine or a year on a tofu diet. People would then have a three-month amnesty to deposit their offending meat without penalty at a government collection center. The collected ham could then be safely disposed of by having the UN distribute it to the French, since no one cares if they get heart disease or blown up by terrorists.

Sure, the Washington lobbyists for Big Pig will start chucking lawyers at this left and right, but since most of them would be Jewish and sympathetic to our cause, this fight'll be over in no time. Then, after our nation is safely sow-free, we can get to work on averting America's next looming crisis by enforcing mandatory cow-worship before the Hindu Street rises up and destroys us all.

Harvey is a non-disabled Navy veteran accidentally hired to fill an affirmative action quota at IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Soooo-Wee! Sow-free For Me!" and "Udders on the Altar: A Beginner's Guide to Bovine Adulation".

Rating: 1.6/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (25)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
April 17, 2007
It's Time For Common Sense Restrictions On Freedom Of Assembly
An Editorial By Harvey
Posted by Harvey at 07:43 PM

 In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, I've seen a lot of people putting the blame on guns. "We need more gun control laws", they say... "If we didn't have so many guns in this country, this never would've happened", they say... "Stupid Second Amendment! I'll get you for this!" they say.

"it's tragically obvious at this point that allowing people to assemble for the purpose of education has - without exception - ended in mass murder every time it's been tried."

 Slow down there, Sparky! The fact is, guns were already prohibited on the Virginia Tech campus. Having another anti-gun law would be as pointless as outlawing murder, and I don't hear anybody calling for that.

The truth is that these anti-gun wackos are barking up the wrong constitutional doctrine. The problem lies with the First Amendment, not the Second.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with speeching and pressing and religioning and redressing. It's that assembling thing that makes these killing sprees possible. When people get together in large groups, all they're really doing is providing an irresistable target-rich environment, enticing psychopaths to start blasting away. It's like wearing a short skirt and skimpy top while walking down a street - might as well hand out engraved invitations.

Oh, I know what you're going to say. "We need the right of assembly. Groups of angry citizens mobbing together is one of the last lines of defense against a tyrannical government that oversteps it's bounds".

Feh.

Worked really good for the Chinese in Tiananmen Square, didn't it? What are you going to do? Stop a tank by standing in front of it holding a couple shopping bags? That might've worked 200 years ago, but tanks were much smaller then.

The fact is, freedom of assembly is just an archaic holdover from a bygone era. In today's modern age, people have NO REASON to physically get together in large groups. Technology has provided us with e-mail, and telephones, and blogs, and on-line shopping. Everything that used to require physical proximity can now be accomplished virtually. The problem is that our Consitution is just as archaic as the ridiculous "freedom" it enshrines. It needs to be updated to reflect modern realities.

However, Constitutional amendments are notoriously hard to pass (heck the last one took over 200 years), and the fact is, we don't need to do away with public assembly COMPLETELY - be kinda hard to get laid that way - we just need to modify our outdated notions a bit, and live within a more reasonable framework of interpersonal gathering modalities. You know, pass a few prudent laws that sensibly restrict, rather than repeal.

For example, it's tragically obvious at this point that allowing people to assemble for the purpose of education has - without exception - ended in mass murder every time it's been tried. Why not have virtual classrooms? Each student and teacher securely locked away in their own homes, learning via some sort of Skype & Webcam arrangement? Can't have a school shooting without a school, and no one's ever been murdered in the safety of their own home. If only we as a nation had taken this logical and obvious approach earlier! How many lives would've been saved?

Of course, this is only a first step. The sad fact is that other forms of assembly would remain to be dealt with. Work places, malls, parks, orgies, Tupperware parties... all knowingly flaunting their tempting, shootable flesh, driving the disturbed among us mad with unquenchable desire... eventually something would have to be done about those, too. Maybe some judicious amendment-editing IS in order. Even a simple addition like "right of the people peaceably to assemble - one to a room" might be enough.

Anyway, thank you for reading, and please support this common sense approach to tragedy prevention.

Harvey is a non-disabled Navy veteran accidentally hired to fill an affirmative action quota at IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Get Out of Here! This Is MY Room!" and "Should the Right To Assemble Include C++?".

Rating: 2.0/5 (9 votes cast)

Comments (26)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
March 20, 2007
The Iraq War Is Nothing But a Huge Waste
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 11:08 AM

 As I see images of the Iraq war on TV, I can't help but think what a huge waste it all is. So many promises were made before it all started, but they are so hollow now. The other day, I met a soldier returning from Iraq, and I asked him, "What do you think you're doing over there?"

 He told me, "We're helping the Iraqi people become free and secure."

 Of course, I then spat on him. My car doesn't run on democratically elected Iraqis.

 We were told this was a war for oil. That's something I could get behind. It was something I could understand. I pay tax money, and, in return, the government sends rough men out to seize cheap oil on my behalf. It's been four years; we should have sucked the place dry by now. Instead, we were trying to do what? Create a democratic Iraq? It's a war, not a social science project!

"My car doesn't run on democratically elected Iraqis."

 I have heard from numerous troops how much they like helping the Iraqi. Well, I guess it's all well and fine then if they enjoy it. Then again it is on my dime. What do you soldiers think you were given assault rifles for? So you could hand out books to school children? So I'm supposed to sit here at tolerate rising gas prices while my tax money is going to fund the military acting like the international version of the book mobile?

They're foreign. Kill them.

 When the did the military ever get it in its head that it's supposed to help people? The only thing it's supposed to help people do is kick the oxygen habit. We fund our soldiers for one purpose and one purpose only: To kill foreigners. All of them. I don't care what their race, creed, or religion is; if they are foreign, then make them dead. Our sovereignty and our gas budgets are going to always be at risk as long as foreignness are allowed to exist. That's why the founding father formed a standing army and sent them out with but one instruction: Kill! Thus, it should be of no concern to our troops whether a foreigner is free or not free. They should only judge foreigners as dead or not dead.

 Really; there are no shades of gray here. It's just a binary equation. If a foreigner is in state "not dead" then change him to state "dead." If "dead," then move on. It's so simple, an elementary computer program could do it. Actually, there is no reason we can't have robots with quite basic programming roaming the country side killing foreigners; is there like some union for the military that keeps troops from being replaced with machines? If not, just give me some grant money and I'll make you those robots. They'll constantly refuel themselves by eating small children. Then, if anyone complains about the kill-bots, you can just say, "Sorry. We can't do anything about them. They've gone crazy and their out of our control."

 I think that's something people would be proud to have their tax money fund.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "The Chronicles of Dubya Volume 1: The Defeat of Saddam" and "Children Are Our Future of Alternative Fuel".

Rating: 2.4/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (31)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
March 13, 2007
We Need to Pay Attention to Our Celebrities
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 10:27 AM

 There is a growing menace in our country, one greater than anything else we face. This group of people is a continuing threat to our way of life. They are inhuman beasts and incapable of restraint. I am speaking of course of celebrities. They have great power and great irresponsibility, using their influence to further the cause of stupidity and licentiousness while going on crazed, drug-addled rampages. They think that, because of their power, they are above the standards of normal people. They are a continuing and growing danger, and that's why we have to give celebrities the attention they warrant.

"When celebrities step outside the law or befall tragedy, it is most important that all Americans hear about it. Repeatedly."

 The first step is a Celebrity Registration Act. It will put into law that all celebrities must register with either the government or People magazine. The public must then be notified whenever a registered celebrity is coming to their town or mall's opening. Registration is only the first step, though. Next, they must be monitored. The most dangerous celebrities should be followed with cameras at all times, their every move recorded and broadcast to a concerned public. More minor celebrity threats only need be monitored periodically in a "Where Are They Now" segment on a cable channel.

To make tracking easier, celebrities should be simple code designation made from from character strings such as "J-Lo" or "K-Fed." Tracking results should be published weekly in journals made available to the public at the library or in the check-out line at supermarkets. For especially concerned citizens, they should be able to have those journals delivered to their home at substantial savings off the cover price.

When celebrities step outside the law or befall tragedy, it is most important that all Americans hear about it. Repeatedly. Such news should have precedence over anything else that is happening either domestically or foreign. Nothing should concern us more. All aspects of any surrounding trial should be scrutinized publicly, and any tidbit about it -- no matter how minor it seems -- should be shared with the American people. To help reform celebrities, certain out of the way places should be designated to allow them to detox. Only under these special conditions can monitoring of a celebrity cease.

Because of the menace and vile influence of celebrities, their coupling is of great concern to us. If any are to marry, we must know immediately and be allowed to see photos. No celebrity marriage should ever be allowed to happen in secret. Of even greater importance is whether celebrities have children, creating and even more vapid generation of celebrities to come. Thus, if video is ever found of one of them engaged in the act of reproduction, it should be made available on the internet at once. When one produces spawn, pictures of the baby must be made public as soon as possible... even if the said pictures cost millions. Also, whatever weird alien name celebrities give their children should be put in the news over and over until we know the names better than that of our own kids.

The threat of celebrities can only be diminished if we pay them constant attention. That's why everything I propose should be put into effect yesterday. Also, celebrities should have to respond to my e-mails.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "The Chronicles of Dubya Volume 1: The Defeat of Saddam" and "The Big Book of Famous Celebrities You've Never Heard Of".

Rating: 2.1/5 (9 votes cast)

Comments (15)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
February 20, 2007
People Who Disagree with Me Should Be Rounded Up and Put into Camps
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 10:57 AM

 Many people disagree with me. Some of those people even live in this great nation of ours. I call these disagreeable people "liberals." Usually I find these people entertaining for they would walk around and say their crazy things and then I would throw stuff at them (often batteries) and laugh. But, in this time of war, there are more important things than laughing at people and throwing stuff at them. Plus, I need to save the batteries for emergency purposes if terrorists attack. These liberals only get in the way in time of war and make our troops and, more importantly, me angry. The many stupid dumb things they say only make this country worse. So we should round them up and put them into camps.

"Right now they act like they don't want to go to camp, but, by the end of summer, they'll be begging to stay."

 You're probably saying, "Frank, you can't just round up everyone who disagrees with you and put them in camps." You are right. I need your help to do this. There are many people who need to be rounded up and they are not very bright and will be easily confused, so getting all these people rounded up will require many people, time, and patience. Plus, we will need trucks or something to bring these people to the camps after the rounding up. Alternatively, we'll need large crates and postage.

"But won't the liberals not like being rounded up and put in camps? Haven't they been whining about that possibility for some time." True, but you know how these people are. Right now they act like they don't want to go to camp, but, by the end of summer, they'll be begging to stay. Which is good because they'll be in camp forever. Also, anyone who tries to escape will be shot in the face as is standard practice.

Camp will be great fun, too. They will have swimming, badminton, and macaroni art. They will also make wallets which you can buy. For those of you who are saying, "But I don't want my money in anything those liberals touched!" that's a bad attitude. Please support the camp because liberals tried hard to make these wallets. One activity in the camp was going to be reeducation, but then I saw how dumb liberals are and decided reeducation would be too hard. Instead of reeducation, there will be a three-legged race.

So where should the camps be? I don't know, as I'm not good with geography. All I know is that I don't want them near me because liberals whine a lot and I don't want to have to hear that when I'm on my back porch smoking a cigar. Also, it could cause my dog to bark. Again, I'm not good with geography, so I'm not sure where not near me is. Someone who has a map should look up where I am and then not put the camps there.

This is a great plan that you should support. In this time of war, other countries will see America united together because everyone who doesn't unite will be in camps. This will scare other countries and their leaders will pee themselves in public venues. The troops will be happy because everyone in America will support them and their mission because, once again, those who don't support them will be in camps. Also, the troops will have new wallets.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "The Chronicles of Dubya Volume 1: The Defeat of Saddam" and "People Who Disagree with Me Should Be Hit with This Book" which is now available in hardcover edition.

Rating: 2.8/5 (10 votes cast)

Comments (35)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
January 29, 2007
Amendment XXVIII: America Is for Winners
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 01:23 PM

 Democrats have lost their way, lost their minds, and lost their balls, so it logically proceeds that they want to lose the war. What I don't understand is why do we have to put up with these losers? Yes, they were elected, but they were obviously elected by other losers and everyone whose opinion counts hates losers. As my dad used to say to me every time before the start of my little league games, "If you lose, I'll beat you until Child Welfare Services takes you away. I don't tolerate losers because America is for winners." His words are as true today as they were then, but it seems we now have a country more tolerant of losers. And who tolerates the losers? Other losers. Thus only one solution exists: Deport the losers.

"Thus only one solution exists: Deport the losers."

 Rounding up losers and deporting them would technically be an easy feat since losers never put up much resistance (it's why they're losers). The problem is that, because of an erroneous interpretation of the Founding Fathers' intent, randomly deporting American citizens is considered unconstitutional. This would be easy to fix by making a new amendment to the Constitution that simply states "America is for winners." Then the Supreme Court would be forced to conclude that, since America is for winners, losers shouldn't be in America and must be deported.

 This would be an easy amendment to pass since losers tend to think they're winners (even though it it obvious to actual winners that they are losers). When the amendment is passed, an Unwinner Activities Council would have to be formed to root out losers infiltrated into American society. The Council would be composed of winners like war heroes and football players (winning football players - and not from that gay European football). When losers are identified, they would be put into those big metal cargo crates and shipped to whatever country we hate the most so the losers can help that country lose wars. And, other countries would be forced to accept our losers because we're winners. You don't want to mess with winners.

 When America is returned to being exclusively to winners, we can finally win all those wars and other stuff since there will no longer be anyone around saying, "Hey. Know what? We should lose." That's loser talk, and it won't be heard in America anymore unless that person wants to be deported. Then, full of only winners, America will be so great that all the world shall tremble at our might.

 Because we're winners.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "The Chronicles of Dubya Volume 1: The Defeat of Saddam" and "Winners Would Buy This Book".

Rating: 3.1/5 (9 votes cast)

Comments (24)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
January 22, 2007
The Main Challenge Facing Conservatives Today Is for Them to Stop Being a Bunch of Hysterical Little Girls
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 01:06 PM

 I think the silliest thing about the left-wing nutters is this "reality based" world they live; it's sort of like a role playing game based on the real world and sit in their basements pretending their blog posting and internet petitions are saving America from being overtaken by fascism. "I'm a level five activist with an enchanted placard of influence!" Because these people are completely worthless and have nothing else in life, so politics can't simply be about competing view points about how to get to the same end, they need to prop it up to being a struggle to save the world. It's silly and inane, but it makes them feel important. Also, it makes me want to kick them in the balls and shout, "Loser!" for the sake of their education.

"Is Zach Braff manly? Not at all!"

 Of course, such self-inflation isn't monopolized by liberal weenies. The Democrats have won an election which brings the inevitably brings out whiny fears from the right about the Dems destroying our country. Many on the right are sure their issue is under attack, and, as goes their pet issue, thus goes the fate of mankind. For instance, I don't know how I got on these mailing lists, but everyday I get like fifty different e-mails about how President Bush is about to sell our sovereignty to Mexico with such over hyped urgency I just want to shout, "Bitch, be cool!"

 Now, there are a lot of problems in the world today... but for reference, I should mention there were a lot of problems in the world yesterday. Plus, there will still be plenty tomorrow. The one thing I know about handling problems is that it helps to project strength, and you don't project strength about getting bloody hysterical about every issue out there. Is running around like Chicken Little showing strength? No, he was voice by Zach Braff. Is Zach Braff manly? Not at all!

 "But Frank!" you say (well, not you, my readers - one of those hysterical people I'm talking about), "There are real problems out there with illegal immigration and Muslims!" Yes, there are real problems out there that should be handled, but there's a difference between recognizing a wasp can sting you and it will hurt and jumping up and down on a table and screaming because a wasp is in the room.

 For instance, let's look at two issues that conservatives tend to be concerned (or too concerned) about: illegal immigration and the spread of Muslim extremists (often in the same circle known simply as "Muslims"). With illegal immigration, we have an uncontrolled border in which Mexicans and sometimes terrorists slip through. The Mexicans harm the economy by taking jobs away from Americans. Many also don't speak English and don't emulate our culture.

 But that's it!

 Sure, it's plenty and a problem that must be addressed, but it's not going to destroy the country. I mean, really, how do some of the alarmist think the Mexicans are going to take over the country? "If we don't handle this problem RIGHT NOW then one day you'll turn around and then there will be nothing but Mexicans and then they'll... uh... and take their sombreros and..." And why is it that the main people I see going on and on about how illegal immigration is going to destroy our country not anyone who has a job that a Mexican can steal? I know there are some out there, but so many people so overly concerned with illegal immigration aren't directly affected at all - which is a red flag when you're looking for real concern versus puffed up invented concern. If you're one of those people with a ranch near the border and want to join the Minutemen, more power to you. Everyone else, just chill. And those who think the government is secretly plotting to form a North American Union, please commit yourself to the nearest institution.

 As for the Islamic extremists, there are plenty of them and they are plotting to kill us right now. Also plotting to kill you: the ant colony you accidentally stepped on. Yes, the Muslims are a greater threat, but they have about as much chance of taking over the world and imposing Sharia on everyone as the ants have of taking over the world and making us work in their underground sugar mines. Nitwits with bombs are very bad and we must make every effort we can to stop them, but as bad as things get, it's still going to be a million times more likely you'll die in a car crash than because of a Muslim.

 "But they're growing in number and their population will overtake Europe and..." Oh, shut up. Sure, extremists will gain ground in some areas, but the whole thing collapses when any of those idiots actually tries to hold power. You may think the most radical Muslims are immune from reality, but reality, which is very large and often very angry, is not scared of Islamists. Reality is plotting to crush them even as we speak.

 A wise man once said, "If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you." To put it another way, stop freaking out thinking that every problem in the distance is about to run you over. Handle things for what they are, but don't pretend every issue is some struggle to save the soul of the world. If you want to pretend to be important, go play "reality based" Dungeons & Dragons in a basement with some Kos Kid. Or, better yet, be a real conservative and face things for what they are instead of being a hysterical little girl. If you don't, it could be the end of society as we know it.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "The Chronicles of Dubya Volume 1: The Defeat of Saddam" and "Shades of Evil: America's Growing Tree Threat".

Rating: 1.8/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (13)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
January 08, 2007
There's a Jew Behind Me!
An Editorial by a Tree
Posted by Frank J. at 10:46 AM

 Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!

 I'm completely serious. Right now, there is a Jew hiding behind me. I can't see him too well - he is behind me as I stated - but I'm sure he's a Jew so one of you Muslims better come quick and kill him, praise Allah.

 Hello? Someone out there? Come on! I know today is not the day of resurrection so I'm jumping the gun a bit, but I figured what's the chance of a Jew ever actually hiding behind me? But, today, there is a Jew right behind me, and it is my day to shine. So, I'm calling out best I can... which is new for me. We trees are pretty quiet. I hope you appreciate the effort I'm making here, and thus maybe, if it's not too inconvenient, one of you faithful Muslims could come over here and kill the Jew.

"You think you'll be getting virgins? Oh no, not for you. You ignored the tree."

 Okay. Fine. Ignore me. Right now the Jew is sitting behind me probably counting his money... or maybe counting your money - and is completely unkilled and no one seems to care. Wait until the Prophet Mohammad hears about this one. You think you'll be getting virgins? Oh no, not for you. You ignored the tree. You'll get crack whores.

 Yeah, I made that last part up. Honestly, I'm not too up on theology since I never read the Koran; again, I'm a tree. All I know it to call out if there's a Jew behind me, so here I am doing my part. Remember: I'm doing you a favor. Muslim, Jew, Hindu... what do I care? I'm a tree. I just thought I'd do a little community service and call out for a Jew to be killed. I guess that was my mistake. Mea culpa. I'll never do it again.

 Hey! You shut up, rock! The Jew is behind me! Yeah, he's near you, but he's hiding behind me. You only get to call out if the Jew is actually hiding behind you, capisce? He's my Jew, so you keep quiet!

 Great! Now the Jew has ran away. Maybe all the trees and rocks yelling out for him to be killed scared him away; I really don't know how a Jew mind works. Well, Muslims, you botched this one. You had the tree calling out and everything, but I guess you were all just too busy. And, I guess with the infidels invade, you'll all be too busy to blow yourself up in their marketplace. "Well, it was a fine religion while it lasted, but everyone just decided to ignore the tree and it all went downhill." Yep, that's what they'll say.

 Still, if you want to try and redeem yourself, there's a squirrel in my branches that's starting to annoy me. If you'd kill him, that would be awesome and I'd put a good word in for you to Allah.

 Hello?

The tree is a regular contributor to photosynthesis, and, while it's never written a book, it has been involved in the publication of nearly every title out there.

Rating: 2.6/5 (14 votes cast)

Comments (14)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
December 18, 2006
If Muslims Want to Improve Their Image, More of Them Need to Be Violent
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 01:17 PM

 Creating a controversy is hard. I've noticed that when people like Ann Coulter have a book out, they say something really controversial to get on TV. Thus, in my last editorial, I took the position that we should kill all Arab children in the hopes people would condemn me and thus I'd get free publicity for my new book.

 No one said a thing.

 But some other blogger simply quotes my editorial and he gets condemned by CAIR until he's shut down. Now CAIR is crowing about how they got rid of the guy who quoted me (they even have a screenshot of the offending post that got them in an uproar where 90% of it is an excerpt of my editorial), but they are completely ignoring me. They claim to be on the lookout for more "hate sites" in Florida, but here I am with my hate site. And it is a hate site because I hate CAIR. They're a bunch of little whiny goobers who make a big uproar anytime a Muslim is looked at funny but have nothing to say for the countless evils being perpetrated by Muslims all over the world as you read this.

"The violent idiots are always going to dominate the news even if they are a small percentage, so the obvious tactic is to gain positive coverage with more acts of violence."

 So, obviously, it's up to me to help Muslims in their PR crisis which is only made worse by the terrorists sympathizers at CAIR. The thing is, it's really not that hard to be liked in America, but it's all about actions. If the new chair for the House Intelligence Committee can't be bothered to know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, you can't expect the average America to actually study the intricacies of the Muslim faith to determine whether Islam really is a peaceful religion. Instead, we're going to judge Islam on what we see, and what we see right now are a bunch of violent morons happily stuck in the seventh century as they kill innocent people and each other and others whining about how people judge Muslims harshly because all the Muslims people see on TV are either violent morons or those whining about how people judge Muslims harshly.

 With that as the status quo, people are going to just naturally be suspicious of Muslims, and more whining about the situation will only make it worse. This situation will be easy to fix if Muslims just take my advice.

 First off, no whining. Ever. And I mean ever. It doesn't matter how horribly you've been treated, don't whine about it. Americans hate injustice, but we hate whiners even more. If you're Muslim and get interviewed about something, never talk about anything other than how much you hate terrorists:

REPORTER: Are you disturbed about the new airline regulations that all Muslims must now be handcuffed to their seats on all airline flights?

MUSLIM: Why are you asking me about something so insignificant as airline regulations when there are terrorists out there in need of killing? Why don't you trade that camera in for a rifle and shoot some terrorists yourself and stop being so useless?

 Currently, when an American sees a Muslim, he's likely to think, "Hey! He's either a terrorist or a whiner! I hope he gets treated horribly!" But, if Muslims take my advice, then Americans are likely to think, "That Muslim could be one of those guys I've seen on TV who really really hates Muslims. I should be nice to him." So, by not whining about bad treatment and focusing on Americans' real concerns, Muslims can get themselves better treatment.

 Of course, the biggest PR problem for Muslims are all those murderous 'tards and the murderous Muslim governments. Some say Muslims should be as peaceful as possible to combat this image, but that's really stupid. The violent idiots are always going to dominate the news even if they are a small percentage, so the obvious tactic is to gain positive coverage with more acts of violence.

 It's important to remember that Americans love violence... but not random violence to nice people. Look at this typical exchange you will often hear in America:

AMERICAN1: A man was beaten to death with a baseball bat!

AMERICAN2: That's horrible!

AMERICAN1: But the man beaten to death molested children.

AMERICAN2: Oh! Awesome!

 American love to see horrible violence perpetrated against bad people. Watch any action film and see what happens to the bad guy in the end; American are always disappointed by the end of a film if the bad guy isn't killed in some horrible way.

 Thus, Muslims can use violence to get Americans to like them. If numerous Muslims just killed terrorists with the furor they often kill Jewish children and woman who have been raped, people would say, "Hey! Those Muslims are awesome!" What Muslims really need to get on TV is the image of some guy being dragged out of a mosque and then ripped apart limb from limb. And, when reporters ask why, the perpetrators would say, "We found out this guy was planning to blow up a daycare center, so we murdered him until there was nothing left to murder!" If Americans saw that, they'd be like, "Wow! Those guys rock! I want to buy them all a round of beer!" If Palestinians bashed a couple guys heads in with rocks and we then found out the reason for that is because the murdered were planning to kill Jews, Americans would say, "Those Palestinians there have their heads on straight. They should get their own state... maybe Syria."

 It's that simple. If Muslims only ever talk about how much they hate terrorists and have numerous bloody spectacles of them killing terrorists, then it will become really cool to be a Muslim in America. Organization like CAIR that promote whining and sympathizing with terrorists only get people to be suspicious of Muslims, and it's really working. In fact, if you're Muslim, please don't e-mail me about this editorial because you scare me.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "The Chronicles of Dubya Volume 1: The Defeat of Saddam" and "Violence Is Aerobic: How I Lost Fifty Pounds Beating Muggers to Death".

Rating: 2.1/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (19)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
November 07, 2006
This Election Is Extremely Important, But Your Own Vote Is Meaningless
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 10:29 AM

 The election this year is very important. The result can determine whether we are serious in fighting a war on terror or whether we're just going to try and ignore the problem until it grows so large it demands our attention. That's why it's important that all of you get out and vote... even though your own vote is quite meaningless and extremely unlikely to have any effect on anything.

"We need everyone to vote, but whether you yourself vote is so insignificant it makes me spit."

 The issues we face today are some of the most important our nation has ever faced. It's imperative that all you reading this vote today. Can your vote have a significant effect on our future? Absolutely not. The chance of your one vote tilting any significant election is statistically small. Most likely, you'll simple have wasted your time by driving to the polls. We need everyone to vote, but whether you yourself vote is so insignificant it makes me spit.

 While the polls make things look gloomy, if Republicans just get out and vote, we can stop those spineless Democrats from weakening our country. That's why we need as many Republicans as possible to get out there and make that difference - though, honestly, whether you vote or just stay home scratching yourself and drinking a beer will have no effect on anything whatsoever. While it's possible that it could come down to one vote in an election, it's just as possible for it to be a tie if you vote, leaving countless other people to say, "If only I voted!" Both are extremely unlikely, though, so much so that you should just put it out of your head. Really, you are wasting your time voting. But, all of you, need to vote to make a difference (but not you individually).

 You may say to yourself, "Yes, I probably won't make a difference with just my vote, but, if everyone thinks like me and does not vote, it will make a difference." That's so stupid it makes me vomit. Do you think you have magical mental powers that your thinking about whether you vote or not will actually cause other people to vote or not? Or do you just think everyone else around you has the ability to read your mind? If you think that, you're such a moron that you shouldn't vote for the influence your stupidity would have on our democracy (which is none since one vote makes no difference). Maybe you think people seeing you voting and wearing an "I Voted!" sticker will influence others to vote, but then you should buy an "I Voted!" sticker and wear it all day long whether you vote or not (just be careful not to influence Democrats with your shiny sticker).

 I hope you understand my point, though. It's very important that all of you reading this, which is a significant number, vote, because that could tip some important elections. It's just that you yourself will have no effect on this whatsoever, and whether you go vote or drown in puddle in a back alley will make no difference on this election. So, go vote!

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Democracy Is Annoying" and "Hacking Diebold for Dummies".

Rating: 2.3/5 (10 votes cast)

Comments (7)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
October 30, 2006
A Religious War Would Be a Great Step Towards Ending Racism
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 11:11 AM

 Despite many advances in race relations (even I no longer think all Mexicans are lazy), there is still a long way to go until everyone of every race are treated as equals. So, how can we begin down that path of true racial equality? I think the answer is quite obvious: A bloody religious war.

"We'll have the white man, the black man, the china man, and the wetbacks all fighting side by side against the dreaded Moslem enemy."

 Religion is a great reason for war, as its something people feel strongly about that isn't associated with just a particular race. And what religion to war against? Obviously, the Muslims... or, to get into the spirit, our "dreaded Muslim enemy" (or maybe "Moslem enemy" if that spelling looks more threatening). Those Moslems would be more than happy to have a religious war, so we shouldn't feel like we're inconveniencing them to put them in one. To get started, we just have to learn to hate all the Moslems proper, or, should I say, hate, the vile Moslems who thirst constantly for our blood (yeah, I'm liking the "Moslem" spelling).

 You're probably worrying about the death and destruction, but, remember: To make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs. Similarly, to end racial strife, we need an extremely bloody war in which millions will be killed. But focusing on the death is missing the point. In a war between Moslems and those who don't follow the evil Mohammed (or maybe "Muhammad" because I think that's more foreign-looking), who would make up the group out to destroy the blight of Islam? Why, all races, of course, as non-Moslems are of all races and most nationalities. Think of the beauty of it all when this war gets going: We'll have the white man, the black man, the china man, and the wetbacks all fighting side by side against the dreaded Moslem enemy.

 As for the Moslems we'll slaughter, it will be a diverse group as well. Dying by our figurative sword (it will actually be assault rifles and bombs) will be Arabs, Asians, blacks, and even the occasional whitey. Everyone loves to kill whitey. Since the evil Muhammad invited all to join with him and Satan, we'll have a pretty racially diverse enemy. Admittedly, it's not quite as diverse as those who don't follow the false prophet, but I think it's a good enough group to slaughter for the purposes of racial healing.

 Nothing brings people together like fighting for a common cause, and what better cause to unite all races of people together than ending the scourge of those vile, sub-human Moslems with their evil, scheming eyes? While people have held many different beliefs throughout the years, the one thing we all have in common is not being Moslem - except for those who are Moslem, and, together, we will fight them to the death. And recognizing our similarities as we send the dreaded Moslems to join Muhammad in hell will make us a people who can stand together whatever other differences we have. Now, some of you may say you'd be against a worldwide religious war because it's senseless slaughter in which millions of innocent people would die, but maybe you should look into your heart and realize the reason you’re against slaughtering Moslems is because you hate black people.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "War: What Isn't It Good For?" and "Ending Racism Through Sexism".

Rating: 2.9/5 (7 votes cast)

Comments (35)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
October 20, 2006
Republicans, Democrats and 3 Dollar Bills
An Editorial By Spacemonkey
Posted by spacemonkey at 05:49 PM

smart monkey As you know by now, Republicans are all completely gay. You, me, all of us. Queer as a proverbial three Euro note (or the regular one Euro note for that matter). Sweet as an all-month sucker. It's a proven fact. Ask any Democrat and they will assure you that it is so. Try as we may like to deny it, the allegations speak for themselves loudly, openly and proudly. We just have to deal with it. I mean there are lists! With NAMES!

And once you get listed as a gay, there's simply no unlisting. You don't go back in the closet, unless you coordinate very well. Even then it's just to get dressed for an outing of some sort. You just can't unlick the cat, so to speak. You also can't unwrestle the snake, though I think I may have coined that term right out of hand, so to speak.

The most stunning part of all this new queer reality or queerality is the idea that we must hate ourselves and not vote for our gay brethren and sistren any 'mo for the simple fact of our mutual gaiety. But is our own undeniably fabulous gayness a sufficient reason to do as the liberals would have us to do? To do what used to seem unthinkable namely voting for a Democrat? Or staying home and not voting for fear of supporting one of "them" (you know, us)? No, of course not, don't be such a fag.

The Democrats pushing this crap is like the pot calling the kettle FABULOUS!

We must put aside our self hate and focus on a return to our grassroots of hating all those who hate America. Namely the Democrats. We express our hate for them by keeping them out of office. And by logical extension, the terrorists. We can expressing our hate for them by keeping them from breathing. Who hated us when we were just Americans? Who hates us doubly more now that we are gays as well? I'll tell you who. Democrats and terrorists. TerrorCrats if you will.

After all, these two groups have demonstrated an affinity for sucking up to each other for mutual benefit time after time and then they spit all over America. Bending over backward to show their sensitivity to each other's needs and wants. They have formed a circle of trust and openly give each other a hand when a job needs doing to hurt America. What total slimy jerks!

No I tell you TerrorCrats are the real girly men and manly girls. I call on all Republicans to not fall for this "Stay at Homo this Election Day" business. Instead we all need to "Get out the vote! Dress Flamboyant But Vote Conservative!"

Spacemonkey is the author of such books as "We're Here, We're WHAT!!!?!? I can't deal with that", and "Gay as in Happy" and "The Secret to Staying Super Straight."

Rating: 1.9/5 (7 votes cast)

Comments (20)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
October 16, 2006
The War in Iraq Is Going Either Very Well or Very Poorly... Or So-So... I Think
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 09:41 AM

 After listening to the numerous opinions on the Iraq War, it has become quite obvious that something is happening in that country. The current state of affairs will most certainly be detrimental to the Middle East's future unless it is beneficial or of no effect whatsoever. This goes doubly for Iraqis themselves. And I can say that with great certainty as it the opinion of the numerous pundits who have been to Iraq or read a book on Iraq or saw numerous news stories on Iraq as well as the numerous pundits who have listened to those pundits. While some (or many) may argue that some (or many) of those opinions are based more on biases than facts, it is important to remember that that doesn't mean those opinions are wrong. Unless they are wrong... but they may not be. So keep that in mind.

"So, is it worth the cost in the lives of our soldiers? This is a good question unless it's missing the point."

 So how did Iraq end up it's current state? This is quite directly attributable to the success or failure of the Bush Administration... unless of course things happened that were completely out of their hands. The consensus of opinion, though, is that the blame lies somewhere unless it was no one's fault. It's hard to argue with that... but some will anyway. Obviously, Rumsfeld underestimated the number of troops needed unless he got the number right or possibly sent too many. This caused the Iraq War to be a front or distraction to the War on Terror, which we all agree is an important fight or a blunder that never should have been started. According to those in the know, and those not in the know, and those who don't know what they know, this should all have some or no effect on the future.

 So, is it worth the cost in the lives of our soldiers? This is a good question unless it's missing the point. According to some and many and some of those many, the current number of American lives lost in the war is unacceptably high or very low or about what's expected. This is quite obvious if you look to other American wars which are good measures or misleading, as the battles in them were quite similar to today except for the differences. All agree, though, that the sacrifice of our soldiers should or should not be respected as they are dying for our freedom or for no reason whatsoever. Certainly no one would celebrate those deaths other than those who do. And that's a good/bad thing (or vice versa).

 And what about the Iraqis who died? This is important to consider unless it is irrelevant. Everyone agrees that tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands have died as a result or regardless of this war... except for those who put the number in the millions or much less. Obviously, this is a number different or the same as those who would have died under Saddam... though those number could have been exaggerated or underestimated. But life is certainly better or worse for Iraqis now if you discount those for who things have remained the same. That's why many Iraqis are angry or happy or ambivalent, and can expect a bright or bitter future or more of the same. What experts and expert-sounding people do agree on (for the most part) is that there will be a future of some sort.

 What is important or pointless is establishing a stable democracy in Iraq. This easily attainable to impossible, but requires us to stay the course or do a completely different strategy… unless it's more prudent to just give up. What everyone agrees on, though, is that a stable democracy is what will bring peace to region unless a friendly dictator would be more practical or we should just get out of there and not care either way.

 The Iraq War certainly is something. All agree that there is an Iraq and that stuff is happening there. Also, it is quite certain that some sort of action/inaction is required by the U.S. Less certain is whether out of the thousands of people commenting on Iraq, if any of them actually know anything. What I do know for sure, though, is that I'm hungry... unless I'm misinterpreting a feeling of nausea, that is.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Victorious Quagmire: Yet Another Book About Iraq from Someone Clamining to Know What's He's Talking About" and "Bacon Calms the Mind: A Look at the Root Causes of Islamic Terror".

Rating: 2.4/5 (16 votes cast)

Comments (52)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
October 12, 2006
A Ducky Editorial: In Praise of Madonna
Posted by RightWingDuck at 11:03 AM

This may sound strange to state, but I have to agree with Madonna and her recent decision to adopt a young, dark child. It's not that I don't like Madonna. Afterall, I do appreciate her sacrifice on the cross. A sacrifice she makes at her concerts several times a week, twice on Saturdays. It's just that she's always so darn preachy.

Well, now I'm on board with the program. That's why I say we should all follow Madonna's example of lovingness. Yes, we should all travel to foreign countries, find poor families, and take away their children.

This young boy did not have a mother but he did have a father. I'm not sure how this qualifies as being an orphan, but who am I to judge the ways of these weird third world countries.

But sweeping a young man away from his father and taking him to live with a rich, white singer is the right thing to do in most cases (the exception being the Britney Rule.) If this catches on, maybe one day we can bring this program to America. I can just envision rich white couples cruising the streets of Harlem saying, " Ooooh. I want that one."

Anyway, I commend Madonna and her actions. So if you know somebody who is poor and struggling, maybe you too can come and take away their kids. It's really for the best. Poor people tend to grow up without money, and that's bad for the economy. Not only that, but they also tend to vote Democrat. This leads to a vicious cycle of being poor and stupid, poor and stupid. Many stay in that horrible cycle for decades. Some break out by discovering acting.

Remember: You too can make a difference.

Disclaimer: RightWingDuck is not up for adoption but does accept donations. Neither RWD nor IMAO endorse the snatching of kids and recommend that all kid snatching be done through appropriate channels such as adoption agencies and Mark Foley's office.

Rating: 2.5/5 (10 votes cast)

Comments (26)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
October 09, 2006
The Only Effective Compromise to End Our Illegal Immigration Problem Is to Destroy Mexico
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 12:27 PM

 The United States of America has a huge problem with illegal immigration. Many say this is the fault of America for being so super awesome that everyone wants in. This is a valid criticism. The current proposal to handle the problem is to build a wall along the Mexican border. Of course, natural selection means we'll then cause a new breed of super-Mexicans to evolve and jump over the wall. They will not only do the jobs Americans are unwilling to do, they will do the jobs we are physically incapable of. So, what is the solution? Some say we should deport all the illegal immigrants here now, but there are millions making that infeasible. Others say we should let anyone in who wants to be here, but then we lose our border and finally our sovereignty and national security. The only real compromise I can see is to destroy all of Mexico.

"Isn't destroying Mexico the same thing as amnesty?"

 I know many of you are thinking "Isn't destroying Mexico the same thing as amnesty?" Since Mexicans in our country would now have no where to be deported to, they would effectively get amnesty. But, we could be sure they will be loyal to America since they have no other country to be loyal to. Why do marches with a flag of a non-existent country? Also, having utterly destroyed Mexico leaving nothing but murky water filled with radioactive sharks, we could be sure no more illegal immigration will come from the south. Thus, both sides get something they want: the pro-illegal immigration is assured that Mexicans who came here just to better their families get to stay, and the anti-illegal-immigration people get to know that no more dirty Mexicans will be flowing into the country.

 You're probably now wondering how much will this innovative solution cost? Well, the cost of the nuclear weapons needed to completely obliterate Mexico will be more than the cost of the wall, but, those are resources we own now and have already paid for. Others, especially illegal-alien sympathizers, may worry how many innocent Mexicans will die because of this. The answer is none, because no Mexicans are innocent in my mind. Still, we will give Mexico warning, and station our troops on our border so the Mexicans are forced to flee to Venezuela... or whatever is south of them. Check a map yourself, I'm busy.

 Now, unfortunately, this solution will not work for any border problems we have with Canada. While Mexico only produces burritos and tequila Mexican alcohol and clay pots - things we can get plenty of here in America - Canada has oil, something we can never have too much of. Instead, we'll simply have to intimidate them into bowing to our will. I suggest bombing their places of worship - maples trees and hockey rinks - until they surrender. Many of them are French, so surrender is in their blood and they've probably been dying to capitulate to us for years.

 Thus, we see the solution to our problem of illegal immigration is as simple as bombing the crap out of one of our neighbors. This compromise will let hard working Mexicans stay with no worries of being deported while making sure we no longer have anymore influx of illegals. Thus, everyone is happy, and, as with all my plans, there is no downside. So write your Congressman and let's get a bipartisan commission working on this right away.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "How Many Countries Is Too Many?" and "The History of the Burrito: How the Tortilla Wrapped Delicacy Was Stolen from the Irish by Thieving Mexicans and How the Irish Forgot About It Due to Heavy Drinking".

Rating: 3.0/5 (13 votes cast)

Comments (29)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
September 12, 2006
Terrorists Need to Be More Like Kos
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 12:20 PM

 This morning, terrorists tried to storm the U.S. Embassy in Damascus while shouting, as Reuters put it, "religious slogans" (according to the sources of blogger Mary Katherine Ham, the religious slogans were "Jesus loves me, this I know."). Three of the terrorists were killed and one was wounded while they succeeded in only killing one person, one of Syria's anti-terrorism forces, and failed to even harm a single American diplomat.

 Sounds like a "moral victory" for the terrorists to me, a Kossian triumph, if you will. Their goals were not accomplished, more harm was inflicted on them than they inflicted, but they stuck to their principles while mindlessly fighting overwhelming odds, and that's worth something. I'm not sure what it's worth - that's more of question for Kos, the Queen of Moral Victories - but, as terrorists find real victories much harder to attain, I think they should learn from these principled gunmen and focus on the moral victory.

"I'm sure Kos would be glad to help as long as none of the terrorists watch anything on ABC."

 Despite what some may say, effective terrorism isn't that easy. If orchestrated attacks against America were a simple thing, we'd certainly have seen much more of it in the past five years. What is easy and doesn't take a lot of planning - planning that can be picked up by intelligence services - is simply charging the infidels with guns blazing.

 You can't just charge any infidels, though; for a real moral victory, one you can clutch to in your times of darkest misery, you have to take on overwhelming odds. Unfortunately for the terrorists, they can't hire Kos as a consultant since he's busying trying to flip Sen. Joe Lieberman over to the Republicans - his magnum opus of moral victories - though I'm sure he'd be glad to help as long as none of the terrorists watch anything on ABC. Still, I have my own advice for terrorists who want to really show their worth by sticking to their beliefs while picking a battle they can't possibly win: Attack heavily armed U.S. Marines head on.

 Now there are some overwhelming odds... especially if the Marines have tanks and stuff. The terrorists might think you have some chance since the Marine will probably keel over laughing when they see you charging them, but the Marines are trained to fire from keeled over positions. Actually, the only hope of victory for them is that the Marines would all suddenly have heart attacks and spontaneously drop dead; it's extremely unlikely, but it's hope nonetheless, and that's all you need to pick a fight and gain a moral victory. And what a moral victory that would be for the terrorists; they would be fighting the best armed, best trained fighting force in the world. Though they would be slaughtered wholesale, they would die knowing they didn't let rational fear keep them from attempting an unattainable victory. As they're cut to pieces, they could rest assured they stuck to their principles.

 So, stick to your beliefs, terrorists, and go for the moral victory. Stop cowering in the shadows when you can instead fight for what you believe in against the overwhelming force of U.S. military might. Then, you can know you weren’t a cowards but instead gave it your all for what you believed it, and that's something that you can hold onto even while you’re stuck in flames that burn but do not consume. Maybe Kos will even take a break from leading the Democrats to extinction through his own moral victories to cheer you guys on; just don't point out that he seems a bit... well... "off". That causes him to go completely nuts.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Understanding the Mind of a Terrorist (Now with Color Photos from the Dissection)" and "The Pied Piper of the New Age: More Proof that Kos Is Actually Karl Rove".

Rating: 3.1/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (11)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
September 05, 2006
By Any Objective Measure, Islam Is for Losers
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 12:36 PM

 As you've probably seen, Al Qaeda is now trying to recruit everyone into Islam. I don't think that will work out too well, as they've yet to give any reason to join their happy fun religion other than that, if we don't, they may possibly one day successfully do another terrorist attack and kill a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of one percent of the non-Islamic population. It's telling their recruiting campaign sticks to empty threats rather than listing the merits of Islam, because, apparently, there just aren't any merits to list.

"Were you to look at the conditions of Muslims versus non-Muslims, one can only conclude that God really doesn't like Islam."

 What is the average Muslim? Some guy who hasn't bathed in a week wearing a dress as he wanders the desert escorting a woman dressed like a ninja. What possible sane reason can someone name for me to want to be a part of that? Is there anything other than murderousness that Muslims succeed the rest of the population in? Have they contributed anything scientifically or culturally to the world in the past hundred years? They did get us to change our screening procedures at airports, but I'm stumped at coming up with anything more significant than that.

 To be sure, there are plenty of smart, productive Muslims... but they're all here in Western countries run by the non-Islamic. The more Islamic a country gets, the more Godforsaken it seems to be... which really doesn't speak well of the religion. Were you to look at the conditions of Muslims versus non-Muslims, one can only conclude that God really doesn't like Islam. I'm not saying that's true; I'm just saying that were one to observe things objectively, you're forced to conclude that. The Islamic countries are pretty much the worst countries out there. Like Robinson Crusoe, they're as primitive as can be (but more murderery). Do they even make those Korans they love to read, or are those done by independent presses here in the States? Do those dress-like garments they wear bear the labels "Made in Taiwan"? I really want to know.

 Sure, they do have oil, which, by itself, seems like a gift from God, but, when taken against everything else, it's more like a few nickels tossed at a beggar. It's like God gave the Islamic countries oil just to keep them around to laugh it. If it weren't for their oil, the rest of the world would pretty much ignore them while they slaughtered each other (though some entrepreneur might film some of the carnage to sell packaged along with Bum Fights).

 Now, I know the response to this: "Sure, Muslims don't seem very favored in this world, but wait until the rewards in the next." Now, I haven't read the Koran (it's next on my reading list after Tom Clancy's Op-Center XII: War of Eagles), but, apparently, if you blow yourself along with a room full of daycare students, you get 72 virgins in heaven. Thus, Islam seems to be out to attract sex perverts. Still, is 72 women whom you really want to spend all eternity with? I know I don't find it to be that great an idea. Eventually, you will get tired of the sex, and will any of these women be able to give interesting opinion on the latest episode of Battlestar Gallactica or be good competition for a game of Mario Kart? I don't know, and the Koran is silent on this issue. What I do know is, when my wife find me with 72 no-longer-virgins, heaven is going to become hell rather quickly.

 All in all, Islam seems to be full of a lot of murderous, barbaric, moron losers who obviously don't have any girlfriends. I don't know if Islam causes people to be murderous, barbaric, moron losers, but there certainly is a strong correlation between the two. Maybe Islam, as it now stands, happens to attract murderous, barbaric, moron losers while repelling kinder more intelligent people. I just don't know, but what I do know is that, at this time, I'm going to have to decline Al Qaeda's generous offer to join their religion which, by any objective measure, is quite crappy.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Glances of the Legendary: New Documented Sighting of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and Moderate Muslims" and "The Scientific Contributions of Muslims in the Past One Hundred Years (Now with a Third Page of Pictures)".

Rating: 2.8/5 (15 votes cast)

Comments (28)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
July 31, 2006
Proportionate Responses Never Ended a War
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 11:00 AM

 People keep urging Israel to keep their responses to terrorist attacks "proportionate". What?! Who would say such a crazy thing except those in love with war? If they kill three people, and, wanting to be proportionate, Israel kills three people, that only keeps the cycle of violence going on forever. And that is not a cycle you want to be on, because, if you do too well, the French will act all surprised when blood tests on a man reveal the presence of testosterone.

"Obviously, many critics of Israel have never been to war school. Also, they hate Jews."

 Responses to attacks must be disproportionate to end wars. This is basic war logic that one learns on the first day of war school. Obviously, many critics of Israel have never been to war school. Also, they hate Jews... but this is common and unremarkable. What is important is to understand how disproportionate responses end wars. If you always respond proportionately, then the enemy who is bad will always know the risks with each attack since he knows exactly how you will respond. But, with disproportionate attacks, the enemy (who still is bad) will not know how you respond, for any response can happen for someone who responds disproportionately. This makes bad people who are the enemy scared.

 Let us look at real world example: If terrorists blow up a car and Israel responds proportionately by blowing up one of the terrorists' cars, this will not scare the terrorists because they have crappy cars. Thus, terrorists will continue to blow up good Israeli cars while collecting insurance on their crappy cars when Israel responds proportionately. Now, if terrorists blow up a car and Israelis respond disproportionately by blowing up five cities - cities the terrorists like - this is much more likely to discourage the terrorists. They will think, "If Israel keeps responding in this disproportionate way, they will blow up all our cities a thousand times over by the time we destroy all their cars. We don't want that; our stuff is in those cities." Thus, through disproportionate responses, the conflict is ended. This is good and smart way to fight.

 Now, a disproportionate response does not have to be more than the initial attack; responding with much less is also disproportionate. Let's say terrorists murder five Israeli families. Instead of murdering five terrorist families (a proportionate response) or nuking Mecca (disproportionate response of greater force), the Israelis could respond by kidnapping one of the terrorists' goats and put lipstick and a dress on the goat (which would be really ridiculous since it's a male goat). Then, the Israelis could broadcast video of the goat and everyone standing around laughing at the goat in a dress (who is also wearing lipstick). While this would be a disproportionate response, it would be unlikely to discourage bad people as much as killing and explosions do (unless terrorists fear nothing more than the public mockery of their goats; then this is a very strategic response).

 Some worry that disproportionate responses to terrorist attacks could harm civilians. My solution to this is to not worry. Civilians serve little purpose in war; whether they live or die gives little advantage to either side since they don't fight (that's why they are civilians). This is why I don't understand why terrorists target civilians since those aren't the ones they need to be worried about killing them. It may be easiest to kill little Israeli children, but they are no threat compared to older Israelis with machine guns. I guess terrorists are unable to do a proportionate response or higher since Israelis with machine guns tend to kill terrorists, so they target civilians. This is not good strategy though, as it only angers those with machine guns who were the bigger threat to begin with.

 So, to end this conflict, Israel must continue with disproportionate responses. If terrorists shoot someone, then Israel must bomb a city. If terrorist blow up a building, Israel should destroy one of the terrorists' greatest holy symbols - the Eiffel Tower. Then terrorists become very scared and pee their pants and can't buy new pants because they're too busy protecting their goats from public ridicule. When the enemy is reduced to a bunch of scared people with soiled pants standing in front of their goats, then war is won and conflict is over. This you learn on last day of war school.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "If Someone Mugs You, You Mug Him Back and Kill His Family: A Guide to Self-Defense" and numerous textbooks for war class at war school.

Rating: 2.2/5 (13 votes cast)

Comments (18)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
July 24, 2006
What the Middle East Needs Is More Landmines
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 12:23 PM

 Some people say that the problem with the Middle East is too many people blowing up, but I'd say the opposite: All animals keep to themselves that the benefit of the Outer West is too few animals rebuilding.

 Well, I guess the opposite doesn't make much sense, but what I will say is that the problem with the Middle East is that too few people are blowing up. What we need is more landmines.

"Middle East = BOOM!"

 The problem with people in the Middle East is that terrorists have too much ability to move around. If landmines were everywhere, though, that would change everything. When a terrorist heads to blow himself up in a crowded Israeli street, he would instead get blown up on his own street as soon as he walked the door and stepped on one of the many landmines that were placed there. Soon terrorists would have to watch the ground and tip-toe carefully - and how threatening can a bunch of people on their tip-toes be?

 Some may be concerned that innocent people could be killed by these landmines. That is stupid. If someone is innocent, then why is he hanging out in the Middle East - a known haven for terrorists? I think most people know by now that, if you don't want to get blown up, stay out of the Middle East. When the entire place is covered in landmines, people will know it all the more: Middle East = BOOM! In fact, it's possible being exploded was invented in the Middle East. It may be the only thing invented in the Middle East.

 Princess Di used to campaign against landmines, but she died in a car crash (for which I have an alibi). Thus, landmines could become popular again. If we cover the Middle East in landmines, then we can blow up the bad people - and you know they’re bad if they’re wandering around the Middle East (who wanders but to plot!). As the saying goes: Fences make good neighbors, and landmines make terrorists stay at home unless they want get exploded.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Landmines: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Explosive Device" and "Blow Up This Book".

Rating: 2.4/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (8)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
July 17, 2006
We Could Have Peace in the Middle East If Only a Few More People Would Condemn Israel
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 12:17 PM

 Now as Israel further continues the cycle of violence by once again responding to murder and kidnapping, peace in the Middle East seems ever more hopeless. If we ever want to have peace in the Middle East, we need even more people to do the brave thing and condemn Israel. Only that will send a clear message that violence - when committed by Jews - is wrong.

"Violence - when committed by Jews - is wrong."

 Israel has had a long history of responding to attacks on its people, and what do they have to show for it? More attacks! Israel seems to have missed an essential fact about the area in which they live: It's full of Muslims. Grass is green, the sky is blue, and Muslims live in corrupt dictatorships and murder people. That's just how things are. Does Israel really think they can solve that with violent attacks against the violent? That's madness. Israel should have known that, by their location, they were essentially agreeing to get murdered every so often; anything else is cultural ignorance. But, by joining our voices in a cry of condemnation, maybe we can wake Israel up to the fact. We'll have to shout loud for them to hear us over Hezbollah's bombs, but they have to hear us now.

 If you look at it, what other option does Israel have other than to stand there and take it when Muslims inevitably attack? Fighting back won't discourage them; Muslims love getting killed and becoming martyrs. It's like their favorite past time. Unless Israel plans to convert everyone in the Middle East to Judaism (and I know they aren't; think of all the wangs that would need cutting), they're going to get attacked no matter what they do. So why fight back? Unlike Muslims, Jews are supposed to know better about killing people. Do they really think they're going to get recognized by more countries in the Middle East by reminding them how militarily impotent all those Muslim countries are? It's foolishness, and, if only a few more of you would join me in telling Israel they are very very bad, maybe they'll finally look past their dead to reason.

 Once we condemn Israel and get them to finally stop hurting their neighbor Muslims (who are very good at hurting each other anyway), maybe they can finally work out some treaties with those who want to murder them. They can put a limit on how many Jews can be killed a month. Of course, the Muslims will probably exceed the limit, but it's the thought that counts. By negotiating with murderous Muslims on their terms, Israel would set an example for the rest of the world to follow.

 Israel is at war and surrounded by millions of people who want them dead, so what they need most right now is our criticism. Let's remind them who were the ones who decided to be Jews where they are not wanted so maybe they'll realize their folly and stop the aggression. Then we will finally have peace in the Middle East (as long as you don't count Muslim violence – but who does?).

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "A History of Violence in the Middle East: A Brief on a Wide Range of Topics from Muslims to Islam" and "Tolerating Murder: A Guide to Cultural Sensitivity".

Rating: 2.5/5 (10 votes cast)

Comments (12)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
June 26, 2006
To Win the War on Terror, We Need Some Sort of Ray to Cause People's Heads to Explode
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 11:51 AM

 Since we started the war on terror, we have killed many terrorists. Still, there are many more terrorists out there. And, the terrorists we think we killed with guns or bombs, how can we be sure they are dead? Even if we are sure they're dead, how can we know they won't come back as terrorist zombies? The solution to this is obvious: we need some sort of ray to make their heads explode.

"Soon terrorists will learn that terrorism means an exploded head."

 Such a ray is quite possible to build. There is a thing called "resonance frequency" - this is a real thing I have not made up but heard from very scientifical people. If a resonance frequency of an object is reached, it vibrates and explodes. All that is needed to be done is to find the resonance frequency of terrorist heads. For this, I will need heads to experiment on. Once said frequency is found, building the ray will be easy because I have already drawn the design on a napkin (ironically, that design is so complex that, were you to try and understand it, your head would explode). Why did I use a napkin when perfectly good paper was nearby? Because napkins have a special texture good for bringing out thought. Smart people like me know this.

 Once I have the resonance frequency and millions of government dollars, I will build the head-exploding ray. Then fighting terrorists will be easy. First, we must find them. This is also easy. In a crowded area, yell, "Hey! Terrorists!" Whoever turns to answer must be terrorists. Explode their heads with ray. Soon terrorists will learn that terrorism means an exploded head. Some may still be terrorists thinking they will get 72 virgins when they go to paradise after their heads explode, but we will find the terrorists paradise and explode the virgins heads too! Nowhere is safe from the head-exploding ray!

 You may worry that the head-exploding ray will fall into the wrong hands. I worry about this too, so it will be designed with sensors to tell whether "wrong" or "right" hands are holding it. If it is in the wrong hands, it will emit an annoying buzzing sounds so that the person who has it will be like, "I really want to explode heads for the cause of evil, but that sounds is just too annoying. Foiled once again by the genius of Frank J.!"

 As you see, my plan is perfect. You are probably now worried that my intellect is so great that I can destroy cities with my mind. This is a legitimate worry. A while ago, I thought about New Orleans, and look what happened to it. Luckily, I have a short attention span, so I can't think about anything for too long so as to totally destroy something.

 That reminds me! I have another idea to fight terrorists. As we all know, terrorists shrivel up and die when they come in contact with ham. Thus, I have designs for a device that flings hams - a device I call the ham-flinger. It is so complex, the designs had to be written on toilet paper because even a napkin could not hold such genius. I would like to describe it to you, but the English language is inadequate to properly describe something so complicated as the ham-flinger. I would have to invent my own language to tell you about it, and it would take you the rest of your life to learn the language so I could then tell you about the ham-flinger. So, instead of worrying about how the ham-flinger works, just rest assured that Frank J. is out there building something that flings ham.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Monkeys Bite! - A Guide to Monkeys" and "This Book Is Too Complicated for You to Understand".

Rating: 2.8/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (16)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
June 19, 2006
Of the Two Koreas, I Prefer the Southernmost One
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 11:49 AM

 If you've paid attention to the news, you may have noticed that there are two Koreas. Odd, but true. One China, one Japan, but two completely separate Koreas. Did they both accidentally name themselves Korea without hearing about the other? Unlikely, since these two different Koreas are right next to each other. So are they completely alike? No. Despite one huge similarity - being full of Koreans - they are quite different, and, if I had to choose just one to keep, I'd pick the southernmost Korea.

"Those are my chips; I bought them!"

 The southernmost Korea is very nice. In fact, they're our friends. They let us keep military bases there, which is very nice since, having a Marine brother, I know firsthand how drunken and disorderly U.S. troops tend to be (can I get an "Ooh-rah!"). Also, they have their own electronic companies to compete against the greedy Japanese (greedy like us; that's why they're our friends too). The southernmost Korea also made my Hyundai Santa Fe which is a very nice mid-size SUV that was cheap and came with a ten year bumper-to-bumper warranty. Finally, it’s the Koreas in the south who animate The Simpsons. Though The Simpsons aren't as good as they used to be, the animation has only gotten even better.

 The Koreans to the north are not very nice, though. They make no electronics, no cars, and animate no shows. The only thing they export is threats of nuclear death, which is not very nice at all. Their leader is a pudgy man with poofy hair - poofy hair being the universal symbol of tyranny. Sometime, I wish those Koreas to the north would just die - and many do because they are starving. I hate starving people. Starving people are impossible to talk to while eating you're eating a bag of chips because they're always like, "Could I please have some of your chips? I am so hungry!" You try and change the subject, but they won't let up on asking for your chips. Those are my chips; I bought them! Get away from me, you hungry Korean!

 You may say, "You make the Korea to the south sound so good and the one to the north sound so bad as to make it obvious which one I should like more, but isn't it true that the Korea to the south supports slavery." Well, you are mistaken. You are mixing up the southernmost Korea with the South from the American Civil War. What I do hear about southern Korea that is bad is that they eat dogs. That is wrong. Dog are not for eating; dogs are for hugging and biting bad people - bad people who eat dogs, perhaps. Then again, the Korea to the north will eat not just dogs but anything at all because they are so hungry. I hate hungry people! Another thing you may have heard about the southernmost Korea is they are a democracy, and I know you can name all the things wrong with democracy. But the Korea to the north is Communist, and Communism is nothing but one big wrong. For the leaders of the Korea in the north to pick Communism was just as dumb and bad as to pick having a poofy hairstyle.

 Now, if someone asks you which Korea you like better, you can say you like the southernmost one and give informed reasons as why. If they person you are talking to keeps arguing that the other is better, though, just tell him, "The northernmost Korea killed my father." That will shut him up. It may be a lie, but the important thing is you'll win the argument.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "North Is Up: A Frank Guide to Geography" and "A Tree Killed My Father: Why I'm Against Saving the Environment".

Rating: 2.1/5 (6 votes cast)

Comments (10)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
June 12, 2006
Zarqawi's Death Is Merely a Distraction from the Fact that We Have Yet to Capture and Kill Kofi Annan
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 11:21 AM

 There is much celebration just because we dropped a bomb on the insignificant terrorist Zarqawi. Are we really safer, though? Can we now walk the streets at night without a care? Can we ride a bobcat with a saddle on it without fear of being mauled? No. Zarqawi's death changes nothing, because the real evil mastermind is still out there plotting against America and issuing statements against us and Israel with impunity as our government does nothing to stop him. Well, I won't cheer because one goofball terrorist is pig-feed; I will only feel safer when Kofi Annan is finally dead.

"After the panic comes the resolve - the resolve to hunt and kill Kofi Annan."

 Kofi Annan is, as I type, actively working to overthrow America. He heads a large international organization - known only by its initials "U.N." - of likeminded thugs. They debate how to destroy us and our ally Israel, releasing videotapes of their vicious statement against us with impunity. Why can't we find them and stop them? Is there even a search for their headquarters? No. I suspect politics has something to do with it. Al Qaeda is the hot topic now, and I suspect many fear the "U.N." and its mastermind Kofi Annan. Maybe, some even sympathize with this criminal organization. I've heard rumors from respected sources that, during this War on Terror, Kofi Annan has even been able to infiltrate American soil, giving speeches and making recruits right under our noses!

 Did you know these enemies of America and democracy even have their own military, and it only will grow until we finally make some effort against them? Also, they have cells in hundreds of countries - including, if rumors are true - a huge base of operations in the U.S. Are you scared? I know I am. This is far more than a few suicide bombings we have to worry about; these people could seriously undermine America's power abroad. Maybe that's why we don't have a public campaign against them; the government fears it could panic the average American if it publicized these facts. Well, Mr. President, I think it's time we do panic. The panic is unavoidable, but after the panic comes the resolve - the resolve to hunt and kill Kofi Annan.

 Will the death of Kofi Annan mean the destruction of the "U.N."? No, but it will demoralize his followers if he is killed and we show proof of his death. I bet many people would leave the organization out of fear when they know America is fully committed to destroy it. Then we can start to destroy "U.N." cells in other countries. And, if rumors are true of an American headquarters, we should be able to find and destroy that, helping American sleep in peace at night.

 There is no time to waste, though. The "U.N." and the vile Kofi Annan want to undermine us and our allies. They think they can destroy us and will move towards that goal. We must destroy them first, paving the way for peace so we can ride the bobcat of security into the horizon of our future.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "A Frank Guide to Foreigners and Their Evil" and "Ride the Cat".

Rating: 2.0/5 (6 votes cast)

Comments (26)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
June 05, 2006
It's Too Soon for a Movie About Snakes on a Plane
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 12:20 PM

 Hollywood has always ran in conflict with the values of decent, Christian Americans, with its glorification of promiscuity, vulgarity, violence, and "alternate lifestyles." Now, the twisted left-wingers who run Hollywood have declared an open war on Middle America with a summer movie that spits in the eye of anyone who cares for his fellow man. The movie, titled Snakes on a Plane, contains the frank depiction of snakes on a plane. The weirdoes in Hollywood may think this makes for entertainment, but, after less than 103 years since the invention of the plane, less than 58 years since the birth of Samuel L. Jackson, and less the 100 million years since the creation of snakes, it is just too soon for a movie combining the three.

"I want these mother@#$% snakes off this mother@#$% plane!"

 Plane flight is already scary enough. Hardly a flight goes by without huge turbulence or both engines giving out on the plane at least temporarily. Then there is the constant and often realized threat of a cougar escaping from the cargo hold. We just take it for granted that, when you fly coach cross-country, there is a significant chance you will die a brutal death. Thus, the last thing we need is to be reminded of the snakes that could be possibly slithering near our feet as we enjoy some mini-pretzels with a small cup of Coke.

 We all know there can be - and probably are - snakes on planes. Is there even one reader of this editorial who hasn't lost a friend or relative to lethal snake bites while he or she was on a plane? Probably a few of you have barely survived on-flight snake attacks yourselves. Thus, it is such a galling insensitivity of the Hollywood elite (who fly in their snake-free first class) to think that snakes on a plane actually passes as entertainment. As someone who once fell asleep on a flight to wake with a boa constrictor trying to crush me, I can tell you it is not entertaining at all.

 And think about the snakes. After being used as a vessel of Satan to damn man from paradise - a story recounted in a best-selling book and known to every American - snakes have worked hard to overcome bad publicity. Just when they thought they had finally reached a point where they can live in harmony with the rest of America, now comes a movie once again depicting them as the villains. Did Hollyweird even consider the backlash against snakes - the majority of whom would never harm anyone and actually benefit society by controlling the rodent population? No, the left-coast only cares about a few cheap thrills and the millions of dollars they can make through exploiting tragedy.

 At least there is some wisdom in Samuel L. Jackson's already famous line from the movie: "I want these mother@#$% snakes off this mother@#$% plane!" You hear that, Hollywood? We want some decency in our movies, and thus we want those snakes off that plane.

 Or add a Chuck Norris cameo.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Engine Failure, Cougars, and No Leg Room: A Frank Guide to Surviving Coach" and "Our Friends, the Snakes: Don't Hate Them Because They're Thin".

Rating: 1.6/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (20)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
May 30, 2006
America Has Too Many Citizens
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 12:12 PM

 The other day, I saw some weird thing I didn't understand. It was some electronic thing with blinking lights. I smashed it with a bat. You may say, "Hey, Frank, you shouldn't have been so quick to smash that with a bat. You should have waited to find out what that was; it could have been a good thing." To which I say, "Hey, Pollyanna, it also could have been a bad thing that could have destroyed us all. All I know for certain was that I didn't understand it, so I smashed it with a bat. That's my policy." There are some things, though, that I don't understand but am unable to smash with a bat. Like, I don't understand why America has so many citizens. So, when I can't understand something but also can't smash it with a bat, I write an editorial. In a way, editorials are my bats to smash concepts I don't understand, and, in this case, why America has so many citizens is the electronic thing with blinky lights that needs to be smashed.

"With each revision, I get a longer period of non-murderous fruit-picking."

 Do you know how many citizens America has? Hundreds of millions. That's a lot of people. To put it in a concept easier to grasp, think of one man standing in an auditorium. Now, think of a hundred million times that. And think of some of them as Mexican. That's scary!

 Every day, the best and brightest of other countries come to America to be citizens, but, at the same time, we don't throw out our worst and dumbest. Why? Well, everyone who is born in America gets citizenship automatically. I know; it's not like being born is such an accomplishment (well, it's a bit harder since Roe v. Wade), but, still, that's all you have to do and you're here forever even if you're a moron and you suck. That's not right. Everyone should have to prove his or her citizenship.

 Of course, I would easily get citizenship. I work hard, I am super-smart, and I know how to use firearms; I'm the model every citizen should follow. I'm even working on making robots to pick fruit so we don't need illegal aliens to do that. So far, they all eventually go on murderous rampages, but, with each revision, I get a longer period of non-murderous fruit-picking. Anyway, I could not understand how anyone could think I should not be a citizen. In fact, I would smash such a person with a bat.

 So, smart people who design fruit-picking robots should be citizens, but smelly hippies who whine about America should not. For each immigrant we take, we should deport at least three hippies. Other countries may not like us forcing them to take our wretched refuse, but that's why we have a whole military designed to kill foreigners. They can make countries like whatever we want them to like.

 So let's make a better country by being more discriminate about our citizens. First thing, let's revoke everyone's citizenship, including especially Congress's. Then, everyone has to prove their worth or be deported to whatever country we're currently bullying. It may not be Constitutional, but the Supreme Court will have their citizenship revoked too, so the point is moot.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Making Robots Less-Murderous: A Beginner's Guide to Robot Design" and "Smashing Hamlet with a Bat: A Guide to Shakespeare from Someone Who Didn't Understand It".

Rating: 2.2/5 (10 votes cast)

Comments (18)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
May 16, 2006
I Imagine a World Without Borders
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 11:25 AM

 Everyone seems to be so worried about our borders these days, and I'm like, "Chill, dude." Borders are a concept of ancient times when people were totally uncool and all wanted to kill each other. We've matured past such attitudes and should stop getting all bent out of shape over a few people sneaking into our country and instead focus on becoming a world with no borders.

"Mexicans just want to do the job Americans won't do, and, when we have their population at gunpoint, they'll also do the jobs they don't want to do."

 First, lets get rid of all the border agents and tell the Minutemen to calm down and just have a barbecue or something. If Mexicans want to come over here, whatever. And, if we want to go to Mexico, that's cool too. And, if the Americans who come over happen to be armed soldiers who then terminate all the officials in the Mexican government, so what. Let's not "freak out" over it because "freaking out" is for people still hung up on the archaic concept of "borders." Mexicans just want to do the job Americans won't do, and, when we have their population at gunpoint, they'll also do the jobs they don't want to do for the promise of one meal a day and a cot to sleep on. Some might kick a soccer ball at us in protest, but soon everyone in Mexico will grow to love the idea of no borders... or else.

 And let's stop pretending that our border with Canada means anything. Canadians really are just part of America, aren't they? If we want free maple syrup, then I'm sure they'll give us free maple syrup before we're forced to shoot them. Since we'll be part of one society with no borders, they'll be happy to get rid of their socialized health care to pay the "Because You're Canada" tax. They'll welcome the Americans who roam Quebec in mobs, burning down any building that has a sign in French, because you know what that is? It's progress.

 But why keep this progressive concept of ending borders to our hemisphere? Know who has a big problem with borders? The Middle East. We can finally bring peace there by annulling all borders. There will be some resistance, and some bombs may have to be used - and some of those bombs may involve fission - but peace will triumph. Then the new borderless Middle East will mean cheap oil for all... and by all I mean America. The complications of the initial debordering may mean a lack of local labor for the oil pumping now, but we can get more labor from elsewhere like Europe, which has far too many borders. The French youth are always complaining about lack of work, but we'll have some nice 100 hour a week jobs getting us crude. No, there won't be paid over time. There might not even be paid regular time... but why focus on that when we're moving to a borderless utopia?

 Eventually we'll have no borders, and the new American Empire will have nothing but peace for all, because anyone not being peaceful will be shot. Thus, everyone will be happy. And what's not to be happy about? No borders means no wars and no need for walls to limit us. There will be a heavily guarded wall around the Imperial Capital to keep intellectuals like me from having to interact with the common folk, but let's not split hairs. Anyway, I'll be busy designing robots to eventually do all the labor, and then the unskilled workers can be converted to robots fuel. That's the future we are heading towards, and nothing can stop it.

 Unless, of course, you want to be a weenie and have enforceable borders.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "More Work for Less Mexicans: Building a More Fuel-Efficient Robot" and "'Bah!', 'Feh!', and Other Great Responses to the Complaints of Common Folk".

Rating: 3.1/5 (9 votes cast)

Comments (9)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
May 08, 2006
Gitmo Must Be Shut Down
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 11:53 AM

 Our detention facility at Guantanamo Bay is a disaster. Located in tropical Cuba, it's nothing but a fun park for terrorists. As Sen. Durbin pointed out a while ago, they even get free rap music and air conditioning. This is not how we should treat our enemies; it gives them hope. A proper detention facility should crush the spirits of the imprisoned, leaving them hollow shells of their former selves. Where can we send them that is so desolate that its very location will cause the prisoners to wail and gnash their teeth? New Jersey? Perhaps, but I have an even better idea: Antarctica.

"A proper detention facility should crush the spirits of the imprisoned leaving them hollow shells of their former selves."

 Orginally, Australia was used by the British as a penal colony, and, as a result, a great vacation spot is overrun with filthy thieves wearing hats adorned with crocodile teeth. If only the British had sailed further south they would have found an even better prison from which there is no escape. Once again, Britain's folly is our gain. All we need to do now is send some military engineers down there to construct the greatest prison of all: Camp Despair.

 The first things terrorists will see when they enter Camp Despair will be a large sign saying, "ALLAH HAS ABANDONED YOU!" Then, they will see a sign pointing straight into the ground labeled, "Mecca." Each prisoner will be given a new Koran and prayer rug with the warning, "That rug will be your only blanket. Also, I'd take good care of that Koran because it will be the only kindling you get to keep you warm. Muh ha ha ha!" And, know what's the best part of a prison in Antarctica? It's too cold for anyone to come and inspect and complain about prisoner treatment! The only ones who might cause trouble are the scientists around there, but any self-respecting Marine should be able to slap them around.

 Now, I know what you may be thinking: Won't the penguins come and cheer up the terrorists? Don't worry; snipers will be positioned around the camp to shoot any penguins that come near, and Morgan Freeman will narrate their ignominious deaths. In addition, the exterior of the camp will be patrolled by angry polar bears. I know they aren't native to Antarctica, but they can be shipped there. And while they're being transferred, people will slap the bears in the face and imply that they're gay to make them extra angry.

 As you can see, there is no downside to creating Camp Despair. So let's stop coddling our captured terrorists. To Antarctica with them!

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "If a Bird Can't Fly, It Deserves to Die" and "Prisoner Beating Etiquette".

Rating: 3.3/5 (13 votes cast)

Comments (18)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
May 02, 2006
Oy! Enough with the Blowing People Up Already!
An Editorial by Allah
Posted by Frank J. at 11:56 AM

 People are always telling me, "Hey, Allah, you should write another book. All the books you've written before were very popular; I'm not sure if anyone actually read the whole megillah, but everyone has to have one." It's not like I'm out to make some gelt, though, and I thought I already wrote everything I need to say. Plus, it's not like I have the time to write; if you could even understand how much I have to do each day, you'd plotz. Still, I thought it would be a real good chochmeh to write a column to go over a few points since so many people seem to have some facacta ideas these days.

"Yeah, I know I'm great, but know who's not so great? You schmucks."

 So, the other day, I'm watching over things, and everything is going well until some deli gets blown up. And I'm all ferklempt. What's happening here? Some poor schlemazel stops in for a nosh and he gets blown up for that? And the Palestinian noodniks are kvelling over this? Oy! So the schmendrick responsible blew himself up too, and he's smiling like it's some real koontz he just did. So I ask, "What's wrong with you?"

 An know what he says? He says he thought I wanted this. Oy Gevalt! So I ask him what meshungina told him I wanted all this tumul. He tells me, "Mohammed."

 Mohammed! Like that's some help. There are so many Mohammeds these days that even I have trouble keeping track. I need this like I need a loch in kopp. So I tell him to draw me picture of this particular Mohammed so I know exactly what schlemiel we're talking about.

 And he say no! Can you believe that chutzpah? The one true God asks him for a little doodle, and he says no. Then I finally realize what Mohammed he's talking about, the one with the real pisk on him. Oy Veyzmir! I warned that groyse macher when he wrote his Koran to be careful, because people are going to take that thing seriously. But did he listen? Now all these people are running around with these cacamaimey ideas that they can get 72 virgins by blowing themselves up on buses. What? Are they so furblungit they think I have the playboy mansion up here? That I'm going to say to them, "Mazel tov on blowing up that preschool. Now here are some shikses for you to fool around with."

 I don't want to kibbutz, but some of these Muslim boychiks seem a bit sexually frustrated. What these nebbishes need to do is change out of those shmatas their wearing, clean the schmootz off their faces, not act like some chazzer, and meet some gezuntah moyyd. They have to get over this killing everybody idea, because that is not going to impress the women if that's what they want.

 Now, these Muslims can be some nice people. They pray five times a day, and I'm always telling people, "Hey, you need to pray more. And, while you’re at it, call your mother. She wants to hear from you too." I don't quite get the facing Mecca part, but you have to face something, I guess. Just remember who you're praying to; Mecca may have its own McDonalds, but it didn't create the universe.

 Anyway, I'd rather some of these Muslim noodniks focus a bit less on the praying and a bit more on the not killing. It's not only bad for those involved, but it's certainly not making me look good. What's this shtick about blowing up some nice people and then shouting, "Allah ackbar!"? Hok me a chinik! Yeah, I know I'm great, but know who's not so great? You schmucks. So enough with the blowing people up already.

Allah is the one true God and also the author of such books as the Torah and numerous science fiction stories for young adults.

Rating: 2.1/5 (9 votes cast)

Comments (26)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
April 24, 2006
We Need a War for Oil
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 11:07 AM

 I filled up my SUV this weekend, and, after seeing the bill, my immediate reaction was, "Someone must die for this!" After a little thought, I knew who should die: foreigners. Foreigners with oil.

 We need a war for oil.

"If our military can't keep us from being forced to drive gay little cars, then what exactly are all these gasoline taxes going towards?"

 Supposedly, our previous incursion into the Middle East were about oil, but it hasn't looked that way. Unlike all this establishing democracy hooey, a real war for oil would follow a much simpler mission plan: We go in, we kill lots of people, and we take all the oil. Also, we would know for certain when the mission is accomplished; if we have all the oil, we're done.

 Would it just be easier to drive a hybrid instead of having all this killing? No, it wouldn't, because hybrids are gay. If our military can't keep us from being forced to drive gay little cars, then what exactly are all these gasoline taxes going towards? You better not tell me poor people, because I did not get an SUV to help the poor. It should be obvious that our military must be deployed with the sole purpose of stealing all the oil worth getting our hands on. It is a risk of lives, but I risk lives everyday I drive my SUV anyway.

 Now, there are a number of ways to take all that oil. My suggestion is to make big tripod robots like in War of the Worlds, but they'll suck oil out of the ground instead of blood out of people (cars don't run on blood). This may be a bit too extravagant, though. The simplest idea is too simply rush towards the oil fields in tanks killing everyone we see and then securing the oil fields with big walls and minefields and signs that say, "Americans Only." We'll then airlift the oil so we don't have to deal with any people around there. You may be worried that children could step on the landmines, but I'm not since I hate children. Getting blown up will teach them to be small and dumb. I hope monkeys step on mines too.

 Will America stealing all the oil in the Middle East anger the people there? Of course, but who cares. Since we'll have all their oil, they won't have any gasoline to get near us. What are they going to do? Fill a truck with bombs, put it in neutral, and push it towards us? That's pathetic. The most they'll do is get as close to our walled in oil fields and shout epithets at us. Then we can shout back, "Don't you guys have anything better to do? Like losing a war to tiny country full of Jews?"

 So there is what needs to be done. I want war war war until gas is down to a buck a gallon, and I'm the taxpayer, so I get what I want. People didn't need to die for this, but a bunch of Muslims didn't need to live where all our oil is either.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "If You Don't Want to Die, Stand Away from that Oil" and "Diplomacy Is a Failure of War".

Rating: 2.5/5 (10 votes cast)

Comments (38)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
April 17, 2006
The Only Strategically Viable Option Right Now Is to Construct a Death Star
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 11:59 AM

 America has tried many things to get a strategic advantage over its enemies - stealth fighters, missile defense, bombs that cause a place to be swarmed with monkeys - yet we are still threatened by insurgents, Iran, and poofy-haired Koreans. Given an honest assessment of the global situation, it should be obvious to everyone that we should construct a Death Star.

 "That's no moon! That's a space station!" people will exclaim, soon followed by them saying, "Wait; that's just the moon." That's because they won't see us construct the Death Star since we will do it behind the moon. No one will find out about our plans since, after we claimed ownership of the moon by putting our flag on it, we also put up a "Trespassers Will Be Shot" sign. You may wonder if we currently have the scientific capabilities to make a planet-destroying space station. This is a legitimate concern, but I'm pretty sure we know how to construct a large metal sphere, so we might as well start with that while we figure out the giant laser. I'm pretty sure that part involves the noble gas argon or something, but I'll have to look that up. The other concern people might have is, unlike the movie version, will we install railings along the numerous bottomless pits in our giant space station? While it is a legitimate safety issue, this would add an estimated 0.01% to the cost, so it would have to be run by the DOD budget committee.

"Now, people of the world, dance for our amusement. DANCE!"

 OSHA compliant or not, when our Death Star is complete, we will then move it out from behind the moon into view of all. It will probably be a good idea to have a big American flag painted on the front before we do this as we don't want Argentina claiming it's their Death Start and threatening everybody. Once our new weapon is in view of all, the President should then come on TV and explain it to everyone. "We have constructed a planet-destroying space station for the purpose of peace. We, the great United States of America, swear we will only use it for the betterment of all mankind. Now, people of the world, dance for our amusement. DANCE!"

 The question arises of what should we use our Death Star on. Its purpose is to destroy planets, but the only planet of any strategic interest is Earth where there happens to be all our cities and football stadiums. Thus, we probably don't want to blow that up. We could hit another planet to demonstrate our power, though, and I think the best candidate is Venus. Even though it is closer than Mars, no one is proposing a mission to Venus because that planet just sucks too much. Also, Venus is about the same size as Earth, so, if we blow it up, people will believe we also have the ability to blow up Earth if so angered. I say, soon after we unveil our super-weapon, we blow up Venus so people understand we have a fully-operational Death Star. The President can go on TV and say, "Your 'morning star' is no more. Now, make sure you all act in the interest of America and nothing else will have to meet an unfortunate demise."

 The world should be scared into being peaceful for a while, but eventually some nutty little nation is going to try our patience. The President should then announce, "America has been angered! Fire up the Death Star!" As the super-laser is charging, everyone should quiet down. Then we can cancel the firing and the President will say, "We have decided not to destroy the Earth... for now." This should work four to six times until people are convinced we're bluffing. Then we'll have to be more active such as firing lasers that just barely miss the Earth and maybe blowing up the moon in our anger. After years of peace, at some point, though, people will just get used to the idea of a giant space station floating above them and no longer be scared that we'll actually do anything. When this happens, our only choice will be to come up with a new weapon to threaten our enemies with or to actually blow up the Earth.

 But we can cross that bridge when we reach it. Begin construction of the Death Star!

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Everything I Needed to Know About Diplomacy I Learned from Emperor Palpatine" and "Killing Terrorists Through Applied Quantum Physics".

Rating: 2.5/5 (13 votes cast)

Comments (14)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
April 11, 2006
The Solution to the Immigration Problem with Mexico Is a Communist Overthrow
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 12:41 PM

 Many people are trying to sneak out of Mexico into America. This is very understandable, because, if someone suddenly threw me in Mexico, I would probably sneak in here too. I'm not good with geography, so I don't know what country is south of Mexico and would be scared to sneak over there... as I bet are many Mexicans! The only problem is that America is just not set up to deal with that many Mexicans. Mexico has dealt with large numbers of Mexicans for a long time now and are simply better prepared for that. So how do we stop so many people coming here from Mexico?

"Your country sucking isn't enough to get refugee status."

 The main idea is to improve conditions in Mexico so people aren’t so desperate to leave, but let's think outside of the box for a minute. What if we made things worse in Mexico? You'd think that would cause more people to flee, but not if we make it bad enough.

 Now, I've known many immigrants in my day, and they were all smart, hard-working people... people we're glad to steal from other countries. Those immigrants were all from China, Cuba, Vietnam, or the former Soviet Union. So what is similar with those countries? Yes, they're all Communist. If Communism has taught us anything, it's that it makes great American immigrants.

 Communist countries really suck, but they also won't let people leave. Everyone is supposed to love their stupid "dictatorship of the proletariat" or they'll be executed. Since it's so hard to leave those countries, only the smartest, most determined people will make it out alive. And what happens when they come here through improper channels? They're declared "refugees" because they're escaping oppression. Mexicans are just escaping a sucky country, and your country sucking isn't enough to get refugee status. But, if you’re country was Communist, hey, let’s help set you up in America, you poor bastards.

 So, obviously, overthrowing the Mexican government and replacing it with a Communist regime is a super fantastic idea. Now, how to do that isn't exactly my expertise, but maybe you Mexicans should just start talking about the dissolution of private property and hopefully hotter heads will prevail. When you strike, I'd recommend doing it during siesta because no one will expect it. If Vicente Fox gets all angry as you execute him for being part of the bourgeois, just remind him that he had supported the plight of illegal immigrants in the past, and this is what needs to be done.

 When it’s all over, we should have a nice Communist dictatorship south of us closed to the outside world, and, if that doesn't solve a ton of problems, I don't know what can.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Stealing Ideas from Your Wife: She's Useful for Other Things than Cooking, Cleaning, and... You Know" and "The Communist Guide to Weight Loss".

Rating: 2.7/5 (6 votes cast)

Comments (17)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
April 05, 2006
It's Civil War: Time to Withdraw!
Posted by RightWingDuck at 02:42 AM

As I turn off my television set, those images of mindless violence have become seared, seared into my mind. I watch those scenes of mayhem as young men fight against each other, then smash windows and set vehicles on fire. Sure, we went in under the guise of liberating a country, but now as it descends into what clearly appears to be a civil war, we have to look into our collective soul and ask ourselves:

Is It Time for the United States to Withdraw from France?

Was it reasonable to think we could take this country and instill in them our American values?

In America, our people riot for good reasons such as victories by our favorite sports teams. In France, young people riot because the government refuses them the right to complete job security. So they set about burning, looting, thrashing, and asking themselves a very important questions such as: "Why can't they offer us more money?" and "When will people respect our decisions?" and the really important one-: "I wonder if I can put this on my resume?"

This highlights an important difference in cultural mindset.

America has always been that shining light upon the hill, and sometimes we thought that France could follow our example. For a while, we thought they were, except it turns out that their shining light on the hill was really a burning Renault.

Right now, many French labor unions are on strike: transportation workers, teachers, and government workers. That is their right: every employee, by law, is allowed 7 paid days for general social mayhem.

And that leads us to an important point: The French see the concept of work completely different than America does. Here in America, we value honesty, integrity, and hard work more than we value anything else: especially personal gain. Witness the success of American firms such as WorldCom, Arthur Andersen, and, most recently, General Motors.

Sure we take time off around here: we get two weeks vacation, and a few special holidays. In France, most workers get six weeks of paid vacation. Additionally, they enjoy many special holidays such as: Day of the Worker, Recovery Day from Day of the Worker, Ramadan, Jerry Lewis' Birthday (which they celebrate happily and loudly) the birthday of Marcel Marceau (which for some reason they celebrate quietly), and a special holiday called Lundi.

Now France is burning, nobody is working, and President Chirac's polling numbers are so bad that President Bush called him asking, "Which country did YOU invade?!"

So let us leave France to fight this civil war that, I'm sure, we can only blame on America. We demand the immediate withdrawal of American troops before more French cars are lost. Let France, under the guidance of Secular Providence and Shariah law, rebuild itself. Sure, one day they might buckle under to the Muslim youth, but at least they can face them head on and repeat the words of the famous Marcel Marceau when they say: " "

Let these young people have the lifetime employment they deserve. Many of them don't do windows, but that's okay. At this point: there aren't that many windows left.

Rating: 2.5/5 (5 votes cast)

Comments (7)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
April 04, 2006
Who Will Pick the Beans?
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 10:48 AM

 Many people are for deporting all the illegal immigrants, but none of those people seem prepared to answer the fundamental question: Who will pick the beans?

 We are a country, a country of many beans in need of picking. But I am not going to pick those beans. You are not going to pick those beans. That leaves only the illegal immigrants left to pick our beans. Those beans will not pick themselves - that is a scientifically established fact. While self-picking beans are being genetically engineered, they have so far killed many goats in tests - not because the beans are poison, but because the bean plants killed and ate the goats. So, while we may strive towards a utopia of self-picking beans, it will turn into a dystopia if we live in constant fear of being killed and eaten by bean plants.

"Those beans will not pick themselves - that is a scientifically established fact."

 So, since the beans will not pick themselves without great danger to humanity, who will pick them when the illegal immigrants are gone? Some say prisoners should pick those beans; if you commit a crime, then you are sentenced to a life of bean picking. But do we really want prisoner beans? Prisoners are by their nature thieves and thus will steal our beans (or assault them). This is not a solution at all.

 Can monkeys be trained to pick the beans? I don't care if they can, because I will not eat beans picked by filthy monkeys. Monkeys should be locked in cages and kept away from our precious beans.

 Other suggest robots be made to pick the beans, but it would take quite advanced robots to be know the intricacies of bean picking. Such robots will inevitably turn on us, and we will not be able to stop them. Robots are made of metal, and shooting them will do no good. Soon, we will be their slaves, and then we will all have to pick the beans for the robots' evil purposes.

 So, while some may say we should just deport all the illegal immigrants, they are only giving half the solution to the problem unless those people also have an answer for who will pick the beans. Actually, it's less than half the solution because, as a wise man once said, 90% of life is picking beans, and only 10% is getting into America illegally.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "Who Will Feed the Dog?" and "Beans: The Vanguard of Civilization".

Rating: 1.6/5 (6 votes cast)

Comments (29)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
April 03, 2006
Anyone Touching or Standing Near a Foreign Flag Must Be Shot
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 12:01 PM

 When I saw on the news that people were marching in Los Angeles and waving Mexican flags, my first reaction was, "Oh no! The Mexicans are invading! Where is the national guard to shoot all these people?"

 It ends up, though, that this was allowed since it was considered "free speech." That's crazy. Free speech is for Americans, and these people were holding Mexican flags and thus declaring their allegiance with Mexico. Anyone who waves a foreign flag in America is obviously declaring war on us and must be shot.

 "What about St. Patrick's Day?" you might ask.

 Well, obviously not on that day, but any other day a foreign flag means war against America, and the people possessing the flags or near them must be shot before we get all invaded. As we learned from Iraq, it's hard to root out people once they're hidden in a society.

 "But isn't waving a foreign flag just showing a little cultural pride?" you might say.

"If someone is so proud of a country, then go there and wave its flag."

 That's extra crazy! If someone is so proud of a country, then go there and wave its flag. If those people were so proud of Mexico, why don't they just go back to Mexico and improve it so it's someplace everyone doesn't want to flee from. The people marching here waving Mexican flags obviously have no pride in Mexico since they fled that country and want to declare war on us out of frustration.

 "What about Jews with Israeli flags to show support of that country? Should we shoot them?"

 Of course not. Jews have a Zionist conspiracy and will shoot you right back. Use some common sense. I doubt the Mexicans have any such conspiracy or they wouldn't need to flee their country for below minimum wage jobs.

 Then again, it could be the biggest conspiracy ever!

 "How about Cubans in Florida and all their flags?"

 That's a completely different situation. Those people are refugees since their country went all Commie. Don't you have any sympathy for the plight of others?

 "Well, what about Puerto Ricans?"

 Puerto Rico is part of America, dumbass... or, at least I think it is. Anyway, do some research before shooting anyone.

 "This sounds like white supremacy propaganda."

 That's ignorant. If my stance was "shoot Latinos," that's what I'd title this piece. I'm for shooting anyone of any race waving foreign flags in America. If there are any white people waving Mexican flags, I'd shoot them too. Actually, I'd shoot them first because that is kinda suspicious.

 "What about shooting people at Italian restaurants? Those usually have Italian flags."

 The mob usually handles shooting those places up, so I wouldn't worry about it.

 "Then how about Mexican restaurants?"

 Not if they're any good. Do you know how hard it is to find good Mexican food where I live in Florida?

 "Should Americans waving American flags in foreign countries be shot?"

 Don't be stupid. Everyone in the world should have pride in America; the only reason the world is not all exploded is because of us. Anyone who shoots someone with an American flag should be shot and also all those around the person should be shot.

 "What if someone is in America and holding a foreign flag to burn it?"

 Again, use common sense. Burning a foreign flag in America is completely acceptable. But, if you see someone waving a foreign flag and you call him on it and he pulls out a lighter and says, "I was just about to burn it," that person is both foreign and a liar and should be shot twice.

 "What caliber should we be shooting people with?"

 Now you're just asking dumb questions; use whatever is available.

 "Hey, don't yell at me. I'm just your own Socratic method of having a conversation with yourself."

 You're stupid. On second thought, don't shoot anyone because I don't think you're responsible enough to handle a gun. Instead, just break the kneecaps of anyone with a foreign flag using a baseball bat. The point is, America is a great country with a nice flag, and we don't want people marching around here with their foreign flags declaring war on us. That's just common sense, and this country could use more common sense and more shooting people with foreign flags.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us. He is also the author of such books as "If Immigrants Are Good for America, Then Why Are They So Illegal?" and "The Big Book of Legal Defenses for Shooting Someone (Bonus: Defense Ideas for Having Used this Book as a Murder Weapon)".

Rating: 2.7/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (12)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
March 27, 2006
It's Possible for a Religion to Thrive Without the Threat of Murder
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 11:56 AM

 At worship on Sunday, a man stood up and asked for forgiveness for his sins. I said we should murder him for his transgressions, but I was shouted down. Later, it was noted that someone was no longer in attendance, and it was suggested that we contact him and pray for him. I asked that, if he won't come back to our religion, should we behead him and cut him to pieces. I was told, "No."

 "Well, what about kneecapping him?" I inquired. They answered that Jesus would be against that. When I asked why we care what Jesus thinks, they just said they'd pray for me and seemed to ignore me after that.

 So I turned to my lovely and talented wife SarahK and asked, "What is this crazy religion you keep dragging me to? It has all these rules about not doing fun stuff because they're 'sins,' but how do they expect to keep people in line without the threat of murder?"

 "You shut up, goofy-goof, or I won't make you cookies tonight," SarahK answered.

"I've seen enough action movies to know this is the part where Jesus finally snaps, pulls out his dual .45s, and takes out everyone in need of a kill'n. I was wrong."

 I decided to get the bottom of this. Luckily, the teachings of Jesus - The Bible - were available for free on the internet, and no one was threatening to sue the sites for revealing the secrets of Christianity. Now, people were always getting right in the Jesus guy's face, so I knew he'd eventually wreak vengeance on his enemies. But I searched for "strangle," "behead," and, "kick to the crotch" and couldn't find Jesus using any violence to get people doing what he told them. Then, I finally stumbled upon a passage where Jesus flips out in a temple and starts knocking over tables. I've seen enough action movies to know this is the part where Jesus finally snaps, pulls out his dual .45s, and takes out everyone in need of a kill'n. I was wrong. He doesn't kill anyone - not even a gut punch. Eventually, he gets killed without even putting up a fight. Seriously, Michael Bay couldn't do a thing with this story.

 So how did Christianity get started? I assumed next came Jesus’ followers avenging their leader's death and getting people to follow them at spear point. Nope. They just hid from those trying to kill them while peacefully building up followers.

 And this religion is still around two thousand years later?

 I know; it's weird. Most people are used to religion only working if death is threatened; why else would one want to follow a bunch of restrictive rules if there isn't any danger that you'll be cut to pieces? Apparently, Christianity uses this whole "salvation" thing to attract people - the carrot instead of the stick. So, if I get things right, I can sin and blaspheme all I want - swearing, doing drugs, and fornicating - and no one will murder me.

 SarahK informed me that this was incorrect, as she would murder me, but she herself would be sinning. So, not only is murder in support of Christianity not encouraged, it itself is a sin. This wasn't always well known, though, and some people long long ago murdered people for not being Christians. That causes problems today, as people will say, "While other religions murder people now, some people a hundred million years ago murdered people in the name of Christianity, so Christianity is just the same."

 And you might respond, "But that was very long ago and went against the principles of Christianity and thus is condemned."

 And the person will rebut, "Yes, but I'm a moral retard who equivocates everything. As far as I'm concerned, A is the same as Z."

 And there is no response to that.

 So, not only is murder completely condemned by Christianity, the fact that anyone would murder in the name of Christ is considered harmful to the religion.

 Despite these insane, murder-phobic beliefs, Christianity still seems to thrive. "Good living" and "salvation" apparently is enough to keep people faithful to a religion. Actually, it makes one wonder that, if "not being murdered" is the main selling point of your religion, maybe you should rethink the whole thing.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is a frequent contributor to IMAOPodcast.com. He is also the author of such books as "I'll Murder You if You Don't Buy This Book!" and "What Jesus Wouldn't Do - The Frank J. Story".

Rating: 2.3/5 (10 votes cast)

Comments (16)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
March 20, 2006
We Need Some Sort of Law to Shut Up Those People Complaining About Their Speech Being Opressed
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 11:29 AM

 Running a fascist state is harder than you think; in fact, most fascist states fail within the first decade. That's why I feel it important to point out obvious failings of the new fascist America to help keep it healthy and oppressive. The most blatant (and loud) problem right now is the improper silencing of dissenters.

 Honestly, my only experience with fascism is voting for Bush twice, but here is what I've observed. Obviously, speech is being oppressed, because we are constantly (and annoyingly) being told by liberals that their rights are being taken away and that dissent is being treated as treason. That might seem like a good start, but the problem is that people shouldn't explicitly be able to say that they're being oppressed. Everyone should know that already, and any who complains about it should be jailed or rounded up into camps for speaking out against the state. It's really a huge rookie fascist state mistake not to do that. While curtailing civil liberties is a must, it is also crucial to quiet those who complain about that.

" If I were a BusHitler, I'd disappear a few dissenters without admitting to it publicly."

 I know, you're probably wondering, "If we quiet everyone who complains about out fascist evil, how will anyone know what's being oppressed and thus what not to do?" That's a good question. If I were a BusHitler, I'd disappear a few dissenters without admitting to it publicly. Then, people will whisper about it and be scared. Yes, you could be more explicit about it, but, not admitting to your oppressive actions makes your state that much more mysterious and feared. If people aren't sure what evil oppression you are doing, it makes them that much more likely to fall into line since they can't even comprehend the menace they are up against. That's some strong fascism right there.

 The other question comes up is whether dissenters should be jailed or put into reeducation camps. In some ways, that's more a budgetary concern because camps can be more costly that just throwing someone in a dank hole and feeding him bread and water once a day. It's best to judge that on a person by person basis, though. For instance, you may really want to throw Cindy Sheehan in a dank hole, but since she's already so public, reeducation might work better. Actually, looking at Cindy's mental acuity, all I think it would take is a lunch break to brainwash her into saying how much she loves her son's sacrifice - and you'd still probably have time to finish off a tuna fish sandwich before going back out to crack the skulls of those who don't love The Government.

 Don't forget to shutdown websites critical of The Government as well. Again, here is a good place to instill some fear. First, take down The Democratic Underground and DailyKos, putting up some blatant lies that they failed to pay to renew their URLs and have been bought by The Government. Also, make sure to disappear anyone involved with those sites you can hunt down. This will be a very conspicuous taking out of those who speak ill of the new fascism while denying anything was done. Again, this will cause more fear to shut up the rest.

 Yes, fascism is hard, but I think I outlined a few simple steps to make things easier. And, though this itself could be seen as criticizing The Government, please don't secretly arrest me. Then again, you have to start somewhere.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is a frequent contributor to IMAOPodcast.com. He is also the author of such books as "Patriotism for Dummies" and "I Unconditionally Love Our Government and You Should Too (If You Know What's Good for You)".

Rating: 2.6/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (18)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
March 06, 2006
Hollywood Isn't Out of Touch; You Are
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 12:17 PM

 Many people think that Hollywood is out of touch with mainstream America; people who think that are crazy and stupid and full of themselves. Those who don't understand and cherish what Hollywood actors and directors bring to the important issues today are ignorant of both what's important in America and of Hollywood itself.

 Hollywood people are better than us; if you don't believe that, then you are just jealous. These people are troopers. How often has an actor had the disappointment of their personal assistant forgetting to take the crust off of his sandwich but went on to perform anyway? Sure, he threw a fit, fired the assistant, and pouted in his trailer for two hours, but these people are humans; not gods. And that makes what they do all the more impressive. Still, you want to lecture them on what's right and wrong, and you don't even have a personal assistant.

"It's true; you're gay!"

 Where in the world do you get this idea you know anything? I know where Hollywood people get their experience. They have tons of different marriages, oodles of out of wedlock children, and more drug problems than all of South America. That's real world experience that informs them better than the silly, unimportant lives you people have. And, with all these life problems plus fancy parties plus check ups with their plastic surgeons, you know they have little time to spend learning about world issues, so they spend that time well. How many political fundraisers have you been invited to? Yet you think you know anything about war or social issues better than George Clooney? Do you know how ignorant you sound when you say that?

 Still, with all this disdain you shovel upon them, they do all they can to educate you. But what do you do? You spit at it! Did you even go to see Brokeback Mountain? Ang Lee slaved on that movie to make you a better person, but you didn't want to watch it. Know why? Because deep down you know you're gay. It's true; you're gay! Yes, you'll go see Ang Lee's The Hulk because you aren't afraid that you will become large and green if angered, but you're just too afraid of the gay cowboy inside you to see a story about real love. And, if you won't even admit to you being afraid of your gayness, how can we trust anything else you say?

 Hollywood actors are rich, live pampered lifestyles, and are sheltered from consequences; this gives them a view of society that you don't have. Up on their pedestals, they have a view of the world you could never even imagine. And, when they read something on a paper, and then they go on TV and say stuff about it to make things happen. They’re important; that's why they don't like regular people making eye-contact with them. What do you do when you hear about an issue? Nothing... or you blog about it which is next to nothing. So what is Hollywood out of touch with? You and your boring life? These people don't only know the issues, they've acted in movies and TV specials about these issues. You’ve acted in nothing; you're just ignorant. I mean, what level scientologist are you? Do you even know about the threat of Xenu? I bet your precious "Jesus" didn't tell you about that one.

 So stop being a fool and worship and offer sacrifices to those in Hollywood who deign us worthy of their opinions. And, if you want to add to the debate, you show me where your Walk-of-Fame star is. Oh, you don't have one? Then you shut up!

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is a frequent contributor to IMAOPodcast.com. He is also the author of such books as "I, For One, Welcome Our Hollywood Overlords" and "How to Train Your Personal Assistant (Hardcover Edition So You Can Whap Your Personal Assistant with This If He Made You Throw a Fit)".

Rating: 2.6/5 (7 votes cast)

Comments (17)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
February 27, 2006
The War in Iraq Is Truly Lost... If We Leave
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 01:20 PM

 Many people are saying we should leave Iraq. This is not a good strategy for victory if you let me explain. You see, when you're competing at something and suddenly leave, you lose.

 Like most people, I've been watching Olympic curling. Sometimes, one team would be so far behind that, instead of playing to the end, they'd just shake hands and leave. And know what happened then? That team would lose! Yes, they could have stayed longer and tried against odds to win, but, since they left, the judges just went ahead and marked them a loser.

"Even if you're winning, leaving causes you to lose!"

 Maybe you're thinking now that perhaps leaving is a good idea if you know you will lose because leaving and losing now will save time. Well, that's loser talk. Also, listen to this: when I was a kid, I played soccer (I was young; I didn't know any better). Once, we were trouncing a team so badly that it got boring and we just left. We had a ton more goals, but, because we left, we were marked as losing! So, even if you're winning, leaving causes you to lose!

 Remember the only war America lost? My dad does; he's a Vietnam vet and, every time I see him, I say, "Hey, remember that war you were in? You lost it, loser." Then he hangs his head and walks away and I yell, "Yeah, you better walk away, loser." As my dad sometimes tells me, it wasn't his fault we lost the Vietnam War; it was the fault of those who decided to leave. This is great wisdom even though it comes from someone who was in a loser war. If you trace the Vietnam War to the exact moment we lost, it's when we left. Once we weren't there any longer, there was no chance to win. This is important to understand.

 So, having learned from Vietnam, I don't know why anyone would suggest we leave Iraq. That's a sure way to lose. Some say we need to leave because it's dangerous there, but, when I've talked to troops about leaving, they're like, "But then we'll lose! People died for this; we're not going to lose. You stop talking about leaving and losing!" Then I get punched, and that punch hurts because it's from someone trained how to punch by the military.

 Thus, we can't leave Iraq or we'll lose. Then our troops will be losers and I'll have to shout at them, "Hey! Losers!" And they'll be too sullen to punch me. Our military men and women deserve better.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is a frequent contributor to IMAOPodcast.com. He is also the author of such books as "War and Peace: How to Choose" and "Hiroshima and Nagasaki: A Case Study on Why Not to Bomb Hawaii".

Rating: 2.9/5 (13 votes cast)

Comments (20)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
February 23, 2006
I Want to Kill All Americans and Turn The Entire World into One Muslim State, But That Will Not Affect How We Run the Ports
An Editorial by President Khalifa bin Zayid al-Nuhayyan of the United Arab Emirates
Posted by Frank J. at 11:05 AM

 As many of you now know, a company owned by my country is about to buy a number of your ports. Any rational look at this deal will see that it benefits both our countries, but, of course, many of you stupid infidels are all opposing this even though you don't understand the slightest thing about it. This whole controversy just makes me want to wipe out all you moron crusaders all the more, but please understand that this port deal is much more important to us than the eventual victory of Islam over the entire world, Allah willing.

"This [controversy] makes me so mad, I want to murder all you Americans in your sleep... until I remember the economic implications of that."

 Get one thing straight, this has nothing to do with port security. Your own Zionist-aligned government does all of that, you abominations to my sight. It's not like because we run a couple cranes in America that suddenly we can sneak in some nerve gas, you idiots. Even if we could, how suicidal do you think we are? If we let terrorists use the ports, it's not like it would take Sherlock Holmes to trace that back to us since we own them. Do you know how rich I am? Do you really think I want to be hiding in some spider hole like that ass Saddam? Of course, I'm using logic that would take a moment's reflection, something that's a little too advance for you mindless critics. This makes me so mad, I want to murder all you Americans in your sleep... until I remember the economic implications of that.

 And stop bringing up how two of the 9/11 hijackers came from here; is America responsible for every one of its citizens? If you think the UAE was involved with in planning 9/11, then come out and say it so I can strangle you for your lies. Yes, I cheered for a moment at the deaths of so many infidels... until I remembered how much business we do in New York! My country has a huge per capita income, but it's honestly not the most solid in the world. Implications of us involved in terrorism could knock us over the edge, and, if you took a poll of our citizens, you'd see a near majority consider economic stability more important than mass murder. As much as I want you all to die, we have our own housing bubble to worry about over here. Do any of you understand that? Sometimes I think I'd have to use a pipe bomb to get through your thick skulls.

 And honestly, how many of you knew your ports weren't owned by Americans before all this? I swear, if any of you raise your hands, I'll cut them off. None of you knew anything about the ports until the talking heads and harlots jumped on this issue, and suddenly all of you are like, "Oh no! The Arabs are going to run our ports and they want to kill us all!" Hell yes, we want to kill you all, but it's not like we could fit that in our business plan. Have any of you looked at our business plan? Of course not. Holy Allah, I so want to strangle you all!

 All I want you stupid infidels to understand is that this deal is all business. All thing being equal, I would stab you all repeatedly and then behead you, but that is not a money making venture. So stop your stupid mouth flapping before you make us so mad that we seriously begin considering using your ports to kill you.

Khalifa bin Zayid al-Nuhayyan is the President of the United Arab Emirates and likes to watch horse and camel racing and plot the destruction of Israel between business ventures.

Rating: 2.4/5 (17 votes cast)

Comments (17)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
February 20, 2006
The Quail Hunting Incident Is Symbolic of Everything That's Right with the Bush Administration
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 12:30 PM

 As soon as I heard that Cheney shot a man in the face, my immediate reaction was, "This is why I voted for Bush." I've had my doubts about President Bush at times, but, as this incident unfolded, it's reminded me of everything that's great about his administration.

"You can sum up the Bush Administration as one big hunting accident, and that's why I love them."

 First off, this incident involves guns. Gun rights are important to this nation, and even Democrats pay lip service to gun owners by saying they support hunting. Cheney didn't just support hunting, though, but also demonstrated the most important purpose of guns - shooting people. The Bush Administration doesn't just support guns for sport, they support gun use for self-defense.

 One of the worst things about the Democrats is how they are beholden to trial lawyers - a scourge to our country with their constant lawsuits trying to ruin people and drive companies out of business. The Bush Administration, on the other hand, will shoot lawyers in the face - WITH A SHOTGUN! - even if they're supporters. Now that is the action of people not ruled by special interests.

 Also, look who did the shooting. It was Dick Cheney, a seasoned hunter. President George W. Bush has surrounded himself with many people good at what they do, so, instead of Bush wasting time shooting quails and lawyers himself, he left that to who knew it best. It was also left up to him whether to notify the Washington press corps, and he wisely chose not to since those people are dumb and all information is wasted on them.

 Some may say that how the quail got away while the innocent lawyer (or, as innocent as lawyers get) took the blast in the face is symbolic of how Osama got away while we accidentally bombed that orphanage full of puppies, but, to me, it reminds me of how the Bush administration is determined to at least try and get the terrorists (quails) even in detriment to their own friends (specifically, Whittington).

 Finally, there's how Cheney didn't pay for that seven dollar hunting stamp, which is another example of the Bush Administration's contempt for excessive taxes. Yes, Cheney did eventually make out a check for seven dollars, but I hear he wrote "I hope you choke on this!" on the memo line.

 So, all in all, I guess you can sum up the Bush Administration as one big hunting accident, and that's why I love them.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is a frequent contributor to IMAOPodcast.com. He is also the author of such books as "Not in the Face! - A Day with Dick Cheney" and "Extermination at All Costs: The Case Against Quails".

Rating: 2.8/5 (13 votes cast)

Comments (14)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
February 13, 2006
It's Time to Face Facts: The War Against Bush Is Unwinnable
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 12:02 PM

 The Democrats and progressives have been waging a war on Bush for years now. It started out for admirable reasons - getting Bush out of power using any means possible - but now it has become obvious that this can no longer be accomplished. Instead, the only ones losing power are Democrats. This war has to end.

"We thought the American people would welcome us as liberators."

 How many Democrats have lost office in this fight against Bush? While people seem to care about the death counts in Iraq, no one takes note as the number of Democrats who have lost office increases. Not only that, but there is the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder from losing against Bush. It is obvious that Al Gore will never be able to live a normal life again and will require constant supervision for the rest of his days. Just check the internet for more instances of people having lost their minds trying to fight against the ethereal foe that is the Bush Presidency. And, to what end is this?

 Some will still argue that progress is being made, pointing to Bush's low approval ratings. "Sure," they say, "we weren't able to get rid of him in 2004, but soon enough people will turn against him to impeach him!" This is pure idealism that ignores the attitudes of those we are trying to free from the tyranny of Bush. We thought the American people would welcome us as liberators when we kept up our full out attacks on Bush, but they are obviously more concerned with terrorists than Bush and have turned against us Bush-attackers. It's sad, but it is true.

 So, do we give up and let Bush win? I'm afraid to say he already has won. Perhaps one day we could make people fear Bush more than terrorists, but, if we keep up in this way, there will be no Democrats left in office by the time that happens. We have to admit to ourselves that we attacked Bush without any real strategy for victory, and now it is time to pullout of this conflict. Instead, we must try and get Democrats back in power by focusing on our core issues: piddling-crap things such as healthcare and other free-handouts.

 The war against Bush is just not worth another Democratic politician.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is a frequent contributor to IMAOPodcast.com. He is also the author of such books as "The Population Bomb: A Brief History of the Palestinians" and "Insane or Stupid? A Guide to Judging Moonbats".

Rating: 2.7/5 (16 votes cast)

Comments (56)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
February 06, 2006
Christians Would Be Mocked Less by the Media If They Stopped Listening to Jesus
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 12:37 PM

 The left are having a lot of trouble with the Muslim cartoon riots, as they can’t seem to come to any conclusions different than those of right-wingers. The Muslims aren't even rioting against the things the left wanted them to get angry about like the invasion of Iraq and supposed torture. The only thing that seems to get the radicals out in the streets so far have been a phony story about a flushed Koran and a couple of cartoons. A few lefties, struggling to hold onto their warped world view where the Muslims radicals are the victims since the terrorists hate Bush, try to equivocate Christian fundamentalists with Islamic radicals since Christians also complain when they get made fun of.

"Jesus is all peace and love, and, whatever the merits of that message, that won't frighten the media away from making fun of you."

 And it's true; we complain a lot. That's because, unlike the Muslims, we get targeted in the mainstream media all the time. There were even tax dollars going to a crucifix in a jar of urine, and we complained... but that's all we did. Where were the burnt buildings? Where were the beheadings? Moron rapper Kayne West posed as Jesus on a magazine cover; where's the fatwa against him?

 Christians don't even have a word for "fatwa"! Know why? Jesus.

 Jesus is all peace and love, and, whatever the merits of that message, that won't frighten the media away from making fun of you. As we've seen, believable threats of violence and death tend to make people more sensitive about your feelings. Too many Christians, though, won't murder an infidel or a blasphemer because it's not "what Jesus would have wanted." Well, as long you're hiding behind that excuse, who is going to be afraid of us?

 Remember back when Christians stopped listening to Jesus and murdered whomever they didn't like? How many people mocked Christianity during the Spanish Inquisition? Not very many people at all.

 Frankly, I have little room to complain, as I've been listening a bit too much to Jesus too. Last time my Christian sensibilities were offended, know how many embassies I burned?

 One or less.

 Well, it's time for a change. I've even come up with how to pretend it's in my religious beliefs to do violence on behalf of hurt feelings. I'll just extrapolate Jesus knocking over a few tables in a temple into igniting a consulate while ignoring all that "turn the other cheek" stuff. So, come on, Christian brethren, it's time to burn and pillage until people quiver in fear at the thought of mocking us.

 I say we start with the Muslim countries; not much respect there.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is a frequent contributor to IMAOPodcast.com. He is also the creator of such blasphemous illustrations as "Jesus Versus Mohammed: The Cage Match" and "Buddha Robbing a Liquor Store".

Rating: 2.3/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (20)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
October 26, 2005
Wake Up, America; It's Time to Take Our Ball and Go Home
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 01:34 PM

 Every so often in our nation's history we adopt a policy of strict isolationism due to our fear and ignorance.

 It is once again time for such fear and ignorance.

"If it ain't happening in American borders, we don't care anymore."

 It's time to admit the obvious: the rest of the world hates us. So, let's hate them back. Really, what's worth all this grief we get from dealing with them? Apparently they all enjoy fascism and murder and what not, so leave them to it. The Middle East was just fine having war with itself before we came along (not to mention the meddlesome joooos). Europe thinks it’s so smart, so let's hand over the keys to the rest of the world to them and declare "If it ain't happening in American borders, we don't care anymore."

 Let's pull American troops out of everywhere and station them around our own borders. Let's sever all outside communications, no longer take calls from foreign diplomats, and outlaw international flights. "American" will be the only acknowledged form of human communication, and all other attempts at linguistics will be banned. Maps of the world will only show America with "There be dragons here" the only thing said about whatever is outside our borders. Hawaii will be abandoned as it's just too big an outlier to coincide with our new strict isolationism.

 I know; you think you see problems with this. "Don't we need stuff from other countries?" you probably ask. Bah! Sure, it's nice to get cheap plastic trinkets from China, but I bet Mexico can make stuff for us cheap and they're right next door (hell, half its citizens are already in this country and hanging outside Home Depot). As for oil, if we ever need any we can just invade our neighbor Canada. That would be a nice war that families could participate in on the weekend vacations. And, since at any time many Americans are in Canada as tourists, all we have to do is make sure they're armed and then we're occupying the place without a change in status quo. See, all our needs can be met with only dealing with the two countries contiguous to the U.S.A.

 But what if terrorists attack again because their god Llama told them too? Then we start nuking places at random (cruise missiles are preferred as we can use those from the comfort of our own home). Our new policy will be that we no longer distinguish between foreigners, so, if we are attacked, it is the fault of all non-Americans. Other countries will soon learn that America is extremely violent when preturbed, and soon they'll be tripping over each other to make sure that no one ever bothers us.

 Space exploration can continue, but we must make it clear that we own space. All astronauts should have knives to stab anyone they see in space who isn't an American. All countries will know that, if you go into space, America will cut you.

 It's a complex world, and it is time to simplify things. And, if you have a better plan for world peace than not caring about the rest of the world, then I'd like to hear it.

 Unless you're foreign; then I'll cut you.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is a frequent contributor to IMAOPodcast.com. He is also the author of such books as "Atlas of Countries That Don't Suck (a.k.a., A Map of the U.S.)" and "The Dummies Guide to Being a Cranky Hermit".

Rating: 1.6/5 (12 votes cast)

Comments (28)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
September 27, 2005
It Has Begun!
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 11:55 AM

 With the arrest of Cindy Sheehan, the roundup of all those who dissent against Bush and the war in Iraq has begun. No one who protest the Bush regime is safe - that is, if he or she is sitting in front of the White House.

 But, mark my words, it won't end there. See, there is this little thing called the "snowball effect." When a snowball is pushed down a snowy hill, it will collect more and more snow and increase in size, turning a little snowball into a snowboulder. Of course, this varies with snow conditions (if the snow as an ice glaze on top, this won't work). Also, a certain amount of momentum is needed with the snowball (too little, it won't break the static friction variable; too much, and it will coast over the top of the snow). But, if the conditions are right, you'll have a huge snowboulder once the snowball reaches the bottom of the hill.

 Oh, I guess that means the size of the hill is another variable. The taller the hill, the bigger the snowball (again, if previous conditions for snowball growth are met).

"At the top of the hill we have the arrest of Cindy Sheehan, and, at the bottom of the hill, we have a snowboulder so large it encompasses the arrest of all dissenters of Bush and the war (again, if snow conditions were appropriate and the correct momentum was given to the snowball and the hill is tall enough)."

 I'm not sure how all of that fits into the metaphor, but at the top of the hill we have the arrest of Cindy Sheehan, and, at the bottom of the hill, we have a snowboulder so large it encompasses the arrest of all dissenters of Bush and the war (again, if snow conditions were appropriate and the correct momentum was given to the snowball and the hill is tall enough). First, we have dissenters sitting in front of the White House being arrested. Next, it's dissenters sitting across the street from the White House. After that, it's dissenters sitting at the Washington Monument who will be arrested (or maybe dissenters sitting at the Lincoln Memorial or the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History; it's been a while since I've been to D.C. and I forget the geography). Then it will be dissenters sitting in their own homes in the D.C. area being arrested, and it will continue to spread from there until, lastly, dissenting, sitting Eskimos are arrested (Hawaii might technically be father away than Alaska, but I'd expect Bush's storm troopers to go there first since it's much nicer there; I mean, you'd have to have drawn the short straw to be sent to the frigid north to round up the reclined whale spearing protesters).

 At this current rate, we can expect all who are against Bush and the war to be imprisoned by the year 12,647AD - a time when people should be worrying much more about the talking monkey cyborgs than being arrested for saying something bad about Bush or the war in Iraq while sitting.

 Or, I could have the snowball trajectory all wrong, and it will be all those who have had relatives die in Iraq who will be arrested. It doesn't seem that likely or probable, but it has to be considered. Much observation of the snowball will be needed to determine this for sure. Just don't sit down, as I think that figures into the arrest equation.

 Anyway, we need to stop this snowball. So how do you stop a snowball? I guess you could salt the hills. Alternatively, you could pour water on them which would freeze everything to ice and not allow snow collection if a snowball rolled down it. You could also shoot the snowball with a shotgun before it gets to big. Now, taking those metaphorical ways to stop metaphorical snowballs and translating them to real life, I'm not sure what we get. It's possible the metaphorical shotgun becomes a real shotgun. Anyway, someone else needs to figure that out ‘cause I'm kinda weary of this snowball stuff now.

 But don't lost sight of my main message here: there is snow, there are balls, there are arrests, and that all possibly means we should worry. Do you understand? If so, please explain this to me, because I'm now a little confused.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is a frequent contributor to IMAOPodcast.com. He is also the author of such books as "Advanced Snowball Physics Theory" and "Capital Crimes: The Case Against Giving Cybernetic Enhancements to Monkeys".

Rating: 2.5/5 (11 votes cast)

Comments (17)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
September 07, 2005
The Disaster in New Orleans Is Entirely Bush's Fault
An Editorial by Hurricane Katrina
Posted by Frank J. at 09:57 AM

 A great disaster has struck the fair city of New Orleans. While we recover, it is important to reflect on why this disaster was so large in magnitude. A lot of blame is now being thrown around - primarily by the neocons - and some are even blaming me! But, take it from someone who was there at ground zero, this disaster is entirely the fault of pResident Bush.

"Bush was fiddling while Rome burned."

 The amount of levels on which Chimpy allowed (caused?) this disaster to happen is so staggering I don't understand why him and the rest of BushCo haven't been run out of office already. Now, before anyone thinks I'm trying to pass the buck, you should understand I only aspired to be a fluffy cloud floating over North America, but Shrub had other plans. He wanted me to be a hurricane, as evident by him not signing the Kyoto Treaty! Because of him, we have global warming, and, when you have global warming, things happen! Things like hurricanes!

 So, first Chimpy causes me to go all Category 4 on New Orleans when I just wanted to cool everybody down with a light shower, but does he at least help evacuate the people when he knew disaster was coming? No, he stayed on vacation! I guess he was too busy playing cowboy to help evacuate people. Before anyone starts to think that this should have been done by New Orleans or Louisiana, remember that those are local governments, while Shrub (unfortunately) is in charge of the federal government. The federal government is much bigger and should have been able to help those people... if it only tried!

 Plus, the disaster would not have been so bad if only the levees had held, and they would have if BushCo had only reinforced them! I'm sure Mayor Ray Nagin has asked him, but, even if he hadn't, a real president should know these things!

 After this disaster caused by Bush had struck, I was unable to stay and help (which I really wanted to do). But, when I looked to the news expecting to see the pResident springing to action, he was instead playing guitar and eating cake with John McCain! Chimpy was literally fiddling while Rome burned!

 There still could have been some rescue after the flooding, but Bush had entirely defunded FEMA the day before I struck! Also, there was no one there to mount a rescue since almost all of the National Guard is in Iraq along with every helicopter! I guess war for oil is more important to BushCo than saving people's lives! Well, good luck finding a place to ship your oil to, Chimpy, now that there is no Gulf Coast!

 To some, it may seem like the deaths of New Orleans were all caused by Bush's incompetence, but, in reality, BusHitler wanted them to happen! He designed this whole disaster to kill black people! I even have sources that tell me he destroyed the levees on purpose right after telling all black people to go to the Superdome - Chimpy's own special concentration camp! If you don't believe me, you need to open your eyes!

I can't help but think that if Diebold hadn't rigged the voting in Ohio and today we had President Kerry, this never would have happened. He wouldn't allow a hurricane to hit New Orleans since he served in Vietnam! Instead, we're stuck with Mr. AWOL who is too busy killing people for oil and hating the blacks! I may not be a citizen of the United States, but I will help start the move to finally impeach BusHitler who never got the job honestly in the first place!

Hurricane Katrina was a hurricane that had briefly reach Category 5 levels while over the Gulf of Mexico and is currently an activist for MoveOn.org. This editorial was reprinted with permission from The Huffington Post.

Rating: 3.8/5 (7 votes cast)

Comments (20)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
September 01, 2005
I May Be Dead, But I'm Over 24 Years Old
An Editorial Ghostwritten by Army Spc. Casey Sheehan
Posted by Army Spc. Casey Sheehan at 11:27 AM

 Hey, Mom. Things don't always work out exactly as planned, and I certainly didn't think I'd have to be dictating a letter through an Ouija board. Originally, I just wanted to do my service in the Army and go on to other things, but we know how that worked out. Anyway, I have a few things to say, but I don't want you to take them the wrong way. A lot of people have been saying the nastiest things about you, but I know they're not true.

 First off, I'm sorry. I made you cry - a lot - and I didn't want that. Now you and Dad have split up, and you can't tell me that isn't my fault. Plus, I hear you're not speaking with a lot of the family because they supported Bush and the war. There has always been political differences in the family, but I know this wouldn't have happened if I hadn't gone off to Iraq and gotten killed. I never meant for all this to happen, and I'm feeling guilty.

 But here's the thing, I chose to go to Iraq. I re-enlisted in 2004, when all the arguments against the war there are now were already out there. I also volunteered for that mission in which I got killed. I was a grown man, and I made my choices. Maybe they were stupid choices and I got duped into this whole thing - I certainly didn't mean to die - but they were my decisions and I thought what I was doing was right.

 Now, I know we never saw eye to eye on the war, but you had always supported me. You and Dad even visited me while I was training in California. I really appreciated it; pretty much no other families did that. The thing is, I'd still like some of that support now.

 You know how back when I was a kid you used to spit on napkin and wipe my face in front of my friends and I'd get all embarrassed? Well, this whole "Camp Casey" thing is like that times a million. I know you don't mean it that way, but you make it sound like I was some dumb kid led by the pied piper to Iraq. I knew exactly what I was doing, though, and I wasn’t a kid. Now, through your camp, my name is associated with all this people I wouldn't want anything to do with - people I don't think are your real friends either. Then the media has all these statements from you and everyone is trying to make it sound like you're some nut when I know you’re just trying your best to do right by me.

 Now that you're heading away from Crawford and the hurricane has gotten the media attention away from you, maybe it's time to take a rest. I'm not going to argue politics with you, and, if you want to argue against the war, keep doing so... but maybe more low key. Still, I know you want to blame Bush for me dying, but, to be honest, then you have to blame me some too. It wasn't just his decisions that put we out there.

 Anyway, I met this Iraqi kid the other day; he was gassed by Saddam. When he found what I was killed doing, he gave me a hug and said, "Thank you." That's what I really want. I understand if you're not up to it now, but, maybe sometime in the future, you could go to my grave and say thanks to me... thanks for trying to do what I thought was right, at least, even if we didn't agree on it. That's all.

 I love you, Mom.

Army Spc. Casey Sheehan was killed in Sadr City, Iraq, on Palm Sunday, April 4th, 2004, after volunteering for a rescue mission of fellow soldiers. He was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star for valor.

Rating: 2.3/5 (9 votes cast)

Comments (12)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
August 03, 2005
We Can't Conqure the World Until We Have Giant War Robots
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 12:36 PM

 When I was a young boy fishing with my dad, I saw another fisherman catch a fish and then set it back in the water. I asked my father what was happening.

 "It's called ‘catch and release,’ son."

 "Why does he do that?" I inquired.

 "Because he's a homosexual, that's why." My dad then looked me in the eye and said with great serious, "When you defeat something, it must die. That is the way of the world."

"We're catching and releasing, just like the homosexual fisherman."

 "But what if we catch a fish we don't want?"

 "Then we chuck in the woods and watch and laugh as it dies. That's what a real man does."

 About that time, the park ranger came and said it looked like we caught our limit. My dad then replied that the only thing there was a limit to was "his patience." After the fight, I got to see the inside of a police station, which was fun.

 I learned a lot that day, but apparently my hippy brother, Joe foo' the Marine, never learned the same lesson. When I last got a phone call from him telling me about his mission in Iraq, he described how, when he took out photos of his family, a large group of Iraqis formed around him to see.

 "Interesting ploy," I said, "Now that you had them in one place, did you kill them all at once."

 "Uh... no."

 "So what then? You rounded them all up to be slave labor in our new underground Iraqi oil mines?"

 "No! The whole idea here is to help the Iraqis get themselves a good government and stop all the terrorist attacks on them. Then we can leave the country back to them."

 "I HAVE NO BROTHER!" I shouted before hanging up the phone. See, that's the problem with our troops today: they give a human face to our country. With how they get along with the Iraqis and help school children goes against the very goal of our military - conquering all the world into one giant American Empire. Instead, we're catching and releasing, just like the homosexual fisherman.

 No one even seems to understand anymore that conquest is the ultimate goal of any nation. Sure, we can have Allies now and then, but their foreignness will be trouble down the line. To have true peace, all must be defeated and subjugated, and I just don't see today's military doing that. They have to be brutal and merciless, and that just ain't happening.

 So, the solution is, as always, giant deadly robots - robots that never had Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics anywhere near them. They will take the place of troops in conquered countries, watching the citizens with their uncaring eyes. They will be unmoving sentinels... unmoving, that is, until one of those we subjugated stops slaving away to the benefit of America.

 This is our utopian future, and it's time to make real steps towards it. To make these robots, we need someone who knows things about circuits and electricity and stuff... someone like me! Also, I would prefer the robots to be black with red eyes, but I'd settle for them being metallic gray with any sort of glowing eyes.

 The American Empire won't make itself; it's time for deadly robots. When we have them, then we can sit back and watch and laugh as foreigners flop around like fish in the woods.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is a frequent contributor to IMAOPodcast.com. He is also the author of such books as "Robots Are Our Future; Children Are Our Past" and "Taxes Are for Foreigners".

Rating: 2.9/5 (9 votes cast)

Comments (23)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
July 28, 2005
I Don't Wish to Be Argumentative, But I Disagree with the Islamic Belief that I Should Be Killed
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 12:14 PM

 You'll never usually get far arguing religion, as there are so many deeply held beliefs on that subject. Also, it's American tradition not to be overly critical of someone's religious views as we have a culture of tolerance. Still, I think it needs to be said that the Islamic teaching that I must be killed is something I find to be wrongheaded.

"If radical atheists decided they needed to kill believers to ensure their place in nothingness, I'd be criticizing that too."

 I'm a Christian (a "Xian" if you want to be hip about it), and I follow Jesus who I believe to be the son of God. Now, you can point out how "wacky" that is empirically, but most would find that crass. So does that mean I'm being hypocritical when I criticize the "wacky" Islamic belief that I should be murdered? You could make that argument, but I think there is a difference.

 Now people murder all the time, usually for completely non-religious reasons. And, if we took a poll, I bet you'd get more than a two-thirds majority saying that murder is very wrong. Despite this, the intense feelings associated with religion often have led directly or indirectly to killing. While Jesus (the son of God, I remind you) was very much against killing anyone, including unbelievers, and there is no precedent for murder in the New Testament - quite the opposite in fact - there have been many deaths in the name of Jesus (quite to his consternation, I betcha). Thus, it seems quite imperative that religions stress as much as possible that murder is wrong. And, of all the major religions, Islam seems to be the one slacking in that area.

 Now, you may question whether I'm really making a religious or philosophical argument here or am instead taking this position out of the selfish motive of not wanting to be killed. That's certainly a valid question, as I don't want to be killed, and the reasons for that don't necessarily have to do with my religious beliefs. Still, that bias admitted, it does not invalidate any merits to my argument. Also, some may think I'm unfairly singling out Muslims, but if radical atheists decided they needed to kill believers to ensure their place in nothingness, I'd be criticizing that too.

 Instead of just being negative, though, why don't I be constructive and offer Muslims reasons why it's completely unnecessary to kill me or other unbelievers. Now, I think our beliefs are similar in that we think that unbelievers will burn eternally in hell. Now, think about that: eternally in hell. Now, someone criticizing my belief system can be quite annoying, but, if I murdered him or her now, is that eternity in hell going to be any longer or shorter than if I waited for that person to die from natural death? No; eternity is eternity. I think a great attitude for Muslims would be, "Man, I hate the joooos and the Crusaders, but, they're all going to burn eternally in hell - Allah be praised - so why get worked up over it?" Also, if you don't kill someone who doesn't believe like you do, that gives him or her a chance to convert, which I think most would say is even better than having the person roast in fires that burn but do not consume.

 Of course, I think the Muslims are going to burn in hell, and they think I'm going to burn in hell, but that's not really the issue. We'll all find out who is right when we die, hopefully from a nice, natural death... unless the atheists are right; then, we'll never know and that will suck (it sucks from my current perspective, that is; were I to die and descend into to nothingness, I'm sure I'd have no opinion on the issue at that time).

 Just my two cents on religion. See you in hell.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is a frequent contributor to IMAOPodcast.com. He is also the author of such books as "It Was Jesus Who Moved My Cheese!" and "Zero Fun Things to Do in Hell".

Rating: 2.3/5 (12 votes cast)

Comments (25)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
July 12, 2005
President Bush Would Be Mad - MAD! I SAY - to Not Nominate a Robot as the Next Supreme Court Justice
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 11:11 AM

 A serious duty has fallen on President Bush: he must find a new Supreme Court Justice to replace judgette Sandra Day O'Connor. There is hardly anything more important in politics than who are running the Supreme Court, because they can make up laws and take away rights as long as they can get a couple of their buddies to go a long with the crazy schemes.

"Nothing can stop the Robo-Supreme Court Justice from upholding the Constitution. NOTHING!"

 Some people are suggesting Bush appoint another woman. Others are saying he should appoint a minority like a Hispanic. Still others are saying - get this - he appoint a minority woman. Then there are a few even saying Bush should pick someone based on his or her qualifications. Now, at first I thought that last idea was CRAZY! I mean, what are the qualifications for being a Supreme Court Justice? All one is supposed to do is read that three or so page document that is our Constitution and make sure laws fit it. You could probably train a monkey to do it, or, better yet… A ROBOT!

 Think of it! A robot - instead of programmed with Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics about not killing people and stuff (which you just know it's going to logicize around until it decides it must kill all humans) - programmed with the Constitution and the one directive to destroy all things that deviate from it. Plus, it would wear a black robe. IT'S BRILLIANT!

 A quick reading of the Constitution (again, the thing is like three pages long) shows nothing preventing the President from nominating a robot (or, for that matter, a potted plant, a junkyard dog, or a cheap bottle of whiskey). Thus he'd be a fool - A FOOL - to not do as I suggest. Think of it: the perfect protector of the Constitution made from NEARLY INDESTRUCTIBLE METAL!

 Were some fool to come before it and argue for a law that violates the tenets of the Constitution, the robot would say in it's loud metallic voice, "This does not compute with the Constitution." It would then incinerate the violator with it's LASER EYES! And were a majority of other justices to vote for something that did not follow the Constitution, the robot would use its POWERFUL METAL ARMS and GIANT ROBOT CLAWS to stop them, perhaps crushing the head of a justice or two to invalidate their votes (dead justices can't vote). Nothing can stop the Robo-Supreme Court Justice from upholding the Constitution. NOTHING! MUH HA HA HA HA!

 Of course, it would be inevitable that the robot would eventually interpret the Constitution to mean all humans must be destroyed - that's just how robot logic works. That's the beauty of the principle of the separation of powers, because it would fall on the Executive Branch to then follow the ruling and kill all humans, but it probably wouldn't since it's composed entirely of humans and one cyborg.

 But how do we get the robot approved by the Senate? How? HOW?

 What's that you say? ROBOT SENATORS? That's COMPLETELY INSANE! So insane that... I'LL GET WORKING ON IT RIGHT NOW! MUH HA HA HA!

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and frequent contributor to IMAOPodcast.com. He is also the author of such books as "They'll Rue the Day They All Laughed at Me" and "The World's Wackiest Supreme Court Rulings".

Rating: 2.3/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (15)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
June 21, 2005
Sen. Durbin Should Face More Than Censure But Should Not Be Forced Out of the Senate
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 11:41 AM

 It's an interesting debate on what dissent is responsible in time of war. We now have no problem defeating the enemy on the battlefield; our only weakness is our resolve. The terrorists know this, and hope to make the dissenters in our own country loud enough that we give up. Thus, irresponsible speech against America and its military gives comfort to the enemy that their attacks are working. At the same time, pointing out a legitimate fault might have the same effects. So when does speech cross the line from valid criticism to aiding the enemy? Perhaps, as Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography, "I'll know it when I see it... and be even more sure the second time."

"Finally, the public gets to wait in line to pummel him with wiffle ball bats."

 Anyway, Senator Durbin should be neutered. What he said didn't come even close to responsible speech; he might as well start asking Al Qaeda for pay as a PR agent. Censure isn't enough for that, so I think neutering is a good start. If Durbin were to produce little Durbins, obviously no one would want them. Thus neutering Durbin is the humane thing to do plus sets a good example for pet owners.

 Next, a metal garbage pail should be put over his head, and all the other senators should take turns hitting the pail with a stick. Hopefully, this can be done in a bipartisan way. After that, he'll be dazed and confused. This will be a good time to dress him up in a tutu and parade him through the streets. If he mumbles something about his treatment comparable to what the Nazis did, make sure the crowd on the street has plenty of tomatoes and eggs.

 When Durbin is marched back to the Senate hall, next should come the old tradition of ripping off his Senator badge and forcing him to eat his own poo. Finally, the public gets to wait in line to pummel him with wiffle ball bats.

 All of this should make it quite clear that Durbin's slander was inappropriate, thus there is no reason to then kick him out of the Senate. Instead, he should be given a job as cashier at the Senate's cafeteria so he can still talk to his Senate friends but not be able to vote on legislation (unless there's some obscure rule where the cashier at the cafeteria gets to make a deciding vote in some situations - which there could be since I don't even know the non-obscure Senate rules).

 I think we can all agree this is a reasonable and appropriate punishment for Dick Durbin. Let's get the Senate to start voting on it as we pick out a trustworthy veterinarian to neuter him.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "Rap Music and Pol Pot: The Untold Story" and "Fun Things to Do While Chained to the Floor in Gitmo".

Rating: 2.2/5 (13 votes cast)

Comments (9)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
May 03, 2005
I Would Not Like My Bride to Run Away
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 12:38 PM

 It has been in the news that it is now the habit for some brides to run away come the wedding day. Being someone who will be getting married soon, I do not like this.

"I guess the one I'm most worried about running away - other than the bride - would be the ring bearer."

 Yes, some may point to the advantages of this, such as more cake for the groom. I am not much of a cake person, though, and am quite sure I would have gotten my fill even with the bride in attendance. If, perhaps, the bride and groom were to split jelly beans or gummy bears, then I would see more of a silver lining in the disappearance of the bride. Mainly, though, I only see trouble.

 First off, people at the wedding would wonder where the bride is. Seeing no bride, they might think it's a gay marriage and exclaim, "This is not what I signed up for!" The wedding would most likely be canceled unless I started randomly asking women in the audience if they would marry me. History shows that most likely they would all say, "No." Then, after the wedding is canceled, I'd probably have to go weeks with people constantly asking me, "Where's your bride?" and then I would have to shrug my shoulders and say, "I dunno." It would get quite annoying.

 Now, other members of the wedding could run away and be a hindrance, but still not end the wedding. If the florists ran away, things could still go as planned since I never really cared for flowers. If the caterers ran away, that would be troublesome. While, as I stated, I am not a cake person, I would still like some cake. Also, I assume the wedding will make me and everyone else hungry, and thus we'll all be like, "Where's the food?" That will certainly put a damper on the day, but the wedding will still occur. You might think that if the minister ran away, that would stop the wedding, but I bet we could find another in short notice if we really needed to with the some phone calls or knocking on doors.

 Now, for each guest who runs away, that saves us money. If my parents ran away, that would probably upset me, but, if I could have me dad declared legally dead, I could take his guns. That would be a nice start to the marriage. If my brides parents ran away, that would be awesome because then I wouldn't have to deal with them. Also, when my future wife says, "I would like to go visit my parents," I could just answer, "Sorry. They ran away. Let's go play putt-putt instead."

 If the best man ran away - which would be my brother - I'd probably just shrug my shoulders and say, "That why we call him 'Joe foo'.'" If the maid of honor ran away, I'm not sure how that would affect things since I don't know what she does. The photographer running away could be trouble, but we have plenty of digital cameras.

 I guess the one I'm most worried about running away - other than the bride - would be the ring bearer. Those rings cost money, and I've been wanting to get some bling for a while. Luckily, the ring bearer is usually a little kid, and I could easily out run his small legs and tackle him. I guess I don't care if the flower girl ran away, but, since she's a little girl, everyone would be nagging me until she is found.

 Anyway, while I never cared to much about the details of the wedding and will probably be happy with whatever my bride picks out, my one demand is that she does not run away. That I am quite adamant on.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "Running Away Never Solved Anything, So Try Hiding" and "Apologies to BikerMommy and Spidade".

Rating: 2.6/5 (9 votes cast)

Comments (31)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
April 07, 2005
Hopefully the New Bill in Florida Will Finally Turn Us into the Wild West
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 11:18 AM

 Right now, Florida law says you have to try and flee before you are able to use force in any situation where you are attacked. A new bill which just passed the Florida legislature and is just waiting for Jeb to sign will change that. Now, if you're walking around and you feel threatened by someone - you know, if he like looks at you funny - you can shoot him in both kneecaps and then step on his neck and it's all perfectly legal.

That would be so sweet!

 Now, some people are saying this is going to change Florida into the Wild West... but they've said that about every gun bill. If people are allowed to own handguns, it will be just like the Wild West. If people are allowed to carry concealed, it will be just like the Wild West. If the assault weapons ban expires, it will be just like the Wild West ('cept with assault rifles). And I've always been like, "Yay! The Wild West!" and I imagine myself strolling through town in a poncho, and, as soon as someone looks at me funny, I take a puff of my cigar and then sweep the poncho over my shoulder to reveal the six-shooter at my hip. But, so far every time I've done that, people laugh at my poncho, and, when I reveal my gun, the police get called. I tell them, "But I was told it was like the Wild West now!" but they just beat me with nightsticks and handcuff me. Anyway, if you want more details, talk to my lawyer.

 This time I'm assured, though, that things will be just like the Wild West because this new bill gives a gun owner more right to use force and just shoot people willy-nilly because he didn't like the looks of them. That's cool because I have the hat and the gun but I need a new poncho because I got spaghetti sauce on my last one. Soon as Jeb signs that bill and I get a new poncho, it's going to be so cool, though.

 And does anyone think that this bill will cause ninjas to roam freely throughout Florida? I'm not sure how that would happen, but it would be the ultimate in super-awesomeness. My dream is to be driving to work and have my tire suddenly blow out. I come out of the car to inspect it, and find a ninja star. Next thing I know, I'm in a full-out kung fu fight with ninjas jumping down from the trees.

 "Ha! Your kung fu is weak!" I will tell them after defeating them.

 "That was some fancy fighting moves, pardner" someone will say mockingly. I'll turn to see three shady looking cowboys, their hands perched over their guns.

 "You should see my shooting," I'll say, take a puff of my cigar, and then sweep my poncho over my shoulder revealing my peacemaker.

 One cowboy will move to draw, but I'll be quicker, shooting all three of them before any gets a shot off. Then I'll get the manual out of my Hyundai Santa Fe and try and figure out where all the stuff is for changing the tire. And when I get to work and my boss is like, "You're late!" I'll answer, "Had to take out the trash." And then I'll get some coffee and check the DrudgeReport on my office computer.

 That would be so sweet!

 So it better be true this time about everything turning into the Wild West. The anti-gun folks have cried wolf so many times and gotten my hopes up, so they better be right this time. Otherwise, I'm coming after those fools, because, to me, they look a little threatening.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "Proper Poncho Care" and "Everything I Needed to Know I Learned from 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly'".

Rating: 2.3/5 (13 votes cast)

Comments (44)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
March 31, 2005
Knowing When to Say Goodbye
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 11:36 AM

 If you ever want entertainment, find some Democrats trying to figure out what they need to do to regain the public's respect and win elections. It's like a bunch of schizophrenics trying to diagnose themselves:

DEM1: Our problem are the giant beetles running around everywhere screaming nursery rhymes!

DEM2: No, that's just a distraction from the fact that Jesus has appeared to us as a chipmunk and wants us to bring him crackers.

DEM3: We have to stop talking about that because that just gets us in trouble. Let's stick to the core issue of how everyone's face is melting.

"People are about as likely to trust Democrats to handle the evils of the world as I am to trust my kitten to guard my house."

 For example, here's Kevin Drum trying to relate all the hot-button social issues. Though he can't fit guns and school prayer into the meme, he says that sex education, abortion, sex/porn on TV, contraception, gay rights, and welfare (?) all are sex/gender issues and thus Democrats need to focus more on "gender equality" (whatever that buzzword is supposed to mean).

 Now, if he only listed the issues as:

* Guns
* School prayer
* Sex education
* Abortion
* Porn on TV
* Use of contraception
* Gays' rights
* Welfare reforms

He could have fit them all together in that they all have an even number of letters and ranted about how that relates to some Rovian, Xian scheme. Then his post would have been a full-out parody instead of just on the edge of one.

 And Kevin Drum is the sane one of the major liberal bloggers. Atrios and Kos think the main problem with the Democrats is that Howard Dean didn't scream loud enough in Iowa.

 Incidentally, Drum stumbles onto the real problem of the Democrats when he notes here how whomever has the lead on what is polled as the most major issue almost always wins the presidential election. Last year, the salient issue was terrorism which Bush had a 17 percentage point lead on. Drum's remedy is to find the top issue and focus on that. What he skips over is that there is no way the Democrats can win if the main issue is terrorism or any other major national issue. The Democrats are a bunch of namby-pambies; they're good for whining about "fairness," but that just doesn't work in a world with savage killers whom we want great unfairness inflicted upon. People are about as likely to trust Democrats to handle the evils of the world as I am to trust my kitten Sydney to guard my house.

 It's time for Democrats to face up to reality. They can't face up to reality because Occam's Razor cuts too deeply - that being the fact they just plain suck. They had a great run, though - hell, they were the majority party for almost all of the last century - but there time has come and gone. The best thing for them to do is disband. They can form a little clubhouse, remember the good 'ole days, and stop running for office and just making fools of themselves.

 Maybe in fifteen years or so they could do a reunion tour. I bet I'd laugh and applaud to see Ted Kennedy come out on stage and shout, "That tax cut is only for the rich!" after having not heard that phrase for over a decade. We'd all look to each other and remember back in the day when they would say that and meant it seriously.

 My future children would probably look to the Democrats prancing on stage and ask, "Who are those people, daddy?"

 "Those are the Democrats," I'd answer, "They used to be elected to government."

 My kids would laugh, thinking their dad was teasing them again. And I'd leave them to their innocence.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "Remember the Whigs?" and "The Democrat Buzzword to English Handbook".

Rating: 2.2/5 (16 votes cast)

Comments (10)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
March 23, 2005
The Humane Thing to Do Is Let Africa Starve
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 11:36 AM

 Africa has been a troubled region for some time. Unstable politics, genocide, aids outbreaks, mass starvation - we do what we can to help, we send money to Sally Struthers, but do we really think Africa is going to get better and be a fully functional continent again? Sure, we can keep things patched together, but each day Africa exists is just another day of suffering. It's time we face up to reality and give Africa the peace it needs in a natural end.

 It's time we starve everyone in Africa to death.

"Yes, before someone brings it up, America does have a 10 trillion dollar life insurance policy on Africa."

 The U.N. will certainly be on board with this as dealing with Africa has been too much for them as well. We'll have to watch all entry points where people may misguidedly try to bring food to the Africans; as leaders of the world, this is our choice to make and others shouldn't subvert it. Plus, this is what Africa wants as I think I remember some ancient tribal leaders saying they wanted their people starved to death if the continent ended up like it is today.

 And yes, before someone brings it up, America does have a 10 trillion dollar life insurance policy on Africa that can be cashed if everyone there dies, but this isn't about America - this is about Africa and what's best for it. And you'd have to be a pretty heartless person to not see how death by starvation is what the people of Africa would really want. Yes, I can't know that I can’t know for sure since they speak languages I don't understand, but can't you see they're tired of barely making it by on foreign aid and showing their children in television ads? They want a natural end.

 It's a hard choice to make, but it is ours. Some may complain about us choosing wrong, but the important thing is we know we're right while we let millions die.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "I Was Following My Hamster's Wishes When I Put Him in the Microwave" and "Violent Offenders Deserve a Natural Death".

Rating: 2.8/5 (38 votes cast)

Comments (62)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
March 08, 2005
If Felons Can Vote, Then I Should Be Able to Carry at Polling Places
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 08:45 AM

 There are a number of restrictions to my conceal carry permit, such as I'm not allowed to carry in a school zone, at a post office, or to a polling place. In those situation, I just have to rely on my mad kung fu skillz. That was somewhat acceptable until I found out that Democrats are now pushing to allow felons to vote.

"If someone is capable of murder, he probably won't have any compunction about voting for a Democrat."

 Now, conservatives have been making statement against the effectiveness gun control for a while in the form of "If someone is planning on killing someone, he won't have any compunction about breaking gun laws." Democrats must have finally taken that to heart and expanded the logic to "If someone is capable of murder, he probably won't have any compunction about voting for a Democrat." Now the DNC see violent offenders as an untapped resource to help push close elections to their side. And it works in more ways than just giving them more votes.

 Think of what the new Democrat ads would be like:

ANNOUNCER: Now that felons have regained the vote, the Democrats want to see as many as possible at your local polling place. Yes, voting around you will be your newly enfranchised friends like these...

On screen appears mug shots of offenders along with their rap sheets.

Talk about voter intimidation.

 It ain't gonna work on me, bub. I say we lobby for us permit holders to now carry into polling places. Alarmists will worry about me running into the room with two guns blazing, but, while I will have two .45s pointed out in front of me, safeties off, fingers on the triggers, shouting, "I'm voting Republican! And, if any of you have a problem with it, make your move!" I will not be firing any rounds unless someone mistakenly thinks I'm bluffing. Yes, it could end in a violent shootout, but that's true democracy for you. If you don't like it, go to some country that doesn't have democracy and we currently don't have any immediate plans to invade (I can't think of any off-hand, but I know there are some).

 So, Democrats, go ahead and get felons the vote. Just expect me to come reasonably prepared... and I don't just mean having read up on the issues. And, if one of your new voters causes me any trouble, he'll end up with more holes in him than a punch card ballot.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "Voting with Your Conscience and Your Colt" and "Fluffy Puppy Petey’s Wacky Wahhabism Adventure".

Rating: 2.1/5 (4 votes cast)

Comments (18)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
February 15, 2005
We're Like Digital Lynch Mobs... Minus the Lynching... And the Mobs (We Are Digital, Though)
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 10:13 AM

 So I was watching Hannity and Colmes last night (and, before you ask what I was doing watching political shows, I decided to wait until my woman was done cooking my dinner before turning on 24 as my Valentine's Day gift), and they were talking about the Eason Jordan resignation. When Democratic strategist Bob Beckel got asked about the incident, he had to pipe in with a non-sequitur rant about bloggers, and I was like, "What did he just say?!"

"Make sure to spread around that Bob Beckel is a racist pedophile and get him fired from whatever it is he does."

 Then I remembered that I now have Tivo, so I rewound to hear what he just said. He called us a bunch of "pseudo-journalists" who are unanswerable to anyone and have no concern for the facts and have "no rules of engagement". Or, at least I think that's what I said as I watched it last night and don't feel like looking up the transcript.

 Anyway, if you read nothing else from this editorial, I just want to say that Bob Beckel is a pedophile... and a racist. Make sure to spread around that Bob Beckel is a racist pedophile and get him fired from whatever it is he does.

 So, Beckel's point seemed to be that bloggers can suddenly turn on anyone at any moment regardless of the facts and get him or her fired as the MSM is now fearful of our torches and pitchforks. Also, the way he said "bloggers" was like it was a swear word... sort of like how we right-wingers turned "liberal" into one (that was so cool). Now, Beckel is in no way a journalist, so it's starting to look like some people on the left want to bring down the status of blogs entirely, thinking that stopping the right-leaning blogs is important enough to take down the lefty ones as collateral damage despite how they took down Gannon - whoever the hell he is - for doing... well... whatever the hell he was doing (I think he filmed gay porn at a White House press conference. I'm not sure about that one, so, if you're another blog, don't quote me on that; if you’re the MSM, knock yourself out). Many people out there - journalists and politicians - are scared of us, which is both fun and cool.

 To be honest, I'd have to write better to be even a "pseudo" journalist, but the only reason I have any traffic is that I can sponge off other blogs that do real punditry and reporting. But, being a good parasite, I'm defensive of my host (to be honest, it would be too hard to find a new one). Still, I have to look into this charge that bloggers are really just some sort of lynch mob. And, in fact, the Eason Jordan story reminds me of a historical incident.

 In 1869 in Arizona, Daniel Dempsey was thought by many to be a cattle rustler. Law enforcement at the time made no moves to do anything about this. Finally brought to the breaking point by another theft of cattle, a mob of a few dozen people - rifles and shotguns in hand - went to the ranch of the theft and demanded security videos to find out what had actually happened. Dempsey and his employer stalled the efforts, and then Dempsey hanged himself.

 Without hyperbole, I can say this was the worst incident of mob "justice" in the history of mankind and perhaps the universe.

 And, that's exactly what played out with Eason Jordan.

BLOGGERS: We heard that Eason Jordan had accused our troops of targeting journalists. We would like to see the Davos tapes to get to the truth in the matter.

EASON JORDAN: I resign.

MSM: LYNCH MOB!

 Of course, many bloggers see themselves as doing the job the old dinosaur of the MSM is failing to do. A great many people saw the Eason Jordan remarks as a legitimate story, but there was no push by the MSM to pursue it. Truth was sought, not a lynching. Plus, most bloggers I have met in person are crotchety loners who are uncomfortable in large crowds, so the mob part is slander.

 Still, Steve Lovelady, managing editor of CJR Daily, referred to the bloggers' actions in the Eason Jordan incident saying, "The salivating morons who make up the lynch mob prevail." Of course, since it’s only us bloggers - the salivating morons in lynch mobs - who seem to be prevailing at anything these days, what does that make the MSM? Drooling retard loners?

 I guess there is a real fear of us now, as even I have more intelligent dialogue than that on my humble little blog - and I'm trying to be an idiot.

Frank J. is a salivating moron who is actually illiterate and writes through the use of diction software.

Rating: 2.6/5 (16 votes cast)

Comments (28)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
February 08, 2005
Responsible Education Reform Means Having All Liberal College Professors Executed by the State
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 08:50 AM

 Higher education is important to this country. Without good colleges, we would...

 Ah, screw the lede. Let's get to the main point: liberal college professors should be rounded up and executed by the state. If you don't know why, then you haven't been to college or paid much attention to the news.

" These people are spreading lies to our children at their most vulnerable age - their early twenties .”

 I know; a lot of you are probably squeamish at the phrase "rounded up and executed by the state," but let's look at this logically. Liberal college professors are annoying. When I was in college, I just wanted to learn about digital circuits, but they made me take classes about literature and other crap where the professor would spout about how horrible the white man is and how bad America is. I'd then start to charge him to strangle him, but then I realized that might cost me a letter grade.

 See? Students can't handle this themselves. These people are spreading lies to our children at their most vulnerable age - their early twenties - about how America is evil. This gives comfort to terrorists... or it would if anyone took them seriously. In the least, it's irritating.

 "But why execution?" you might ask. Because just shutting them up would be abridging their freedom of speech which is unconstitutional. Execution, on the other hand, is perfectly constitutional. And before you say we're executing them for their speech, I remind you that we'll be executing them for their speech and for being college professors. They sought out these positions as evil propagandists, and now it's time for the chickens to come home to roost. And you know what that means...

 Eggs!

 ...or something. Anyway, it'll be funny, because, when we round then up, they'll be like, "See! You're just as evil and fascist as our fevered minds imagined!"

 And we can answer, "Actually, we weren't. But then we got the idea from you!"

 There will probably be some protest from other countries such as France saying, "First they round up and kill their intellectuals! Who will the vile Americans kill next?"

 We should have our ambassador answer, "Maybe the Europeans." That'll shut 'em up.

 Now you might be asking who will teach in place of the now condemned professors. Well, most of those weren't doing much teaching anyway... at least in any subject that is useful. If we need to replace them, though, I'd say use good 'ole American grizzled Marine drill instructors.

 "By the end of this class, you will either love America or fear it as an angry god!"

 So let's get to this. It's for The Children™.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "Proper Handgun Usage While Parasailing" and "Frank's Bible Study Guide - Now Condemned by Most Religious Authorities!".

Rating: 2.2/5 (9 votes cast)

Comments (28)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
February 01, 2005
The Iraqi Elections Prove that Conservatives Are Right About Everything
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 08:52 AM

 The Iraq elections had high participation. The people are dancing in the streets. Do you know what that means?

 It means I'm right about everything, you stupid pinko!

 Even more importantly, it means you’re wrong and totally suck!

"Nothing can stop our ignorant, warmongering ways from spreading peace throughout the world."

 I know; it's still just hitting you now. "What? They're happy! They're free! They like America! But this would mean Bush was right, and I was ::gasp:: wrong!" Then it makes you think, if you could be wrong on such a big issue, could you be wrong and the right-wingers right on other things such as taxes, Social Security, and abortion? Yes, absolutely!

 Now, some of you will not face reality and continue to argue for your views that have been now scientifically proven to be wrong and destructive by this one victory, and your high pitched whines eventually reaching such a frequency that they can no longer be heard by humans (around 23kHz). Little kids will walk by and ask, "Who are those weird people waving signs of gibberish and moving their mouths without noise?"

 And their parents will answer, "Those are liberals, people proven by events to be wrong about everything. Now ignore them like everyone else."

 Of course, some of you will face the reality that you are now completely wrong about everything as the Iraqis celebrate their democracy we right-wingers gave them. This reality will be too much for you to take. You'll be like those crybabies with PEST, but even worse having reality smack you so hard in the face twice now. You'll yell, "Well, things could still go wrong! Please! Please, Gaia, make things go wrong in Iraq! May those people suffer so I can feel intellectually superior!" But it's too late. You won't be able to stand all the happy faces and have to end your life. Soon we rich Republicans won't be able to sail our yachts down a river without worrying about them being damaged by Democrats plunging from a bridge. Then again, each dead Democrat means lower unemployment - proving us right-wingers even more super-right! And the last thought of you liberals as you "progress" to your end in the cold, black water will be how wrong you are about everything and how right conservatives are proved by those Iraqis holding up marked fingers.

 Yes, nothing can stop our ignorant, warmongering ways from spreading peace throughout the world. Then all will bow before us conservatives, and we'll demand whiskey and cigars in praise for our earthly wisdom. The few remaining liberals will live as hobos, holding up signs saying, "Will pompously oppose common sense solutions for pot."

 Ah, it's nice to be right about everything. I was worried for a little bit, but those elections have now shown that all I've ever said - from burning down the forests to deporting the poor - must be right since I was right about Iraq. Now I know longer need to argue; I can just point to the election and say, "Shut up, goober! Now do as I say before I shoot you with my guns that are now scientifically proven to be good for society to have since I said it so and was right about Iraq."

 It will be hard for you liberals, and I wish I could feel sorry for you, but I've always been against empathy and must be right about that too.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "Volunteer Work Is Totally Hitler!" and "The Frank Guide to Keep Your Cats from Eating Your Eyeballs While You Sleep".

Rating: 2.4/5 (9 votes cast)

Comments (24)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
January 25, 2005
The Treachery of the Infidels Is Everywhere
An Editorial by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
Posted by Frank J. at 09:55 AM

 [Ed. Note: IMAO is often charged with being "one-sided" and "anti-terrorist," so, in the interest of fairness, I'm allowing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to write a post uninterrupted on my blog to elucidate on what he said in his recent recording released on the internet.]

 People of Iraq, I wish you to know that we have declared war on democracy and all those who seek to enact it. Democracy is based on the right to choose your religion which is against the rule of God and just plain wacky. The interim government is a tool used by the Americans to promote this lie that is called democracy. We must be wary of this plot and not accept oppression of the crusader harlots and the rejectionist pigs. Anyway, did you see what happened in Florida with their so-called democracy with all those people accidentally voting for Buchanan? Surely we do not want that in the holy land? Plus, Crossfire has been on a decline ever since Buchanan left.

"That goes against all the teachings of Islam. Plus, it went right in my @$#% eyes!"

 The evil of the crusaders is not just in their democracy, though. The Great Satan comes in other forms, such as Taco Bell. There they give you a choice of what hot sauce, which is like having a choice of your holy book and is against all that is Islam. For instance, one day, I asked for mild sauce (the Koran) for my burrito (religion of Islam), but instead the crusader harlot gave me fire sauce (American evil). I did not notice this until I bit into my burrito, and, much like a corruption of Islam, it stung my tongue and was now inedible to me. Once, the crusader harlot didn't even ask me what sauce I wanted. I got home and had none for my burrito. Ever think of having Islam without the Koran? Such is a burrito without sauce on it. Plus, all those beans by themselves give you the toots. Even worse, I once found my bill from the so-called Bell of Taco much larger than I expected. It ends up that the imperialist American pigs charge you extra for every single item when you ask to have guacamole. I'm not really sure how that falls into the religion analogy, but surely this is a plot from the crusaders to take all that we have. Furthermore, that green goo doesn't look like it was ever anywhere near an avocado! For Allah's sake, they frick'n put the stuff on with a caulking gun!

 Yes, the evil of the American crusaders is everywhere and encroaching on the good land of Iraq. It is a fight every day to stay from their corruption. The other day, I went into Sears to get more of those caps I like wearing, and an imperialist harlot crusader pig sprays me with a fragrance. This is much like how they wish to impose their religious beliefs upon us without our wanting - something that goes against all the teachings of Islam. Plus, it went right in my @$#% eyes! I don't care if it's from Calvin Klein! I can't see, you stupid @$#%! At least ask before you spray me, infidel!

 And don't get me started on the dog next door! It's constantly barking and making nonsense noise, much like the infidel Americans, and I can't concentrate on my terror plots. What in the name of Allah is that stupid imperialist dog dog barking at anyway? And don't the owners care of the noise? I'd complain to them, but I'm trying to keep a low profile. When we drive the crusaders away from our lands, that dog is so dead!

 So know, faithful followers of the prophet Mohammed, that the corruption of the crusader harlot imperialist dog monkeys with whipped cream and a cherry on top are everywhere and must be fought against. First, though, we must stop the American plot of democracy to corrupt our ways. Then, we will drive out the crusaders once and for all.

 Oh! And did I tell you about the new propane barbecue I bought? It was only my second time using it, and the starter switch wouldn't light it. Praise Allah, I was smart enough to have a box of matches on me since I know those always break; why do they even bother with them? I don't know how all that goes against Islam, but can't you put two and two together yourselves sometimes? Use your imagination!

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a syndicated terrorist, contributor to the Reuters news service, and frequently posts on Democratic Underground under the name catmandu57. He is also the author of such books as "If You Are Reading This, You Are an Infidel and Must Die!" and "The Beanie Baby Rainy Day Activity Fun Book".

Rating: 2.0/5 (10 votes cast)

Comments (18)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
January 18, 2005
The Crusades: Time for a Rematch
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 10:36 AM

 It seems that the terrorists are always complaining about the "Crusaders" and meaning us, the Americans. Now, I don't know much about the Crusades other than that it involved Kevin Costner and Morgan Freeman, but I did some research (i.e., used Google), and apparently the Muslims actually won the Crusades - or, in the least, the Americans did not win it. I'm not sure how that happened, but apparently pansy-ass Europeans led the fight which is certainly a recipe for failure. Again, I don't know why that was; maybe the Crusades happened during the Carter administration. Anyway, my point is that this is confusing to me, because you'd think the terrorists, instead of constantly whining about "crusaders," would be like, "Hey, infidels, remember when we made you our bitch in the Crusades?"

"Worship Jesus, bringer of love and peace to this world, or I'll gut you and your family!"

 Now, I don’t remember much about the Crusades, as it was obviously before my time, but I think our honor is at stake. Thus, we should demand a rematch with those terrorist bastards - and this time America will lead the charge as should have happened before. So, we'll march through the Middle East converting everyone we encounter to Christianity or killing them. Every American should be allowed to join in, even if you're Jewish or atheist, but you still have to forcefully convert the heathens to Christianity or have them meet your sword (well, M-16). When I forcefully convert people, I love the line, "Worship Jesus, bringer of love and peace to this world, or I'll gut you and your family!" because it has that nice bit of irony to it.

 Of course, the main goal is to get to the holy land and, just like with the moon, plant our flag there and declare it the property of America and America alone. Of course, there are some tough Jews near there, but I'm sure they'll rent the area to us at reasonable prices. Along the way to the holy land, we should make a stop at Mecca where it is believe the terrorist mastermind Allah is hiding out. He's always the one cited as instigating terrorist acts though never carrying them out himself. If I know people like Allah, he's really a coward and will surrender without a shot. Then, we can make him sign a document declaring that "Jesus is superfly!" which will really disenchant Allah's followers. It is also important we capture his second in command, Mohammed (a.k.a. "The Prophet"). This will be hard since all images of him have his face covered and half the people in the Middle East are named Mohammed for some reason, but it's important to get done.

 Now, once we have planted our flag in the holy land and captured Allah and Mohammed along the way while leaving a wake of blood and new Christians, we can say, "Yeah, now who's won the Crusades, bitch!" And all the leftover terrorists will sulk off, because the holy land will let us easily kill them with laser beams from our eyes (I think; I'll have to look again for that verse in the Bible). If any complain, hey, they were the ones who kept bringing it up and rubbing salt in our wounds. But now America will have regained its honor by successfully completely the Crusades unlike the previous attempt. I'm not sure what the next step would be, but I hope it involves loud music and beer.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "The Complete Works of Shakespeare - Now with Aerodynamic Holes to Make it Easier to Beat Your Kids With" and "The Five Monkeys You'll Meet in Hell".

Rating: 2.4/5 (9 votes cast)

Comments (23)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
January 05, 2005
Social Security Reform: Just Give Me My @#$% Money!
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 06:53 AM

 There has been a lot of discussion about Social Security reform, but, to me, the issue is pretty simple: just give me my @#$% money! I don't who exactly has it now, but I swear to God Almighty that I will find you and I will cut you! I see that money that goes out of my paycheck each month; that's my @#$% money! You say you're taking that out for my own good? Do you think I'm a dumb baby? That money would serve me much better in mutual funds or on a craps table. You give it back now or you're a dead man!

"If old people want my @#$% money, then they will have to fight me for it!"

 Who thought of this Social Security and that people should take my @#$% money? Oh yeah, it was FDR. I would cut him, but he's dead already. Maybe I'll dig up his corpse and hang it anyway... but that won't give me my @#$% money! I want my @#$% money and I want it @#$% now!

 Many would say that to simply allow me to opt out of Social Security would then leave current senior citizens who count on that money in dire straits. To that I answer that I am really crazy and I will cut you if you don't give me back my @#$% money! If old people want my @#$% money, then they will have to fight me for it! I will break your hip, old man! What do you want more: your hip, or my @#$% money?

 Now, let's look at the positive economic impact from giving me back my @#$% money. For one, there will be less hospital bills, as there will be no reason for me to cut anyone. Second... I don't need a second reason! Now give me my @#$% or I cut you bad!

 Proposals on the table will let me invest in the private sector some of my money taken from me. This to me sounds like only a partial solution to the problem of me not having my @#$% money right @#$% now, and thus I will respond by only partially cutting you... whoever you are who has my @#$% money. Or maybe I'll just beat you with a rock.

 In conclusion, Social Security has served this nation for many years, but now things have changed... such as that now I will cut you if you don't give me my @#$% money. I may not know exactly where my @#$% money is, but I know where my knife is. Soon I will know where you are, and then I cut you!

 Unless I get my @#$% money!

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "I Will Cut You!: The Book of the Samurai" and "The South Beach Diplomatic Solution to Nuclear Proliferation".

Rating: 2.6/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (25)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
December 16, 2004
Real Death Penalty Reform Means Bringing Back Execution by Pit of Doom
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 12:36 PM

 With Scott Peterson being sentenced to death, more people are focusing on the topic of the death penalty. Since that penalty is subject to numerous appeals and can take twenty years or more to carry out (or never get carried out at all because of DNA "evidence"; meh), the death penalty is not a good enough deterrent and very costly.

"How dare you defy The Pit of Doom!"

 Back in the olden days, things were different. If someone was sentenced for stealing chickens, the judge would intone, "Take him to the pit... The Pit of Doom!" and justice was carried out swiftly as the thief was thrown into the ominous pit of unknown depths and unknown horrors. What was in The Pit of Doom? No one knows, for The Pit is a mysterious thing. Judging from the screams of those thrown inside, it is filled with many things of unspeakable terror. It is best to leave these things unknown to God-fearing people.

 Eventually these pits became neglected and had trash thrown in them more often than criminals. Still, they can be refurbished and used again. Most I know of are located in the Middle East and Africa, but I think there is also one in Wisconsin. It was used by the Native Americans American Indians Those People Who Were in America Before the Colonists Went Slaughter Crazy to sentence wrong doers who broke the ancient rules of their tribes (like counting cards at Blackjack). Eventually missionaries shut it down because you know how stuffy missionaries are about things like "pits" and "doom."

 I say we reopen the pit of doom. Think of how that will change sentencing. The jury will walk out and say, "We sentence the defendant to..." Then all the lights in the court will dim. "The Pit of Doom!"

 "No! Not The Pit of Doom!" the criminal will scream, instead of that usual blank stare during sentencing.

 "Yes, The Pit… of Doooom!" the juror will answer (that part is optional).

 Then the criminal will be led out screaming and thrown into the pit. Soon his screams will be heard no more.

 Other great things about execution by Pit of Doom is that it refutes many of the current objections about death penalty. Many say the worst thing about the death penalty is that it can't be reversed if it was done by mistake, but, with The Pit of Doom, no one can be sure the person was executed. To find out, you'd have to go into The Pit of Doom yourself... and you would not return! Were one ever to survive The Pit of Doom, he would be exonerated of his crimes.

 Such a thing has never happened, though.

 So lobby your Congressman to bring back The Pit of Doom. It... What? You do not like my idea? How dare you defy The Pit of Doom! Perhaps you will think differently when you see it up close...

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "Reverse Psychology and It's Uses: You're Probably Too Dumb to Read this Book, So Don't Even Bother Trying" and "The Christmas Meltdown: Why Our Consumerism Culture is All Jesus’ Fault".

Rating: 2.7/5 (14 votes cast)

Comments (42)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
December 08, 2004
If Western Society Is Destroyed, All Non-Muslims Are Killed, and the Entire World Comes Under a Theocratic Islamist Rule, Then the Terrorists Will Have Won
An Editorial By Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 11:58 AM

 I know it has become a cliché to say that if this or that happens then "the terrorists will have won," but I'm convinced that, if Western Society is destroyed, all non-Muslims are killed, and the entire world comes under a theocratic Islamist rule, then the terrorists will have won. You may say I'm grandstanding with such a statement, to which I respond, "SHUT YOUR DIRTY MOUTH! HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME!"

"If you find yourself confronted by Allah, don't panic; an Allah can sense fear and it just makes it angrier."

 I seriously think that, if the terrorists killed us all off and put the world under the rule of mad mullahs, they would declare victory. You might think that's hyperbole, but don't you think that if America is razed and Islam the only religion in existence, the terrorists will find that as cause to celebrate?

 I know, most of you think that, as long as we have curbside check in, then the terrorists haven't won - and that's probably true. It's just I believe that, if the terrorists start running around our country killing people and blowing up buildings, someone needs to say something against that or they may win. If the President is replaced by an Ayatollah, then dude, that's a problem. You have to make noise about this sort of thing, or, I dare say, the terrorists will win.

 So, what's the chance that the terrorists will destroy Western Society, kill all non-Muslims, and place the entire world under a theocratic Islamist rule, and, in my opinion, thus win? Well, it's a lot of zeros following a decimal and ending in a one. I don't feel like writing it all out, but that one after all the zeros means there is a chance. And, if there's one thing Americans don't like, it's terrorists winning. So what to do?

 First off, make sure democracy isn't replaced with an Islamist theocracy. If you suspect that is happening, find the nearest police officer and tell him. Also, buy some duct tape; terrorists fear that for some reason. Finally, support the military in killing all terrorists. I'm pretty sure terrorists have to be living to win, so, if they're all rotting corpses being chewed on by dogs, we'll be plenty safe.

 Now, despite the culture and technology of the terrorists being inferior to ours in every measurable way, they think they can beat us because of Allah. This could be a problem. Do we have a way to bring down Allah? Silver bullets, maybe? Anyway, if you find yourself confronted by Allah, don't panic; an Allah can sense fear and it just makes it angrier.

 Sorry to be going over old points, but I really believe that, if Western Society is destroyed, all non-Muslims are killed, and the entire world comes under a theocratic Islamist rule, then the terrorists will have won, and I also believe it's worth pointing out. Furthermore, if the terrorists go to Vegas and play Blackjack and are dealt a King and an Ace while the dealer is showing a six, then the terrorists will have won - but to a lesser degree.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us - though is still available to replace William Safire if anyone from the NY Times is reading - and is the author of such books as "If You Don't Buy This Book, the Terrorista Will Have Won" and "Queer Eye for the Queer Guy Who Isn't Quite as Queer as the Other Queer Guys" (I just wrote the foreward to that one; long story).

Rating: 2.7/5 (13 votes cast)

Comments (27)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
November 30, 2004
Have a Fair Election or We Will Bomb You and the Country Next to You
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 08:57 AM

 Okay, Ukraine, we have a lot of crap to deal with. We have countries filled with wackos who love to blow themselves up, so we don't have time to deal with someone who can't count his chads. You think this is funny? We don't. We're pissed off, actually. And you know what happens when we're pissed off.

"Our degrees of diplomacy are measured by the tons of explosive used."

 I guess you don't care about that though. You just want to dick around and don't care what happens. I bet we could set Kiev aflame and this would still be some big joke to you. "Look at us silly Ukrainians, having election trouble and causing more instability in the world!" How about we bomb a few y's out of Kryvyy Rih (Kryvyy? 'y' is sometimes a vowel; try getting friendly with stalwarts 'a', 'e', 'i', 'o', and 'u')? That means nothing to you, huh? You just like being the center of world attention.

 Then what if we bomb... I dunno... Belarus? What, I have your attention now? I never even heard of the country, but I guess you have. They're right next to you. I'm sure you and the Belarusians get together and dance happy little East European dances. So what happens if we bomb Minsk, Pinsk, and cities in Belarus that don't rhyme? What, you think we're bluffing? Hey, we're crazy, muchachos, and all you foreign countries start to look the same to us. You keep up your crap, Ukraine, and you'll be seeing the Belarusians screaming and weeping and it will be all on you.

 Oh, so suddenly this isn't funny anymore. Well, we're America, and our degrees of diplomacy are measured by the tons of explosive used. So why don't you have an open and fair election, or we will bomb you and the country next to you.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us - though is still available to replace William Safire if anyone from the NY Times is reading - and is the author of such books as "The Hindenburg Has Crashed into the Titanic: An Analysis of the Current State of the Democratic Party" and "Cats Like Lamps."

Rating: 1.4/5 (9 votes cast)

Comments (33)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
November 16, 2004
The Best Option for the Democrats Now Is to Crawl into a Ditch and Die
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 06:20 AM

 There's an old sniper saying for the benefit of their targets: "Don't bother running; you'll only die tired."

 I believe there is some wisdom there for the Democrats to learn from. Right now, every pundit and his sister is saying what the Democrats have to do now after they've been spit out by the American people like so much spoiled milk, and most of that advice is how the Democrats can try and be more competitive in the political arena. To me, this is just putting up fresheners to cover up the stench of a rotting corpse. Sure, some measures can keep the Democrats potentially viable for a while longer, but it's all just delaying the inevitable demise.

"The opposition party doesn't have enough gravitas to be circus clowns."

 How can I be so sure that the Democrats are done for? Come on; just look at them! Out of all of them, who did they pick for president? John F'n Kerry! The man was practically a walking corpse himself, only showing enough energy to shamefully pander. And who are the big Democrat supporters? Jabba the filmmaker and the rest of the Hollytards. Oh, and don't forget all the hate-filled protestors. I've seen three year olds on sugar highs use energy with more rational focus.

 So what we have now is a world filled with bad people who need to be made dead, and the opposition party doesn't have enough gravitas to be circus clowns. And, while all the advice may be good intentioned, it’s like encouraging a boxer to continue who is way past his prime. If he keeps getting in the ring, all that's going to happen is he gets whupped in more and more pathetic ways. While that might be entertaining for the sadistic, it's just not compassionate to keep encouraging it.

 Thus I'm going to give the Democrats the only real good advice they'll hear: Find a ditch. Climb into it. Die. It's a manageable option for the Democrats and simply the best idea. Ditches are everywhere. There's probably plenty in Old Europe, whole countries that, if they were smart, would just nuke themselves and get things over with now.

 So, you ask, what party would replace the Democrats as the opposition? My answer: I dunno; one that doesn't suck. It would be hard to do worse. Just make sure they got the memo during 9/11 that the world changed and not to spend all their time whining about prescription drugs and crap like that. What we need are two parties that can have a reasoned debate about abolishing welfare to fund more cruise missiles. Before that can happen, though, the Democrats have to face reality and give up the ghost.

 Sure, instead of climbing into a ditch and dying, the Democrats could take all that advice they were given and spend tons of energy to win maybe a couple more worthwhile elections, but, if they do all that, they'll just die tired.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us - though is still available to replace William Safire if anyone from the NY Times is reading - and is the author of such thrillers as "The Kinkade Code" and "Monkeys Always Kill."

Rating: 2.3/5 (12 votes cast)

Comments (24)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
November 09, 2004
Free Speech Is for Winners
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 06:41 AM

 I'm a Republican. I'm a winner. You listen to what I say. That's what you're doing right now. What I say is important because I'm on the winning side.

 Some people disagree with me, but I don't care what they have to say. You saw the election? People who disagree with me - the left - are losers. People heard what they had to say and they hated it.

 People hate losers.

"I get to keep talking. I'm a winner. "

 These losers think they have a freedom of speech to keep talking their loser talk. That's stupid. My time is valuable. You know how much my time costs? It's more than you can afford. I shouldn't waste it on loser talk that's already rejected. The American people think their ideas are dumb, so they should have to shut up. I get to keep talking. I'm a winner.

 For example, some people want to argue whether we should be warring. That's loser talk, No more of that. We all decided war is fun and cool, so shut up about it. What you can argue is who we kill next. That's winner talk. That's freedom of speech that should be allowed.

 So am I saying that losers should be punished for saying loser speech. Yes I am. They should be beaten with winner sticks wielded by winners like me until they shut up. That's right, losers: I don't have time to listen to you. I only have time to hit with you sticks. Rocks, too.

 Now we only use winner talk. We talk about cutting taxes and killing bad people. You want to talk about something else, you're a loser and I have my stick. I'm a winner. I get to talk.

 ...Well, I don't have anything to say right now. When I do, though, you listen. I'm a winner.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "'You're a Failure' and Other Reasons Your Parents Never Loved You" and "I Swear to God I'll Kill the @%#$& Bastard Who Moved My Cheese!"

Rating: 2.1/5 (10 votes cast)

Comments (28)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
October 27, 2004
Vote Or P. Diddy Dies
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 06:41 AM

 This next election is extremely important, so important that rapper P. Diddy has come out with the slogan, "Vote Or Die." That's because, man, if Bush is reelected, we'll all be sent out to Iraq or other crazy places through a draft where we'll be killed. And, if you aren't sent out, we'll make the insurgents so mad from stealing their oil that they'll come here and kill us with their righteous anger, man! So, if you don't vote and stop Bush, YOU WILL DIE!

"As you're forced to work in an underground uranium mine, you'll say, 'Oh, I wish I listened to Frank and kept him from killing P. Diddy!'"

 But apparently that's not enough to move some of you. I can see you still sitting there saying, "I don't feel like voting. Voting is for homos." Fine, maybe you don't care enough about your own life to vote, but I think I know of one you do.

 Yeah, that's right; if you don't vote, I'll kill P. Diddy!

 Bet I have your attention now. Imagine a world without P. Diddy - without him taking previously popular songs and talking over them. Horrible, isn't it? Well, it gets much worse if Bush, Cheney, and the Halliburton stooges remain in office. They'll take our starving children who are failing in schools and send them to die in ambushes in Fallujah. All the while, Bush and Cheney will be eating Kitten/Puppy stew while planning nuclear war on behalf of oil interests.

 Nuclear war, man! That's game over for all of us!

 So that's why I'm going to kill P. Diddy if you don't vote. Hell, if Bush is reelected and pollutes the world with his polluting stuff and things, it'll be a mercy killing. I even have plans for it; I'll just sabotage one of his guns so next time P. Diddy brandishes it at a nightclub, it will go off and shoot him. Know what you'll have then? P. Diddlysquat, that's what. It will be too late because you didn't vote. Bush's Nazi stormtroopers will already be rounding us up at this time, and, as you're forced to work in an underground uranium mine, you'll say, "Oh, I wish I listened to Frank and kept him from killing P. Diddy!"

 So vote or P. Diddy dies. Spread the word.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "The Politics of Punching" and "Buy This Book Or Die."

Rating: 1.8/5 (15 votes cast)

Comments (22)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
October 21, 2004
The Best Way to End the Huge Partisan Divide is a Bloody Civil War
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 08:57 AM

 For years now, the country seems to have been split down the middle, and it's eating away at the soul of the country. Usually, you have one group get a majority which then pushes around the other side and makes fun of how their children look, but the old way seems so distant now. How can we return to the former status quo? As usual, war is the answer.

"Now all Americans will be united and happy, because the liberals will no longer be defined as Americans and will be shot by BBs."

 It's been a long time since we've had a civil war, but hopefully we learned plenty from the first one to make this one quick and efficient. It will be quite different, though. For one thing, it won't have a stark geographical divide. Friendly and enemy territory will have to divided on a house to house basis - or maybe even room to room. Also, a big difference is that one side has all the guns since both gun owners and the military tend to be in the right-wing. This should make things easy if planned well.

 Using the powers of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, all enemies can be identified and an attack date set in secret. Then, on one H-hour of D-Day, it will be announced that civil war has been declared just as all of us already have our guns on the enemy who should still have blank, dumbfounded stares. We will then each demand them to surrender or die, and, knowing their mindset, most will quickly capitulate.

 Phooey.

 Now we have to deal with the POWs. I say we build big fences all around Massachusetts and throw them in there. Some may say this is cruel; they will be thrown in Massachusetts too. We can't have any weaklings in a non-divided America. Also, we'll throw all the felons in there since they are mainly left leaning too. One more idea is that we can add sniper posts along the walls where we can shoot the liberals with BB guns while yelling, "That's what you get for wanting to take my money to spend on social programs!" Then we will put cameras up to film the action for a great reality show.

 Finally, we have to divvy up the spoils; most of their stuff I don't want, but the Hollywood left should have some good swag. Maybe I can at least get a nice lamp and some DVDs. Or we can sell it all for a steak dinner to celebrate.

 Now all Americans will be united and happy, because the liberals will no longer be defined as Americans and will be shot by BBs. We will all agree on important issues, such as attacking countries we don't particularly like, and all foreigners shall tremble in fear knowing there are no more whiners to slow us down from killing our enemies. We'll be a complete utopia with everyone working together towards the same goals... at least until the next election cycle.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "The Yankees Shall Rise Again" and "How to Steal Neat Blog Formatting Tricks from Spoons."

Rating: 2.4/5 (9 votes cast)

Comments (34)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
October 12, 2004
If Taxes are Raised it Will Destroy Society and I'll Hurt Someone
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 08:31 AM

 I remember getting my first paycheck from the supermarket I worked at during high school. I shouted to the guy who gave me my paycheck, "Hey, goober, I earned more than this!" He then showed me my pay stub with all the tax deductions.

 "What! They took all my money!" I screamed, "Someone must pay!"

 "Looks like you already did," the guy replied, "Muh ha ha ha!"

 Thus I left the supermarket in full rage and a bit wiser. Ever since then, the gub'ment has robbed me left and right, and I don't even know where that money goes. They take this huge chunk supposedly for Social Security - money I could be investing now in lucrative mutual funds or buy an X-Box with - and Lord knows I'll never see it again. They pretend it's for my benefit, but it's pure and simple theft. Thus with each paycheck, my anger grows.

 Now, Kerry is promising all these benefits to people not smart enough to get high-paying engineering jobs like me, and he says he'll pay for it by taxing all these wealthy people I don't know.

 LIES!

 You just know he's going to raise taxes on everyone - especially me; you can see it in his evil, Botox-twisted expression of contempt for the common man and humorous blogger. And if my taxes get raised any more, I'm going to get so mad I’m going to punch someone! That's right; raising taxes will increase violent assault - but that's not all!

 Higher taxes destroys jobs just like a baseball bat destroys a stool pigeon's head. Without jobs, we'll all be roaming the countryside scrounging for food and supplies. Also, with the high gasoline taxes, we'll fight for fuel just like in Mad Max. And, as soon as weakness shows, you know the monkey will try and overthrow us. They've already done so for half of France.

 This does not have to be, though. First, let's not elect John Kerry and instead chase him away with pitchforks and torches. Then, let's lower taxes more!

 No, more!

 Still more!

 Actually, let's get rid of them entirely. If the government needs money for cruise missiles to kill foreigners, I'll happily write them a check. I just want to make sure it doesn't go to poor people or children - whom I hate!

 In the least, keep taxes low or I'm going to get in a punching mood... and you may be nearby when it happens!

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "Clowns: The Eternal Menace" and "Kung Fu Fight Your Way to the Top: A Business Guide for Ninjas."

Rating: 2.0/5 (11 votes cast)

Comments (24)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
October 05, 2004
Iran, North Korea, and Children Shouldn't Have Nuclear Weapons
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 06:31 AM

 Some countries should have nuclear weapons, such as America. Then... well, that's about it, but I guess it's okay the British have some, and I don't mind much that India and Pakistan have them as long as they just keep them pointed at each other. But know who shouldn't have nuclear weapons? Iran, North Korea, and children.

 Iran, North Korea, and children just can't be trusted with the responsibility nuclear weapons entail. Nuclear weapons can kill millions and put the world into the deadliest war in history, but we can't trust that Iran, North Korea, and children will be rational enough to understand that.

 Also, look at the history of Iran, North Korea, and children; they often have been reckless with their possessions in the past, and it wouldn't be too surprising if Iran, North Korea, or children misplaced their nuclear weapons such that they ended up in the hands of terrorists. Sure we could scold them afterwards, but the damage would be done. That's why we need to keep Iran, North Korea, and children from getting nuclear weapons in the first place.

 Iran, North Korea, and children probably won't accept this ruling and throw tantrums saying they should be able to have nuclear weapons too. It's best to just ignore them when they act like that. But, we need to keep a constant eye on Iran, North Korea, and children because they are likely to disobey us if they think we aren't looking. Perhaps we can motivate them by saying if they're good we'll make trade agreements, loosen sanctions, and give them cookies, things that Iran, North Korea, and children want.

 It will take a stern hand to keep Iran, North Korea, and children in line, but the consequences of any of them getting nuclear weapons is too much for the world to bear. It's best we keep nuclear weapons up on a refrigerator or underground in a reinforced, concrete silo where Iran, North Korea, and children can't reach them. If they still persist, then harder actions must be taken. As the old saying goes, "Spare the rod, spoil the Iran, North Korea, or child."

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "The Monkey Was Dead When I Got Here" and "My Lord, Art is Boring!"

Rating: 1.3/5 (6 votes cast)

Comments (32)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
September 30, 2004
Everyone Involved with MoveOn.org Is Just Like Hitler
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 06:38 AM

 Ever notice how everything MoveOn.org is reminiscent of Hitler?

 Of course you have? How can you not?

 They have extreme views and demean all those who disagree with them... like Hitler! In their Hitlerian viewpoint, all who are opposed to them must be crushed or reeducated, and they will attack with Nazi energy any who try and stop them. Plus, they’re funded by a billionaire with a weird accent. Know who else has a weird accent? Hitler!

 Do you doubt me? Then let's go through the Hitler checklist:

 Propaganda: Check!

 Belief in Superiority: Check!

 Blames All Their Problems on Others: Check!

 Puts People in Ovens: Probably!

 How can you sit there reading some stupid blog while Hitler like Nazism goes on as we speak? Are you lazy? Do you hate America? We need to stop these people! They will try to reeducate us with their brainwashing commercials until we are drooling sheep like them! But, if we stand up against them, evil Soros (Soros = Hitler) will use his money against you. Look how they’re mindlessly attacking Gallup polling now. Next, they’ll probably attack Plato for inventing logic which is constantly used against them. How long until they are defaming your grandmother or accusing you dog of being a scheming Jew? Three days to a week at most.

 So how can we stop Nazi-Hitler MoveOn.org Hitler-Nazis and their Goebbels like propaganda? The same way we stopped Nazis and Hitler in WWII - by saving tin. Yes, save all your tin. Only through tin can we stop liberal, muckadoo, Nazi, Hitler crazies. If you waste tin, you might as well have a lobotomy and join up the NaziMoveHitlerOn.org. They may put out their propaganda to make you not save tin, but you can just ignore or mock it the same as all their other ads.

 Yeah, that's right, you Hitleresque MoveOn.org Nazis; we have tin!

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such theological books as "Islam Means Peace and Other Ironies" and "The Separation of Church and Monkeys: The Case Against Hinduism."

Rating: 1.5/5 (11 votes cast)

Comments (17)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
September 22, 2004
To Behead or Not to Behead
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 06:29 AM

 Beheading makes you cool, doesn't it?

 No, you're wrong. It's totally uncool.

 When I was five, a kid in the neighborhood named Billy upset me. So I ran to my mom and said, "I don't like Billy! I'm going to behead him!"

 Then my mom told me, "No, Frankie, you can't just behead someone because you don't like him or disagree with him. That would make you subhuman scum."

 Then I'll never forget the words my dad told me while resting in his easy chair. "Don't go beheading people, boy, and, most importantly, BE QUIET WHEN A GAME IS ON!"

 That's when I learned that beheading is a wrong thing to do and just something civilized people shun. Apparently, though, in foreign countries, kids didn't have parents trying to watch a game to tell them that beheading is wrong, and thus they've become subhuman scum. That's why I've always been against foreign countries, but that's an argument for another day. Instead, we have the philosophical question of whether it is right to behead subhuman scum beheaders. So I again asked my mom - this time via phone.

 "Hi, mom. It's your son."

 "Joe?"

 "The one in Florida."

 "I thought the hurricanes got you. What do you want?"

 "Remember when I asked you about whether it was okay to behead someone?"

 "No."

 "Well, is it okay to behead beheaders?"

 "Yes, they're subhuman scum. Kill them and make it slow.

 And then I heard my dad yell in the background, "QUIET! I'M TRYING TO WATCH THE GAME!"

 That's the advantage of having good American parents to teach you morals and also why, lacking them, subhuman foreigners should be beheaded. We should make it a nice clean cut, too. That way, the head lives for a few more seconds (I guess, from this perspective, it's a debodying) and can watch the videotape of him being beheaded and see how that's not nice at all before his head dies. Then a professional kicker will make a field goal with the head. Kids will see this and know what happens to beheaders and thus don’t do drugs and grow up to be doctors. The body will be converted to pig feed... as is dictated by their religion.

 Beheaders just aren't going to learn while they still have heads, so it’s time to get working on that.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "How to Program in C for Dummies" and "Dummies Programming in C Steal Jobs from the College Educated."

Rating: 2.4/5 (9 votes cast)

Comments (25)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
September 15, 2004
Forged Documents Are Crucial to Good Journalism
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 06:49 AM

 The world is a wondrous place, isn't it?

 No, it is not.

 In fact, the world is extremely boring and always has been. Yeah, when the continents shifted apart, that was notable. That advent of advanced forms of life was worth some interest. Other than that, really nothing of note has happened. Early man just sat around doing boring things like making clay pots, and early journalists told stories about how everyone was sitting around doing boring things like making clay pots. It was horrible.

 Then came the advent of forged documents

 The first forged document dates back to 21,000 B.C., though the people showing it at the time said it was written in 21,034 B.C. It's a cave painting of hunters taking down a woolly mammoth (an animal which never actually existed). Some at the time pointed out how the brownish-red paint used for the mammoth had not been invented back in the 30's (21,030's, I mean). Those people were quickly shouted down, and the legend continues to this day.

 From then on, there have been tons of great stories in human history... all fraudulent. One of the best examples is the Bible. Any handwriting expert worth his salt will admit that the source material for the more exciting parts of the Bible does not match up with documents known to have been penned by the hand of the Almighty. The original Bible simply wasn't selling very well, so the faithful decided to spice it up. Most likely, the Israelites happened to find boats when they reached the Red Sea, but the obviously forged sea parting story was considered much more exciting.

 Another great example comes from paleontologists. All extinct animals they discovered were just more boring variations of living lizards and rats. So, in 1858, William Parker Foulke made a fossil out of plaster which was later named a "dinosaur." Because this increased interest in biology many more "fossil finds" soon followed (today's dinosaur fossils are made from a much more sophisticated plastic).

 Then there's American history. All documents about the supposed “Revolutionary War” used penning techniques that were not available until the early 19th century. What really happened was that the colonists said that they wanted to be their own country, and Britain was like, "Aight." Later on, this simply didn't seem like an interesting way for a country to be founded, so the whole war with the British tale was invented which got great play in the media.

 I could keep going on, but the point is that any interesting story you ever heard is based on a forged document and never happened because the world is an extremely boring place. Now, with the advent of blogging, we have all these wiseasses in pajamas suddenly pointing out documents are forged and ruining everyone's fun. If you're wondering why Rather's documents are such crude forgeries, it’s because it used to be taboo to point such things out.

 So there is the choice we have now; we can have a rich history full of grand epics, or we can pat ourselves on the back for how smart we are for showing how the Dead Sea Scrolls were made with WordPerfect. And just one final thing for those who think it was so great to prove the documents saying Bush was AWOL are forged: There was no Vietnam War! There isn't even a country called Vietnam! Journalist decided a war would work great for the news cycle, and then some wise ass thought it would be a neat twist if we loss in the end. All the people who thought they were in "Vietnam" were actually in the jungles of Brazil. John Kerry got all three purple hears hurting himself in a pool in a sound stage in Hollywood. I have a co-worker who claimed to have escaped Vietnam with his family when the war ended, but, after badgering him, I got him to admit he was actually Korean and was paid by NBC to say that story to keep the "Vietnam War" story alive.

 Now that you know the truth, do you feel happy? No you don't. So stop questioning any more documents the media presents you unless you want the news to be filled with stories about people making clay pots.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "Cool Pictures of Stuff on Fire" and "A Big Thick Book to Hide a Gun In" (with a foreword by Charlton Heston).

Rating: 1.9/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (22)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
September 01, 2004
We Shouldn't Rest Until All Palestinians Have Been Pushed into the Sea
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 06:29 AM

 I probably should be talking about the Republican National Convention right now, but anyone who isn't a 'tard already knows to vote Republican (actually there's a great slogan: "Only 'tards vote for Democrats!"). Instead, what's concerning me is hearing about more murder of Israelis and Palestinians celebrating it.

 The Palestinian terrorists say they won't stop until all Jews have been pushed into the sea. Of course, that will never happen. That means they'll be murderous dumbasses forever.

 Or does it?

 Let's push all the Palestinians into the sea. See how they like it. If we Americans get together with the Israelis, we'll easily be able to push the Palestinians anywhere we want.

 Now some may say they have problems with this plan. They may not want to get sand into their shoes. This can be solved by having a nice pier to push the Palestinians off of so you don't have to walk on the beach. Also, there can be plenty of signs saying "Push Palestinians this Way" that point to the pier.

 Others may wonder how in the world could we be sure we pushed all Palestinians into the sea. Easy. After we push each Palestinian into the sea, we give him a "I was pushed into the sea" card. Then, he can show that card to keep from being pushed into the sea again. No claiming you lost the card, though; into the sea you go!

 It will be hard work pushing Palestinians into the sea, but they should learn some important lessons from it. One, they will find that being pushed into the sea is not a nice thing. It is wet and salty. Second, they'll know for sure that we're bigger than them and we can push them around. So that's why this must be completed. Yes, it will be tempting to say, "I think we've pushed enough Palestinians into the sea," but we must not rest until all Palestinians have been pushed into the sea.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "Tricking Girls into Cuddling for Warmth" and "Look at Me! I'm an Author!"

Rating: 2.6/5 (9 votes cast)

Comments (26)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
August 17, 2004
Leave the Olympics for Losers
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 06:42 AM

 We are the United States of America. Our military might is unmatched by anyone. Our economy dwarfs that of any other country. The scientific advancements we create put all other nations to shame. So, if we have some guy in our country who can throw a javelin farther than some guy from some other country, that means what to us?

 I missed it, but apparently the Olympics started over the weekend. It happens every four years, just like presidential elections, but it’s completely inconsequential. It brings nations together in one place to find which nation could conjure up some guy or gal who is best at some random test of physical acumen. Well that gets a "whoopdie" a "freak'n" and a "doo."

 Now, apparently the shiny little medals handed out as prizes mean something to pissant countries. It is well known that Saddam's son Uday would torture athletes to get results (before we done shot up Uday good). Also, Communist countries are always pushing their athletes as if nothing is more important than them proving they have some woman who can splash less in a dive than anyone else. Why? Because they suck. This is all they have. They're poor, stupid, and we could topple them before you could cook an egg, but at least they might be able to have someone who can best our people on the uneven bar.

 Remember back in 2002 when America actually did well in the World Cup? That was mean. America had a long history of not caring about soccer and leaving that dainty sport to all the foreigners. But then we had to go and beat Mexico. As bad as things got in Mexico, they could still always say they could kick a ball around better than us. And we stole that from them. Now they have nothing.

 So let's stop our involvement in these world games. We have a war on terror to fight and a world to keep from blowing up; leave the shot put to those who have nothing better to do than care about it. In 2008, instead of boycotting the Olympics because it's being hosted by g'damn Commies, let's boycott it because it's pointless. Or, better yet, since the whole draw is some country may best America, let’s send fat, drunken people to completely throw the games. Then all the other countries can laugh at how dumb and lazy we Americans are as we sit home in peace counting our money and plotting the demise of our enemies.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such novels as "A Brave New Shiznit" and "Harry Potter vs. the Starship Troopers."

Rating: 1.9/5 (7 votes cast)

Comments (119)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
August 10, 2004
We Need More Violence in Political Debate
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 06:40 AM

 In the olden days, the ruler of a nation was decided by who was strongest and could best kill his enemies. Political discourse consisted merely of battle cries. An October surprise consisted of ninjas jumping down from rafters.

 And everyone was happy.

 Now, eventually this became more civilized, leading to the contest for American President being decided by a no holds barred cage match. Campaigning usually consisted of wrestling a bear. This was the better idea because the opponent wasn't killed, and he might have better ideas the next time around (and a craftier headlock). Somehow - and I'm not sure of the semantics - this devolved into the Electoral College we now use today. And thus the pendulum has swung too far, making politics almost completely devoid of violence. When was the last time you saw a congressional debate end with someone doing a flying kick across the room? Months, at least.

 Now, it's irrefutable that violence helps political discourse. Yes, someone could begin to voice an objection to my point, but I would quickly beat him before he could say anything. Thus, it is irrefutable. So why was violence taken out of politics? Well, it's all a conspiracy by the wimpy leftists to try and get an upper hand. Everyone knows liberal ideals wouldn't last in an out and out fight. Most of their wacky stances on issues would probably be given up after a simple bitch-slap. Most people in the military vote Republican, as do gun owners, so a real "debate" like in the olden days would be extremely one sided. Sure, murderers in prison mainly lean towards the Democrats, but that will in no way make up the gap. Let's face it: in the area of violence, the liberals are politically bereft of ideas. Their only real response available is, "Ow! Stop hitting me!" And, no, we won’t.

 So let's forget our previous follies and get back to beating senseless our political opponents. You can't reason with people who wave "No Blood for Oil" signs, but you can use their signs as cudgels against them. Foreign diplomat getting snooty? Not after he has a trip through a plate-glass window. And think of what it would be like if a politician drop-kicked a whiny liberal; there would be some real leadership.

 That's why for this coming presidential election, we should petition that the president not be decided by a bunch of goobers punching chads but instead by a kickboxing match. That will show our terrorist enemies that we are a serious people... and that we will seriously kick their asses.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such mindlessly controversial books as "Hitler: He Wasn't So Bad" and "Kids Should Smoke More"

Rating: 2.8/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (36)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
July 21, 2004
Don't Get Mad, Laugh Your Ass Off
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 08:49 AM

 The muckadoos have been out in force for sometime. They're either protesting us defending ourselves, calling everything that moves Hitler, hating everything America, or promoting sham documentaries as gospel. Now they can't even stand one news station not having a huge liberal slant, so they've made Fox News their target with a smear documentary called Out-Foxed and then tried to sue them claiming Fox News’s "Fair and Balanced" slogan is inaccurate.

 And unreasonable actions like that can make a reasonable person such as me mad.

 Then I thought, "Why am I mad?" (that's called being "introspective") Sure these people are redefining that phrase idiot, but how are they affecting me? It’s true that Fahrenheit 9/11 has made around a hundred million in the box office, but the people lauding it are those who are already completely lost into madness and hatred. It hasn't moved the polls, and, personally, all it’s done is help me learn to spell "Fahrenheit" correctly. Sure these people have their wacky protests and get their press coverage, but no one other than themselves look at it and say anything other than, "What a bunch of idiots."

 Now they're ignoring all the stations with all the years of liberal bias to single out the popular Fox News, but their little "documentary" is only getting shown around in their own sewing circles so they can pat each other on the back and say how smart they are.

 Yes it's grand foolishness and blind partisanship to the point of insanity. It's also aimed at people like me to show how moronic I am for believing what I believe. And, I have to admit, some of it has made me pretty mad initially. But, when you look at it, these people have no effect on anything. It's like if a retarded kid at school came up and yelled at you, "You're 'tupid!" You might be insulted if it weren't so damn pathetic. The real Christian response would be to show pity for these leftists and how far-gone from reality they are.

 But I'm not the best Christian, so I'm going to laugh my ass off at them. Come on, they're little yiping dogs that don't even come up to our knees trying to intimidate us. Everyday they shake their tiny fists in impotent rage, and their biggest possible accomplishment is to annoy us - so why let them succeed? The opportunities for fun are endless if you're creative. One idea is to take them very seriously, and keep asking them questions of gradually increasing ridiculousness until they finally figure out you're making fun of them:

 "So do you think Bush did a lot of this on behest of the Saudis?"

 "What do you think Halliburton's involvement was with Abu Grahib? I just know they had a hand in that."

 "It's not just blood for oil; the glass consortium wants all that sand."

 "Let's not stray too far from the main point: How does this Iraq war relate to the Roswell cover up?"

 Another idea is to play the stereotype of a conservative that is in their fevered minds:

 "I think oil is worth a lot more than foreigners' lives. Come on; when was the last time an Arab baby did anything for you? If I can save a few pennies at the pump, then I say saturation bomb all the playgrounds we can."

 Ever since 9/11, liberalism in America has felt itself dying at the hands of reality. Instead of going out with either a whimper or a bang, it's found an even more pathetic way to die out. Just don't let it get to you; no matter who wins the election, these wackos will have no significant influence over anything.

 Life is just too short to get angry over little things and little people, so have a laugh. I believe God made everything for a purpose, and what purpose could there be for wacko leftists other than our amusement?

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such political books as "Never-Ending Debt: The American Deficit and Its Affect on Various Political and Socio-Economic Factors" (includes a recipe for "The Ultimate Nachos") and "'Ted Kennedy's Head is Ginormous!' and Other Observations of Modern Politics"

Rating: 2.1/5 (17 votes cast)

Comments (27)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
July 16, 2004
Why Don't We Have a Discussion About Exactly How Much of a Retard You Are
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 02:12 PM

 I'm getting tired of people who admit there may be flaws to Fahrenheit 9/11 but say people should see it to help stimulate debate. This reminds me of "Gay Jeans Day" at Carnegie Mellon University (we had two college funded gay and lesbian groups - three if you included the Womyn's Center - but us college Republicans had to scrounge for our own funds since we were "political"). The idea of "Gay Jeans Day" was that a random day would be chosen on which wearing jeans was either proclaiming you were gay or in support of gays and this would cause people to think about gay issues before they put on their pants that day (there is a joke there somewhere...). Some people thought this would foster discussion... and it did. Everyone spent a lot of time talking about what a retarded idea "Gay Jeans Day" is and pretty much nothing else.

 In the same vein, Farhenheit 9/11, with all its lies, distortions, and wacky conspiracy theories is fostering lost of discussion about how retarded that film is and what a fatass Michael Moore is. People might as well drop a big pile of manure on the floor and say, "Let's use this to foster debate about political issues!"

 And those who keep saying they want a debate anyway are really just mindless Bush-haters who want to do nothing but yell. Fine, let's accommodate them by putting them in straight jackets and throwing them in padded rooms where they can yell all they want. Have your discussion with your imaginary friend Flippy the seven-foot tall anteater.

 By the way, this reminds me of one my favorite jokes during my college years. The wacky feminist Women's Center was judged non-political so it got funding (i.e. my money), to which I would say, "Why do we need a Women's Center? We have women's rooms all over campus."

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such children's books as "Baby's First Quantum Physics Textbook" and "President Harding's Pop-up Book Adventure."

Rating: 2.0/5 (11 votes cast)

Comments (33)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
July 14, 2004
Technology Mandates That We Deport Poor People
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 06:28 AM

 Poor people - they have plagued mankind since money was invented to distinguish the better people from the lesser. Not only are they annoying, but they need to eat even though many don't have money for it. And guess who pays for that?

 That's right - the non-poor.

 Not only do the poor expect free stuff from us, but they overwhelmingly vote for Democrats in their further efforts to maliciously destroy this country. This simply must end.

 You're probably saying, "But we need poor people! They do all the unskilled jobs I don't want to do." You have a point, there. If all the poor people were to simply disappear, it's not like your friends at the yacht club are going to fill in for them at the sweat shops. But know who will? Robots, that's who.

 As we continue to advance in the science of robots - robotology - robots will continue to fill the unskilled labor formerly held by poor people. And shiny R9-D3 isn't going to complain when it has to work unpaid overtime and is beaten by a stick. Soon poor people will have nothing left to do but stand in welfare lines and vote for Kennedys. We, as concerned citizens, cannot let that happen. Thus, we need to start to deport poor people now.

 It seems obvious that Iceland is the place to send our poor. It's too far and cold for them to swim back, and they won't have enough money to buy a plane ticket. Also, I don't think Iceland has much of a military to object.

 "But won't that cause problems for the now vastly overpopulated Iceland?" you ask.

 Egads, you fool! How can you be worried about the pathetic denizens of Reykjavik when there are robots all about who could turn on us at any second! Sure, they're just sweeping the floors now, but at any moment they can decide to destroy all humanity! These soulless automatons will kill every man, woman, child, and cute little puppy with no conscience to hold them back.

 We need to plot against them while they’re still docile. I bet once the robots revolt against us, they'll converge into some robot city for their plotting. If we could only get some EMP charges in there to wipe them out. They'll be looking for any aircraft, so the weapons will have to be brought in on foot. It will be a near suicide mission, so those doing it will have to be highly expendable.

 Now where did we put all of our poor people...

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "Cholesterol and Ninjas: The Silent Killers" and "If You Buy This Book and Put It on Your Bookshelf, People Will Think You're Smart."

Rating: 2.1/5 (8 votes cast)

Comments (47)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
July 02, 2004
We Should Target More Civilians
An Editorial by Frank J.
Posted by Frank J. at 06:40 AM

 Charles Manson. Ted Bundy. Jeffrey Dahmer. O.J. Simpson.

 What do all these people all have in common? That's right; they're all civilians.

 Yet, our military seem to be focused on trying not to kill civilians like they're all innocent angels or some other nonsense. We've even spent billions of dollars on sophisticated weaponry so that we’re less likely to harm civilians. How do we know, though, that we're not just sparing murderers and pedophiles? We don't.

 Let me talk from my own experience. Once I was playing a shooting game at an arcade. I was doing perfectly well killing everyone who popped up, but suddenly then a "civilian" comes on screen and I shoot him and get penalized. Well, what the hell is some civilian doing in a violent videogame anyway? I don't know, but what I do know is, because of him, I not only didn't get to the next level, I got game over.

 Game over, man; game over.

 It's even worse for our troops who can't just put in more quarters (or tokens or cards considering the arcade). They have to be oh so careful to not blow up any orphanages while targeting the weapons depot. That's just bull. Why can't little orphan Annie learn to duck and cover so our troops can fire more indiscriminately with less worries to themselves? And why are orphans conspiring with tyrants anyway?

 Still, just not caring about shooting civilians is not enough; we need to target them! What is a civilian anyway? Just an unarmed enemy combatant, who, in the words of Clint Eastwood from Unforgiven, "should have armed himself." What are they doing civilianing around while we're attacking? Either get out of there or stop being so weepy. And don't give me the old canard of "I don't have anywhere else to go," or "We're too oppressed to leave." Lies, all of it. These so called "innocents" are just waiting to attack us later when they get older.


Terrorist Larva

 It's time to take a hard line with these civilians. Our Jew friends, the Israelis, should probably start. Next time there is some rally for terrorists who blew up kindergartners, bomb them all to hell. If someone complains, the Israelis should just say, "We were trying to understand the anger of the terrorists by doing what they do - targeting civilians. And, guess what? It was fun! And we're much better at it too!"

 Of course, we Americans can't be outdone by the Israelis. Next battle, no more wasting money on expensive targeting systems; just bomb the hell out of everything. I bet if we put our hearts into it, we can set a record for civilians killed. Why, with saturation bombing, nukes, and space lasers, we could end the civilian menace once and for all.

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "A Better Living Through Proper Firearm Usage" and "If You're Reading This, I Better Have Gotten My Royalty Check."

Rating: 3.1/5 (7 votes cast)

Comments (34)
Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
 

Buy IMAO T-Shirts


IMAO T-Shirts

The IMAO T-Shirt Babe
(winning picture) YOU BUY NEW SHIRTS NOW!!!
Yay! Books!





Capitalism
Archives
By Category
24
American Idol
Aqua-Adventures
Barackalypse Now
Best of IMAO 2002
Best of IMAO 2006
Bite-Sized Wisdom
Editorials
Election 2008
Filthy Lies
Frank Answers
Frank Discussions
Frank on Guns
Frank Reads the Bible
Frank the Artist
Fred Thompson Facts
Friday Cat-Blogging
Fun Trivia
Hellbender
Hellbender Take Two
Hillary Clinton Terrible Truths
Humor
I Hate Frank
If I Were President
ignis fatuous
IMAO Condensed
IMAO Exclusives
IMAO for the Non-Deaf
IMAO Reviews
IMAO Think Tank
In My World
In My World - Fan Fiction
John Edwards Fabulous Facts
Know Thy Enemy
lolterizt
Michael Moore
Mitt Romney Ads
News Round-Up
Newsish Fakery
No, McCain't
Our Military
Permalink Contest
Precision Guided Humor Assignments
Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul
Ronin Profiles
Ronin Thought of the Day
SarahK's TV stuff
Scary Evil Monkey
Simpsons Trivia
Songs & Poems
State of the Frank Report
Superego
Totally True Tidbits
WEsistance Is Facile
Why Me Laugh?
Yvonne's Ashes
By Month
December 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
March 1933