Monday, 09 February 2009
ILLEGALS: THE THREE-STAGE ENTITLEMENT SEQUENCE
We used to have a Golden Retriever named Roxy. She was
Roxy loved sleeping in our bed with us. But this didn't happen
overnight. It happened in three stages:
-Stage one was when she was a puppy, old enough to be out of her crate at
night. She'd stand by the bed, give us her most poignant "pleeeaasssee"
look and hope that one of us would pick her up and put her in bed with
us. If it happened, she thought she was the luckiest dog on earth;
-Stage two was when she had slept in bed with us enough times so that she
just jumped up every night expecting to be there. She thought of herself
as an equal partner;
-Stage three was when she'd get in bed first, plunk herself in her favorite
spot, and give us a look that said "if I let you in here, you're the
Roxy has been gone a lot of years now. But, even now, my wife and
I sometimes laugh about that bed sequence. The memories are warm and
Unfortunately the same type of sequence, under different
circumstances, is sometimes not warm at all, but every bit as
This brings me to immigration - specifically illegal aliens crossing the
Administration after administration has ignored our immigration laws.
Because of that there are so many illegals in the United States that they have
formed "rights groups" - as if they are entitled to anything other than physical
Illegals have gone from being scared and feeling lucky they got in, to
feeling entitled to be here. Now, at least some illegals have become
emboldened enough to go beyond ignoring the law and think they can
completely reverse it.
Jerry Seper of the Washington Times has the story - a story almost
none of our wonderful "neutral" media will be reporting:
Monday, February 9, 2009
16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to
stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by
16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights
when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal
immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said,
after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.
His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known
by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for
immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.
Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit,
which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights
violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named
are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff
in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected
to continue until Friday.
The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident
in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal
immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.
Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11
men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr.
Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog
loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.
The immigrants are represented at trial by the
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged
that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients
at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."
In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached
the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying
a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr.
Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish,
"My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."
The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two
Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged
that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since
In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a
motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient
evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney,
David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as
Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002
interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to
vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said
the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates,
stole trucks and broke into his home.
Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic
bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a
faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the
tank to get water.
Mr. Barnett said some of the ranchs established
immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste,
used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty
1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which
supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their
"clients" to keep them running.
He said he carried a pistol during his searches
for the immigrants and had a rifle in his truck "for protection" against
immigrant and drug smugglers, who often are armed.
A former Cochise County sheriffs deputy who later
was successful in the towing and propane business, Mr. Barnett spent $30,000 on
electronic sensors, which he has hidden along established trails on his ranch.
He searches the ranch for illegal immigrants in a pickup truck, dressed in a
green shirt and camouflage hat, with his handgun and rifle, high-powered
binoculars and a walkie-talkie.
His sprawling ranch became an illegal-immigration
highway when the Border Patrol diverted its attention to several border towns in
an effort to take control of the established ports of entry. That effort moved
the illegal immigrants to the remote areas of the border, including the Cross
"This is my land. Im the victim here," Mr.
Barnett said. "When someones home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the
government seemingly cant do anything about it, I feel justified in taking
matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."
It seems to me that, other than possibly a kicking incident (which a) we
don't know took place and b) are unaware of the circumstances it might have been
done under), Roger Barnett is the aggrieved party here.
Further -and this is the sickest part - Mr. Barnett, personally, is
doing more to uphold the immigration laws of this country than our sorry,
understaffed, overwhelmed and beleaguered INS agents are. Or will.
If you're wondering why they might be a bit reticent, I suggest you ask Jose
Compean and Ignacio Ramos.
If the Obama administration wants to do something really positive and really
beneficial, it will quickly and decisively secure our borders.
I have zero expectation it will do so. But I can always
REASON 53,724 WHY CELEBRITIES SHOULD SHUT UP ABOUT POLITICS
This installment, hot on the heels of Ashley Jerkk's comments about wolves which I
blogged about yesterday, is from Alec Baldwin....that lovable funnyman from 30
Rock who once screamed at his pre-teen daughter (among other things) that...
"You are a rude, thoughtless little pig.
You don't have the brains or the decency as a human being.
"I don't give a damn that you're 12 years
old, or 11 years old, or that you're a child, or that your mother is a
thoughtless pain in the ass who doesn't care about what you do as far as I'm
"Once again I have made an ass of myself
trying to get to a phone. You have humiliated me for the last time with this
(You can listen to the entire unbelievably sickening, profane tirade by clicking here.)
But excellence in parenting isn't Mr. Baldwin's only talent. He is
equally gifted at political analysis. He has written a
column for the huffington post, which contains this remarkable passage:
A plane load of Saudi sociopaths hit
the World Trade Center and the Congress, the country and the world gave W. a
pass for eight years. Whatever he wanted. They gave him the MasterCard. The
Ok, now for a dose of reality.
I don't care what your politics are. I don't care if they are hard
right, hard left or anywhere in between. Can you look me in the eye (so to
speak) and say that George Bush got an 8 year pass from congress, the country
and the world?
This is the kind of insanely imbecilic nonsense you get from pampered stars
who think being a movie ac-tooor makes them brilliant political analysts.
It reminds me of when I was 11 years old and started smoking
cigarettes. I thought I was amazingly impressive. In truth,
though, the only people who were impressed were some (by no means all) of the
other 11 year olds I hung around with. Everyone else thought I looked like
an immature dope.
At some point between 11 and now I learned that. As Mr. Baldwin
has shown us, it is a lesson that some people never learn no matter what their
PRESIDENT PELOSI & BARACK OBEYER?
Warner Todd Huston, writing for www.publiusforum.com, gives us some
valuable insight regarding the stealfromus package that you aren't about to see
in our wonderful "neutral" media.
Here it is:
February 9, 2009 | -By Warner Todd Huston
Once again Nancy Pelois has told Barack Obama that
he can take his desire for a post-partisan Washington and shove
it. Pelosi has left little doubt that she
doesnt give a flying fig about the bi-partisan method of governing to which
Obama continually pays lip-service.
So, will President Obama take these slaps from
Pelosi lying down or will he stand up for what he keeps claiming he is truly
interested in? Will this president allow the Speaker of the House to drive his
agenda without his input?
Thus far, it seems that he will. It is starting to
become glaringly obvious that Barack Obama isnt taking any part in the actual
process. He just gives good press conference and then retreats back into the
White House to leave the real work to others. And those others (like Democrats
Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid) are not interested in their
presidents sparkling ideals. Not only do Reid and Pelosi have no interest in
heeding Obamas lofty call to work across the aisle with the GOP but they want
to crush the GOP without mercy. Its partisan business as usual as far as the
Democrats in Congress are concerned.
Politico reports that on Friday, Pelosi met with
reporters and blasted anyone that opposed her. In a statement sure to rile
Republicans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Friday dismissed calls for
bipartisanship as process arguments extraneous to passing a stimulus bill
She went on to say that, Washington seems consumed in the process argument of
bipartisanship, when the rest of the country says they need this
First of all, that last bit is an outright lie.
The rest of the country is NOT saying they need this bill. According to a
recent CBS poll,
support for the stimulus is in no way overwhelming.
Slightly more than half the country approves of
President Obamas $800 billion-plus stimulus package, a new CBS News poll
finds. But support for the bill has fallen 12 points since January, and nearly
half of those surveyed do not believe it will shorten the recession.
That same poll shows that the overwhelming
majority of respondents want a bi-partisan bill, and this runs exactly
the opposite of Pelosis actions and claims.
Eighty-one percent of Americans say the stimulus
bill should be a bipartisan effort. Just 13 percent think it is okay for a
bill to be passed with only the backing of the Democratic majority.
If Pelosi gets her way and makes this a damn the
GOP effort, this will eventually bite Obamas favorable poll ratings. After all,
eventually people will realize that Obama is powerless as a leader and cannot
change the partisanship of his own party.
It remains to be seen, however, if this is all
really what Obama wants in the end. Does he really care at all
about bi-partisanship? Or is he taking the high ground with his airy speeches
but cynically allowing the liberal attack dogs in Congress to scuttle the
lofty rhetoric because, in truth, he doesnt want any bi-partisan effort at
Even if this more cynical view of Obamas motives
isnt true, that his calls for a bi-partisan effort are actually his fervent
wishes, if he fails to lead his own party to this end it will be seen as either
a failure to lead, or an out right lie in the first place on Obamas behalf. In
either case, Obama fails as president.
We also need to point out one more bit of leftist
doggerel that puts the stamp of liar to their SOP (standard operating
procedure). Catch this line in the Politico piece:
Pelosi speaking to reporters on the second day
of her retreat with House Democrats at a swank Williamsburg, Va., golf
The Democrats are having a lavish retreat in
these harsh economic times? But wait, arent these the same people, the same
leftist Democrats, that attack corporations for lavish retreats and perks just
like the ones they are currently enjoying?
Hypocrites. Plain and simple.
Mr. Huston is a very angry and very right wing writer. There are
a good many things I disagree with him on. But this isn't one of
them. Here, he is dead-center correct.
Did I miss a constitutional convention? When did Nancy Pelosi become
President and Barack Obama become one of her fart-catchers?
You'd swear it must have happened, because that is how the two of them are
Look, I'm not at all happy that Mr. Obama is President. But, damn it,
he was elected, so it is about time he started acting like he holds the
office. That means he has to put Pelosi in her place. He should
already have done so. The day he finally grows a pair
of gonads and shoots down this foul, obnoxious loudmouth, he'll
be that much better off for it. So will the country.
And if Ms. Pelosi doesn't like being reminded who runs the US, she knows what
she can do about it.
A RIDICULOUS EDITORIAL - EVEN BY THE NEW YORK TIMES' "STANDARDS"
When it comes to standards, the New York Times editorial page is a sometimes
thing. Sometimes it has them, sometimes it doesn't.
When it comes to standards about editorials that mention former President
Bush? That is firmly with the "sometimes it doesn't" sector.
Here is the Times' lead editorial today. I've put several of the riper
passages in bold print so you can see for yourself:
Mr. Obama and
President Obama has set a constructive new tone
for trying to engage Iran. He told an Arabic-language TV network: If countries
like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand
from us. And he showed refreshing humility after the Bush
administrations arrogance: Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make
President Bushs failed policies have left
Iran both frighteningly close to mastering the skills needed to build a nuclear
weapon and with enormous regional influence. The new administration
will have to deal with Iran in a broader context, not just on the nuclear issue
but also on Afghanistan and Iraq.
We dont know if there is any mixture of
incentives or sanctions that can wean Iran of its nuclear
ambitions. But we are certain that the Bush administration never tried
to find it. This means not only direct talks, but also far more persuasive
diplomatic incentives, including a credible offer of improved relations and
security guarantees. Cooperation with Britain, France and Germany
remains essential and a much stronger push to try to bring the Russians and
We are not going to minimize the difficulties.
Irans scientists are working aggressively to master nuclear fuel production
the hardest part of building a weapon. They just put a satellite in orbit, a
sign that their ballistic missile program is also moving ahead. It is
difficult to read the politics in Tehran, but we are certain that hard-liners
will try to sabotage any opening that would require making concessions on either
There will also be strong voices in
Washington arguing against any compromise and some even for military action a
disastrous course. Irans support for Hamas and Hezbollah, its threats against
Israel and its abysmal treatment of its citizens will only amplify those voices.
But we have seen the results of the Bush
administrations refusal to engage. It is time to at least test Tehrans
intentions on all fronts.
That may be easier if the agenda for talks is
broadened to include Afghanistan and Iraq. In 1998, Irans fundamentalist
Shiite-led government nearly went to war with Afghanistans Sunni fundamentalist
Taliban. After the United States ousted the Taliban in 2001, Tehran played a
constructive role, helping Washington and others establish a new government in
Afghanistan. That limited collaboration quickly soured and Iran has been accused
of providing some support for the Taliban in an attempt to keep the Americans
off balance. Mr. Obama needs to remind Iran that it is in its clear interest for
the Taliban to be defeated and Afghanistan stabilized.
Irans relationship with Iraq where Shiites
allied with Tehran hold key leadership positions is much more complicated.
Analysts debate how much control Iran is seeking there and how much effort it is
currently making to constrain extremists. But like the United States, Iran
cannot possibly want Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other neighbors grabbing for
pieces of Iraq when American troops leave. Mr. Obama can make a compelling
argument that it is in Irans strategic interest to join regional negotiations
intended to guarantee Iraqs long-term stability and sovereignty.
Mr. Obama is not presuming Tehrans good will.
Aides say he personally persuaded the Treasury Departments Stuart Levey, who
looked for creative ways to implement Mr. Bushs sanctions policy, to stay
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to
name Dennis Ross to oversee the Iran effort and integrate it with a broader
strategy for Iraq, Afghanistan and the region. Mr. Ross, who spent years trying
to negotiate an Israeli-Palestinian peace, has a deep appreciation for history
and a reputation for never giving up. All that and more will be needed to try to
make this work.
Let's try go wade through this compost
-President Obama showed refreshing humility toward IRAN? President
Bush's hard-line policy was arrogant? Towards a terrorist
state that overtly threatens to wipe one of our most loyal allies off the face
of the earth?
Maybe this refreshes the Times editorial staff. To me it makes them
out to be the south end of a bunch of northbound horses.
-Bush facilitated Iran's attempts to build a nuclear weapon? By doing
what? That is so
idiotic it defies rational discussion.
And the Times itself admits as much,
since it can't come up with any suggestions on how Iran could have been
dissuaded from its quest for nuclear weapons. Not even one. All it can say
is Bush didn't try -- even though they don't have the slightest idea of any
policy that could have been
-On the other hand, the Times certainly knows how to go about trying to achieve that policy it
can't think of. Direct talks and incentives. In other words, take
a rogue terrorist state and not only humble ourselves to it by talking
about our mistakes, not their atrocities, but then engage in direct talks and give
them guarantees of improved relations and security.
That is the Times' brilliant strategy.
Reward the thugs who tell us in so many words it intends genocide against
our ally. Hey, maybe then they'll like us then and do whatever we want
them too. Sucking up to hate-filled murderous regimes always
works, doesn't it?
-I have to repost this next paragraph to even believe it's there:
There will also be strong voices in
Washington arguing against any compromise and some even for military action
a disastrous course. Irans support for Hamas and Hezbollah, its threats
against Israel and its abysmal treatment of its citizens will only amplify
Got that? It would be disastrous not to compromise with Iran.
Heck, all they do is support hamas and hezbollah, threaten Israel (threaten to
vaporize it, that is) and treat its own citizens abysmally. Why in the
world would anyone hesitate to compromise with such nice folks as those?
You read this stuff and wonder if they're smoking heroin, popping
morphine AND munching on the raw poppy seeds.
I could go on, but what's the point. This editorial is from
another solar system, far from planet Earth.
But it's the lead editorial in today's edition.
Still wondering why the New York Times is in
THE UNRWA: EXPOSED BY ONE OF ITS OWN
This surprising admission - of something anyone with a functioning cerebrum
ought to know by now - was posted by Charles Gilbert at www.littlegreenfootballs.com.
Former UNRWA Official Harshly Criticizes
East | Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 11:37:42 am PST
A former top official in the United Nations Relief
and Works Agency has issued a report blasting the agency for
politicizing the Palestinian refugee issueand for allowing Palestinian terrorists to become
James Lindsay, who served as UNRWAs legal
advisor and general counsel from 2002 until 2007, said the agency needs to
adopt reforms if it is to adequately address concerns that it has politicized
the Palestinian refugee issue.
Among Lindsays recommendations are the need to
end UNRWA assistance to hundreds of thousands of Jordanian citizens who
qualify as refugees; shifting from a status-based system - whereby anyone
who was defined as a refugee received aid even though he or she was more
well-off than others - to a needs-based system of aid delivery; avoid
involvement in political affairs; conduct more stringent background checks on
its employees so it does not hire Palestinians who are members of terrorist
organizations; and to enable those who wish to leave refugee camps to do so by
The UNRWA establishment is steaming over the
report, naturally, because it doesnt demonize Israel.
An UNRWA spokesman slammed the report, accusing
the author of bias and a failure to employ a sufficiently wide range of
The agency is disappointed by the findings of
the study, found it to be tendentious and partial, and regrets in particular
the narrow range of sources used, Andrew Whitley, director of the UNRWA
representative office at UN headquarters in New York, said.
The study ignores the context in which UNRWA
operates and the tight line the agency walks due to various pressures,
Whitley said. Someone reading this paper with no background would assume that
the Israeli government was a benign actor. No mention is made of the
occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
This is the same UNRWA that has run schools where Palestinian Arab children
are taught unrecontructed hatred -- and has done so for decades. In other
words, the UNRWA is a major facilitator of the mindset that results in terrorist
bombings and desires of young Palestinians to be "shaheed" (martyrs) by
blowing themselves up to kill Jews.
No suprise there. They have learned that Israel doesn't exist and
that Jews are the offspring of apes and monkeys who do not deserve to
live. They have also learned that to be shaheed is to be in eternal glory
And where did they learn that? Well, we've already talked about where,
GERALD R. OBAMA?
Heyyyy, we finally found a new gig for Chevy Chase. All he needs is a
quick melanin transfusion and he's back on top!!
HERE FOR VIDEO
Can Mortimer and Randolph Duke be far behind?
TALIBAN BEHEADING. ARE YOU WAITING FOR THE PROTEST MARCHES?
You won't see protest marches about it on college campuses.
You won't hear those great deep-thinkers in hollywood like sean penn, or
cameron diaz, or ashley judd condemning it.
michael moore won't be doing a documentary - phony or otherwise- on it.
It isn't important, you see. It's just the taliban beheading an
innocent geologist, after forcing him to say what they wanted on tape for
propaganda purposes, and then assuring us they'll do it again.
Here, from Reuters, is the story:
Pakistani Taliban release tape of murder of
By Mohammad Hashim
KOHAT, Pakistan, Feb 8
(Reuters) - Pakistani Taliban militants released a video tape on Sunday of them
beheading a Polish geologist whom they said killed him because Pakistan's
government refused to release Taliban prisoners.
The Islamist militants
said on Saturday they had executed the Polish engineer, Piotr Stanczak, who they
kidnapped in September, because the government had refused to free 60 captured
militants before Friday's deadline.
A tape was delivered to the office of
a Reuters reporter in the northwestern town of Dera Ismail Khan showing two
masked men cutting off Stanczak's head.
Before he was killed, Stanczak
was seen on the tape appealing to the Polish government not to send troops to
He also urged Poland to severe ties with Pakistan, which he
said had made no effort to secure his release, said a Reuters reporter who saw
Assaults on foreign aid workers, company employees and
diplomats have increased in Pakistan over the past year, especially in areas
near the border with Afghanistan, where government forces are battling the
Taliban and al Qaeda.
A Taliban spokesman, identified only as Mohammed,
said earlier the militants would only give up Stanczak's body if the government
freed captured militants and stopped attacking them.
"We will not hand
over the dead body if the government does not accept our demands," the Taliban
spokesman said by telephone.
"Our demands are the same: the release of
our 60 men and an end to military operations."
Polish Prime Minister
Donald Tusk on Saturday said his government had received unofficial confirmation
the 42-year-old hostage was dead.
Stanczak was kidnapped on Sept. 28
while visiting one of his company's sites near Attock city, about 65 km (40
miles) west of the capital, Islamabad.
Gunmen shot dead his Pakistani
driver, bodyguard and translator before abducting him.
heading the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) office in
southwestern province of Baluchistan, was taken last week and his driver was
Two Chinese telecommunication engineers, two Afghan diplomats
and an Iranian diplomat were kidnapped in northwest Pakistan, though one of the
Chinese later escaped.
A militants on the tape released on Sunday said
other foreign hostages including the Chinese engineer would also be killed if
the government did not meet Taliban demands. (Additional reporting by Alamgir
Bitani; Writing by Robert Birsel; Editing by Angus MacSwan)
Where are the people who led the fight to close Guantanamo prison because
someone was pranced around naked and someone was forced to wear panties on his
head? Do they think this is less significant?
Where are the left wing lunatics who demanded that (the admittedly
corrupt and dishonest) pervez musharraf be deposed? Do they think things
are now better in Pakistan? Will media be demanding an answer to that
Will any of them be organizing marches or other types of protests
before the next hostage is beheaded? The taliban subhumans say they
are going to do it, and they make good on threats like this. In fact,
it seems to be about the only thing they do well.
These are the people we fight. This is why we fight them.
The last administration had the common sense to
realize this and the courage to fight, even though it meant being despised by
the left, along with the vast majority of our wonderful "neutral" media.
Does the current administration have this kind of common sense and
courage? Or is short-term political high ground more important?
We'll find out soon enough.
THE AMERICANS WITH NO ABILITIES ACT
From my sister - who ought to meet West Coast Russ, because they both seem to
come up with really funny stuff on a regular basis:
- Americans With No Abilities Act
knew this was just a matter of time.)
- Congress is considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits
for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed
as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack
any real skills or ambition.
'Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not
possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for
themselves in society,' said California Senator Barbara Boxer. 'We can no longer
stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With
this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a
small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are
In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Majority Leader Nancy
Pelosi (D) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) pointed to the success of
the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing
opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal
employees lack any job skills, making this agency the single largest
U.S. employer of Persons of
Under The Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25
million 'middle man' positions will be created, with important-sounding titles
but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and
Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will
be given so as to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable
employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that
promote a significant number of Persons of Inability into middle-management
positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that
agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.
the AWNAA contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate
against the Non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions
such as, 'Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?'
'As a Non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who
have something going for them,' said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a
lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint , Michigan , due to her inability to
remember 'rightey tightey, lefty loosey.' 'This new law should be real good for
people like me,' Gertz added. With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions
of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.
Said Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): 'As a Senator with no abilities, I
believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to
every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each
and every American citizen, regardless of his or her inadequacy, with some sort
of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing
That's a laugh riot, isn't it?
I mean, it's obviously a joke, right?