How Can You Hate America and Not Be Un-American?

Wo, hold on there (insert name of any radical left-winged loon; whether it be Democratic pundit, Hollywood celebrity, or mainstream media personality)! You criticize everything America does and wish we were more like our European "allies," yet, according to you, you are not "un-American."

Not only that, you are deeply offended at the suggestion you are rabidly anti-United States.

I know your thinking is backward, but it's hard to believe even you can assert that you love America.

After all, I don't think this country was founded by brave men and women who held two party talks with the British until the Red Coats decided to leave America and return to the Mother Country.

You'll have to excuse some conservatives who don't think you're pro-American because you openly state that there are hundreds of countries whose policies you favor over ours.

"I like Dr. Pepper the best; followed by RC Cola, A&W Root Beer, Pepsi and then Coke. But don't you dare try and insinuate that I am not pro-Coke, because I love Coke very much; I just want to change its formula so that it tastes exactly like Dr. Pepper, but you can't equate that with anything other than true love for Coke."

It sounds pretty absurd when you put it like that, but it's exactly how the radical left think: "We love America; now what’s the most effective way to go about changing everything about it."

Now, I'm not saying I don’t have a problem with Barack Obama's plan to drastically change the way things are done in America. You can bet I will be the first to throw a fit if there comes a time I can't go to the doctor of my choice because "ObamaCare" mandates I see a doctor who got his PhD from the Guatemala School of Medicine.

But the difference between you and me is that I want things in America to be the way our forefathers envisioned, while you want America to be like the country we defeated for our independence. England isn't as horrible as some of the other European countries, but you get the idea.

So, (insert name of any radical left-winged loon; whether it be Democratic pundit, Hollywood celebrity, or mainstream media personality), the next time you talk about how much you loathe this country and everything it stands for, think about the fact that it is exactly the same way I feel about you, and I don't think you'd consider me pro-(insert name of any radical left-winged loon; whether it be Democratic pundit, Hollywood celebrity, or mainstream media personality).

President Bush's Approval Rating is Perfect

On an average day, how many sane people do run across? I know I can count on one hand how many reasonable people with whom I come in contact.

In other words, the amount of people with their heads on straight in this country and around the world is extremely low.

So it doesn't bother me that these freaks think President Bush is doing a bad job.

Most people's belief system is so out of whack it would concern me if they agreed with the President's policies. So why is everyone up in arms about Bush's low approval ratings?

That's why President Bush is a great President. He doesn't care about approval unless it's self-approval. If he approves of himself then he's doing a good job. That's the bottom line and his only concern. After all, we didn't elect him to do what we wanted; we elected him to do what he wanted.

When you leave your house every day do you act in accordance with the wants and needs of others, or do you act how you want you to act?

And what do we call those who live their lives accommodating the wishes of others? We call them spineless cowards.

It's liberals who always pay attention to the polls. "We'll only change things if people want them changed," is what they say. "Even though it will help preserve freedom, we're not going to invade such-and-such country because people don’t enjoy seeing war footage on the nightly news."

Name the last time a Clinton did anything without looking at opinion polls. "I'm for the war. Now, I'm against it. I'm against the troop surge, but if it starts working I might change my mind."

Who does that sound like?

Hillary Clinton?

Yes, but also Barack Obama. Sure, Mr. Obama was against the war from the get-go, but lately I've been hearing a lot less, “Get the troops out of Iraq immediately,” from the President-elect.

I suppose it's a good thing that his worldview won't really affect policy, because he'll just do what the majority of us think is best.

On the other hand, I was hoping to have someone smarter than the majority of us running the country.

The President is like a parent in that he must do things for our own good, regardless of whether or not the masses agree. And by not giving him the benefit of the doubt, you act like children.

If a single father has three kids and they all vote to ban baths, does that make baths evil? By your logic it does, simply because 75% of the household is anti-bath. Of course baths are not evil, and that's why the dad makes sure that, despite protests, everyone takes one at night or in the morning; something the children will thank him for when they get older.

Just as America will thank President Bush when history proves he has done the right thing an overwhelming majority of the time.

I’m sure, in response to this article, liberals will say, "Why would we go along with Bush's asinine policies!?"

Too bad the same liberals who say that, also say, "Even though you'll disagree with every policy he implements, you should give Barack Obama a chance to lead. He is, after all, our President."

Led by the mainstream media, I'm sure the ignorant childlike adults of the United States will declare that Barack Obama is doing a great job, which will keep his approval rating high.

But you know what, if the single father I spoke about earlier cut out baths, tooth-brushing and vegetables from the lives of his children, I'm sure his approval rating would be off the charts among members of his household.

Would that mean he's doing a good job?

Oh contraire.

Let's Pretend Barack Obama Doesn't Win

I know the liberal talking points insist the United States is in such great turmoil that a Democrat taking the White House in 2008 is inevitable.

But, just for my amusement, let's say Barack Obama doesn't win the 2008 Presidential Election. Because if McCain is somehow victorious in the election I can't wait to hear your attempt to try and woo Hillary Clinton back to the forefront.

Barack Obama won the nomination because of the extreme far left wing of the Democratic Party, and a loss to John McCain will mean, by the end of McCain's first term, the only Democrat who will have occupied the White House in 32 years is a member of the Clinton family.

You Dems finally found a couple that Americans will actually vote for and you're not smart enough to nominate the one remaining who is still eligible to represent your party in the general election!

I know you Democrats control Congress and therefore it's a given that Obama will be victorious. But do you realize the only reason you control Washington is because the American people are too chicken to understand we're in a real war and have to face terrorism head on, i.e. wage war against the terrorists?

Obama won the nomination because of the far left; if he loses Democrats will be forced to come to grips with the fact that far left people can't get elected in general elections.

It's not that difficult to comprehend: A Clinton one once, a Clinton can win again.

It's kind of like a plain Jane who starts dating a guy out of her league. He lavishes attention on her and gives her confidence. Then she thinks to herself, "If this guy likes me, they'll all like me, therefore I must be able to find someone better looking and richer." Then the girl breaks up with the boy and spends the rest of her life alone, all the while regretting her decision.

Republicans know when we've got something good.

Even though George H.W. Bush lost his reelection bid to Bill Clinton we Republicans were smart enough to realize that people would vote for a member of the Bush family for President and nominated George W. Bush in 2000. Guess what? He won.

Unfortunately you moderate Democrats aren't influential enough to make sure your party nominates someone with a chance to win.

Oh wait, sorry, for the time being I have to pretend Barack Obama will win the general election because those on the far left are absolutely certain this will be the case.

But in the event Obama loses, or the election is "stolen" from him, you need to create a sales pitch that would convince her to run again in 2012.

Here's my idea.

"Hillary you are our god. Like Eve eating of the apple we shamefully doubted your wisdom and infinite knowledge. We were worshipping a false idol. As the Christian God does, we ask you to forgive us of our sin. We will never again doubt your power. As soon as your beautiful and talented daughter Chelsea turns 35 we will of course nominate her, provided she keeps her maiden name. After her terms are up we will nominate her husband, provided he hyphenates his last name where it reads something like Doug Smith-Clinton or even Doug Clinton-Smith. Please, we will do whatever we need to make this right. We love you, Hillary Clinton, and we were wrong for ever wavering in our devotion to you."

Whatever it is, Democrats, it better be sincere and it better show just how sick you are that you pissed off the people responsible for stopping "Democrat President" from becoming an oxy-moron.

Vote Liberal: We'll Give You Stuff Others Have Worked For!

We're approaching another in a long string of elections where the Democrats are proposing hope for the poor, a better future for all, blah... blah... blah... What are the Republicans proposing, you ask. Basically the same thing, only they offer a different way to achieve success.

But let's break it down in a way everybody here can easily understand.

Liberalism calls for the distribution of wealth and conservatives call for wealth to be accumulated by hard work.

In other words; Democrats can campaign on giving the majority of its citizen's free stuff using wealth a small minority of the people have worked extremely hard for.

Why aren't there even more Democrats in power?

Maybe they need me to devise their campaign strategy.

Pay close attention liberals, because this is what your conversations with potential voters should resemble.

Liberal: Hello Sir or Ma'am - I am speaking to you on behalf of the Democratic Party. If our candidates are elected to office we pledge to give you stuff others have toiled for under the guise that they achieved vast riches only because of good fortune. They woke up at 4:00 in the morning and busted their butt until midnight so you wouldn't have to! They'll pay so you can continue sleeping until noon every day!

Potential Voter: I don't know – shouldn't I work for my possessions?

Liberal: Let's apply your question to every day life. If you were taking the family out to a restaurant, would you go to the one that gives you free food or the one that makes you pay?

Potential Voter: The one that gives us free food.

Liberal: If someone offered you a free t-shirt would you decline it in favor of receiving one from another individual who wanted you to mow his or her lawn in return?

Potential Voter: No.

Liberal: So what's the problem?

Potential Voter: I don't know - doesn't that mean some of my money will be used to go to people lazier than me?

Liberal: Do you think you had anything to do with the amount of motivation you were born with? Just like you, other people have no control over how hard they are able to work. It's in your DNA. They shouldn't be punished because they don't have the same natural aptitude as yourself.

Potential Voter: Wow, I never thought of it like that. I suppose I should help those born with less ambition.

Liberal: Of course you should. But we'll make the rich provide so much money your cost will be extremely minimal.

Potential Voter: And those rich people, who've worked so hard, have accumulated more money than they'll ever be able to spend.

Liberal: Exactly! What good are all those funds doing sitting in a bank! And besides, we shouldn't really call what rich people do "work."

Potential Voter: What do you mean?

Liberal: How long did you play video games yesterday?

Potential Voter: Five hours.

Liberal: Did you enjoy it?

Potential Voter: Yes.

Liberal: Do you think a multi-millionaire enjoys the process of accumulating wealth?

Potential Voter: I suppose so.

Liberal: Of course he does! It's just fate that he happens to enjoy something that provides wealth for his family while the thing you enjoy doesn't provide anything but fun!

Potential Voter: And it's not like I'm going to get rich from the U.S. government seizing money from America's wealthiest individuals.

Liberal: No; they're just helping you make ends meet - and maybe buy the new Metal Gear Solid video game when it's first released, instead of waiting for it to hit the discount bin. And perhaps one day you'll come up with some random idea that makes you a million dollars – like the Pet Rock!

Potential Voter: Yeah, I could still get rich! But if I do accumulate vast wealth I'm going to want to keep a majority of it.

Liberal: Don't worry - I know a crafty accountant.

You're welcome, Democrats – I've just given you a way to sweep Congress and take back the White House.

Leave Barack Alone!

Newsflash: Barack Obama has quit his church!

Did he quit because of inflammatory statements made by those who spoke there?

No, he quit because the media reported those inflammatory statements.

The media played clips and reported exactly what was said at the Trinity United Church of Christ. How dare they!

It's pretty simple from my perspective: Either Barack Obama stands by his church or he rejects it.

Either he says, "Like everyone I don't agree with everything they say at my church, but I will continue to stand by it," or "Too many offensive statements that I did not agree with were spoken at my church. Though they are responsible for many positives, my conscience simply does not allow me to remain a congregant of the Trinity United Church of Christ."

But Senator Obama wants it both ways. He rejects certain statements made at his church while condemning the media for reporting them as controversial. Senator Obama, why are you condemning the statements if there is no reason for the media to report them?

Something tells me if there were no media reporting on the church Senator Obama would be in the front row applauding Father Pfleger as the Catholic Priest did his best impression of the Junior Senator from New York crying about her struggles to secure the Democratic nomination.

And Senator Obama seemed to believe this would be a situation that any churchgoer would face should they choose to run for public office. But how many of you attend religious institutions where the sermons are so controversial they are newsworthy? How many of you hear your preacher say things that would make a large portion of the population seethe with anger?

And according to the Senator, the media was hounding the sick and shut-in members of Trinity United Church of Christ. That darn media; they ruin everything with their reporting of the facts, sometimes which require speaking to other people!

Now, if a member of the media picked up the phone with his grubby little hands and knowingly and repeatedly called a shut-in while wearing a smart-alecky grin - that would be an unfortunate situation. But despite how eager the media can be, which often causes them to lack manners most of us posses, do we really think they were "hounding shut-in's?"

To Senator Obama, it's always someone else's problem. The preachers at the Trinity United Church of Christ made outrageous statements; yet the media is the reason he is quitting the church. Michelle Obama says this is the first time in her life she is really proud of her country; yet the media is responsible for attacking Mrs. Obama, and they better lay off.

Did the media make it all up? The preachers said it; his wife said it - the media just told people about it.

Barack Obama calls disseminating information an "attack." The media tells us, "Barack Obama's pastor of 20-years said the U.S. Government created the HIV Virus to control the black population," they are attacking Barack, according to he and his supporters.

We supposedly live in a time when running for president is a dirty, nasty business. It seems to me that it's exactly the opposite. When reality is unpleasant for a candidate they can just blame the entity which brought the truth to light, as well as those who had the nerve to repeat the facts.

All This Sh*t Just Happened

There is continued debate in the public school system about whether or not we should teach our children creationism in science class alongside evolution, which is already taught.

The scientists who say we shouldn't even bring up creationism in school maintain there is science to back up evolution, while creationism is solely based on faith.

When I was a kid I had a theory that scientists were smart. I am now rethinking that theory.

I ask the scientists to answer the question laid out in the title of this piece: Do you really think all this sh*t just happened? All the miracles in the world are because of happenstance? There was nothing and then all of a sudden there was something. That something led to a planet that could be inhabited by human beings with opposable thumbs!

The oceans, the Seven Natural Wonders of the World, the weather in Hawaii and Anna Kournakova's luscious ass are all just products of dumb luck.

Oh, what's that you say? It was the Big Bang?

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state. Since then, space itself has expanded with the passage of time, carrying the galaxies with it. The Big Bang is based on Hubble's Law: the statement in physical cosmology that the redshift in light coming from distant galaxies is proportional to their distance. The law was first formulated by Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason in 1929 after nearly a decade of observations. It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the most often cited pieces of evidence in support of the Big Bang.

Oh, well then, I have changed my mind. Yes, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable explanation as to how the universe began.

You see people, that's how they get you! They say a bunch of confusing words that regular people can't understand and tell you because they are scientists, and their words are based on science, it is the truth.

Then when we say "God created the world in seven days and because Adam & Eve ate of the apple there is sin," they say, "prove it. Oh, you can't prove it, then we can't even bring it up in the classroom."

Then they reiterate their theory that the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state. Since then, space itself has expanded with the passage of time, carrying the galaxies with it. "Prove it," we say, only to hear them praddle on and on using scientific words that no one without a Phd can understand, and say, "There's your proof."

What! That's no proof, that's a lot of mumbo-jumbo is what that is.

Look, I'm a reasonable man, I'm not saying we should only teach creationism in school and say that it is fact, I'm just saying that telling our kids the world might have been created by an Intelligent Being is a little more appropriate than saying, "Look kids, all this sh*t just happened."

God is Watching You!

The ACLU, or ACL - PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEUUUUUUUUUUUU, as I like to call them, are always trying to scare the American people by telling them that if we're not careful we could end up living in an Orwellian nightmare where big brother is watching every move you make.

Well guess what suckers? We already do!

If anyone would ever take the time to read the Bible, they would find out that God is omnipresent. For those of you educated in a public school, that means He's everywhere, fools!

And guess what, there ain't a damn thing the ACLU can do about it.

Let's go over their usual tactics and see which one of them could prevent the Lord Almighty from constantly watching over us.

Bitching?

Nope – not going to work.

Moaning?

Don't think so.

Lawsuits?

Not today my friend.

Going on Donahue? Donahue got cancelled, ya liberal pansies!

Everybody said Orwell was way ahead of his time by predicting a society where your moves were monitored at all times, but according to the Good Book, he was a few thousand years behind.

Let Me Get This Straight; We Can't Portray Terrorists as Muslims After They've Attacked Us; But When They Weren't Attacking Us It Was Perfectly Fine

Before September 11th, 2001 there were countless Hollywood movies that portrayed Middle Eastern men as terrorists.

But since nineteen Saudi Arabian monsters perpetrated one of the worst terrorist attacks in history Hollywood has stopped casting Arab actors as terrorists because it’s not politically correct.

In other words it was perfectly fine to portray Muslims as terrorists when they were doing small jobs, but when they stepped it up a notch it became a faux paux to show them as the cold blooded killers some of them actually are.

They are not killers; portraying them as killers is okay.

They are killers; portraying them as killers is politically incorrect.

Forgive me please, but I don't understand!

And these movies are made in Hollywood for crying out loud; the politically correct capital of the world!

Of course the Hollywood elite never said that every Muslim is a terrorist, they just cast people to blow up buildings that look like the people who actually blow up buildings. Crazy, isn't it!

Hollywood is doing this so we don't anger people of a religion that has members who occasionally attack America. In other words, the people being killed are appeasing the killers.

This is just another example of the politically correct solution of refusing to discuss a problem that exists. There are a small percentage of Muslims who desire to murder innocent people; that's a fact, how dare they fictionalize it!

If White Supremacists wanted Hollywood to stop portraying them as terrorists would their best bet be to attack America? Would motion picture studios then go back to casting Arabs as terrorists? Is it a case of, "What have you done for me lately?"

Would a scroll at the bottom of the screen help? Throughout the movie there could be a disclaimer that stated... "This movie shows Arabs as terrorists, but it does not mean all Arabs are terrorists. In fact the actors portraying the terrorists aren't terrorists; they are professional actors. The guy playing Abdul was in an episode of According to Jim last week and the guy playing Abdul is currently starring as Master of Ceremonies in a Chicago production of Cabaret."

So I ask Hollywood to please cast Arabs as terrorists so I don't have to roll my eyes the next time the villain is introduced as Harvey, a Montana militiaman who is tired of the government trying to restrict the number of semi-automatic weapons he is allowed to give his five-year-old daughter.