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.