Has Science! become more authoritarian causing people to distrust it? Apparently in Science! reporting, there has been a sharp increase in the use of the phrase “Science! says we must”, and people are beginning to feel that Science! is just pushing them around. And here are some other phrases that have increased in recent years in Science! reporting:

* Science! says we must

* Science! tells us we should

* Science! requires

* Bow down before Science!

* The power of Science! compels you

* Blaspheme to Science! will be noted and punished

* Science! demands your obedience and loyalty

* Do you dare speak before almighty Science!

* Kneel before Science!

* Science! shall crush you

* Foolish mortal! How dare you question Science!

* You have angered Science! and will pay dearly for it

* Science! wants a sammich. Get it a sammich! Now!

* All Science! wants is a hug

President Obama would like his daughters to eventually earn some money babysitting. It would be a good lesson for them to learn that it takes hard work to get money, but that would be the first step towards them rebelling against their father’s politics and joining a Tea Party. Still, I think a lot of people will jump at having Malia and Sasha babysit for them because they think that means the Secret Service will be there helping protect the kids. Yes, but they’re only tasked to protect the president’s daughters. If terrorists attack, they’ll toss your baby out to the terrorists as a distraction, saying, “Kill this baby instead!” Malia and Sasha would probably be against that — as any kid would — because I assume you don’t get paid in that situation. Terrorists ruin everything.

With the leak of the tens of thousands of documents on Afghanistan, it kind of sounds like we have a problem in our government of people leaking secret documents. Here are some ideas to stop that:

* Cover random secret documents with Ebola virus. Then finding the leaker is as simple as seeing who is bleeding out his eyes.

* Have a guardian stand before our secret documents, making everyone answer three questions to prove whether he is worthy to see them.

* When the leaker brings the documents to the New York Times, then you grab him because you secretly shipped everyone there to Gitmo and replaced them with doubles (Paul Krugman is a goat in a suit).

* The cabinet we keep all the secret documents in: Put a lock on it.

* Stop handing out free secret documents at tours even though it gets the tourists really excited. Also, stop giving tours of secret document facilities.

* When the leaker is found, draw and quarter him and put each piece at one of the four corners of the earth as a warning to others. You may need air fresheners, because that could smell.

* Have a guy standing in the shadows smoking a cigarette watching everyone who learns government secrets.

* Never ever write anything secret down.

* For the people allowed access to secret documents, try to look for red flags in their backgrounds that show that they might not have the best interests of our country in mind, such as if they voted Democrat.

So Charles Rangel is super corrupt — which is a surprise to no one but it’s interesting that it looks like they’re actually going to do something about it now. Why do we let this stuff go on so long, though? Do we have trouble finding which politicians are corrupt? I’ll give you a hint on that: It’s pretty much all of them.

We send incompetent sociopaths to run things in Washington, and if they weren’t corrupt already they soon will be with their new power. So should we stop electing incompetent sociopaths. Well, that’s not really practical. Instead, let’s just assume they all are criminals already. We get everyone in Congress ankle bracelets and parole officers and monitor them 24/7. Frankly, if you’re an elected official, you shouldn’t have a single private conversation while serving; that’s a trade off for the job. As soon as we start treating all our politicians as criminals, we’ll be less disappointed in them.

In Emperor Obama’s kingdom, there was a shortage of jobs. So Obama hired smart economists with degrees and stuff who sounded really super smart to get jobs. So they went to work making jobs, seizing all the assets of the land to spend on their schemes. Soon, the economists when to Obama and said, “We’ve saved and created many new jobs, but they’re completely invisible to dumb, racist teabaggers. So if you can’t see the jobs–”

“I can see the jobs!” Obama interrupted. “I’m smart! I can see millions of them!”

So Obama ran out to address his people. “I am happy to announce we’ve saved or created 3.6 million new jobs. That makes me the smartest emperor ever. And if it seems like we’ve only lost more jobs since I’ve went to work on the issue, that’s because the jobs are invisible to stupid people who are racist and stuff.”

A lone child then yelled out, “The Emperor has no jobs!” But no one could hear the child over everyone laughing at what a stupid dummy the Emperor was. And no one worried the Emperor would do anything to them because he was completely impotent.

THE END

So Shirley Sherrod said Breitbart wants to take us back to the days of slavery, which seems like an odd charge to make — nuts as some might say. And Howard Dean said FOX News is “absolutely racist” for reporting on news that was made by Obama firing someone for being racist. Again, some people might find this confusing. You might think that racism involves judging other people on their race, but that’s a common mis-perception of dumb crackers. Here’s how liberals can tell if someone is racist:

* He doesn’t like taxes.

* He doesn’t like big government.

* He notices Obama’s incompetence.

* He doesn’t think liberals are super-duper smart.

You ever get the feeling that liberals don’t really care about racism and just like tossing the charge around because they think it can help them politically? If they thought charging the Tea Parties with being too nice to minorities could hurt Tea Parties politically, they’d make that charge instead. And if joining the KKK and lynching minorities could help them enact progressive policies, liberals would be all over that. It’s like how they are much harsher in their rhetoric towards conservatives who are minorities because they find those conservatives extra threatening (if a large portion of black break towards the Republicans, liberals are doomed). So does being meaner to someone because of his or her race (like how liberals are extra mean to Michelle Malkin) make liberals racist? Strictly speaking, I guess so, but the motivator isn’t race it’s just pure partisan politics — the same as any other action liberals do. Liberals are just happy to use racism when they think it benefits them politically and yell about imagined racism when they think that is beneficial.

In a more just world, liberals would no longer be able to charge racism because they’ve used up all their credibility on that issue. If they honestly thought someone was racism and wanted to call him on it, they’d have to ask a conservative to confirm the racism and give them permission to use that charge. Of course, if spotting racism wasn’t politically beneficial to liberals, they probably wouldn’t care about it.

Our own Wacky Hermit sent us little elf baby booties from her Curious Workmanship company. SarahK about died when she saw them and I’m sure they’ll be cute on Princess Buttercup this Christmas.

Also, I got the book Whiny Little Bitch: The Excuse-Filled Presidency of Barack Obama (also available on Kindle). It looks like a funny read, and on the back it even says, “100 jobs were created or saved by publishing this book” so you have that too.

For those worried the Captain America in the new movie is going to be some flag-waver, have no fear! It’s going to be set during WWII, and the last thing we want is some American fighting Nazis while being all patriotic about it.

Part of this change, of course, is that Hollywood is full of liberal douches (who, in a better world, we would deport to make room for more illegal Mexicans), but part of it is also for international sales where American patriotism is thought to be bad. But in the rest of the world are they going to like that by fighting Nazis Captain America will be helping Jews? Maybe to really appeal to the rest of the world, Captain America can get a message from the future making his main mission to stop the creation of Israel.

It’s like the people who used to be the villains in movies that existed only to be blown up and shot are now the audience Hollywood is trying to appeal to. Poor Captain America. Maybe Hollywood can do the merciful thing and kill him again.

I was wondering who actually watches Keith Olbermann anymore. Don’t even most liberals find him to be a joke now?

Yep.

The elites at the Journolists (elites including those who comically threaten to put people through plate glass windows) can’t even stand him and find him incredibly pompous (though I have to say it’s wrong for them to compare Olbermann to Hannity and O’Reilly since they actually have people who disagree with them on their shows and don’t shrink away form that like a vampire from sunlight). So who are these liberals dumb enough to still take Olbermann seriously? I imagine his average viewer is some guy jumping up and down excitedly while screeching, “No likee booosh!!!” and wetting his pants. And laughing about how stupid Sarah Palin and “rethuglicans” while trying to get his tongue unstuck from the DVD player.

I hate to break the news to you, but I don’t think we’re going to have Olbermann to kick around very much longer.