Does anyone have a problem with folks who stump for causes that’ll benefit them to the detriment of others or who call themselves martyrs when their motives are as soiled as Bill Clinton’s shorts after he heard Lewinski never dry-cleaned her dress?

Take the terrorist...please. Seriously, doesn’t it annoy the crap out of you that the media turns a blind eye to the religious motives of these myopic bastards. They’re not martyrs, nor are they sacrificing themselves for God; they’re doing if for sex. Ostensibly, for seventy-two virgins who await them on the other side as payment for their cowardice barbarism. So what do the female terrorists get...eternity without Muslim men? Hell’s bells, could you blame them? Trust me, if seventy-two virgins are really on the other side of that blast, the first thing they’re gonna do is kick the burqa out of his selfish posterior.

And how about tree squeezers like Al Gore? In prototypical, uncharismatic monotone cadence, Gore implored Brazilians to stop cutting down the rain forest…from his 10,000 square-foot home in Nashville, TN made entirely of WOOD. Yeah, that’s not hypocritical. And by the way, do you know what South Americans typically grow when they’re forced to stop harvesting their natural resources?

When Massachusetts wanted to place a wind farm (wind turbines) in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, a favored form of energy production for the Democrats, Senator Kennedy poured all his energy into submarining it. Now why would Kennedy sink such a perfectly “green” method for producing energy? A jaded person might suggest that it had something to do with the millions of dollars he’s been raking in via his oil company, The Arctic Oil Royalty Trust, which operates in 5 states, but that would be incredibly shallow of him. No, Kennedy railed against those green bastards for reasons far more substantive than mere dollars; he torpedoed the energy-saving project because it interrupted the spectacular vistas from his Hyannis Port compound.

Let’s take a look at that oft asserted misnomer that the vast majority of wealth rests with the Republican Party and that the Democrats are demonstrably more compassionate towards the less fortunate. Did you know that of the top 10 wealthiest people in America, the top six are all Democrats and, if not for the Wal-Mart family, Democrats would hold the top 10 positions and then some.

What do you suppose would happen if someone gathered up hordes of the less fortunate and abandoned them to the hood of the more fortunate…let’s say the front-yard of Martin Sheen’s mansion (or someone’s of his ilk), but not before helping them construct a tasteful tent city, of course. Certainly there’s more disposable cash in the Hills for the homeless to grovel for and its residents allege to have a greater penchant for redistributing it. Factor in the abundance of drugs and expensive liquor, and you’ve got the makings of a perfect socialistic microcosm, right? Not quite. We all know what happened to the homeless in the socialist enclave that is San Francisco when the Liberal elite were asked to put their money where the less fortunate’s mouths were. And what about skid row in downtown LA when the well-to-do art crowd moved in and discovered that the homeless were much more palatable in the abstract. But surely that wouldn’t happen in the Hills of Beverly, would it? I say we give it a shot.

Democrats claim to be the party of the poor but it might surprise most people to find that the five wealthiest members of Congress are all Democrats and of the top 10 contributors to political parties since 1989, 9 gave to the democrat party, totaling approximately $227,000,000, as compared to $25,070,000 for republicans. But the really telling statistic is that the Republican party takes in 65% of the smallest individual contributions, while Democrats take in a whopping 92% from the biggest contributors, a million or more.

And now this latest hullabaloo over the Michael J. Fox commercial. I don’t know about you but I’m not particularly moved by people who are suffering with varied afflictions pleading for our government’s (you and me) complicity in the slaughter of millions of babies for the declared purpose of separating a man and a woman from the unintended consequences of a physical tryst and the ulterior purpose of testing their stem cells for “possible” medical cures and treatments. The first part of this has been argued ad infinitum so I won’t bother addressing it here. The second part, however, has either been ignored or not fully contemplated as yet. Anything that makes abortion more acceptable, like the promise of cures for serious diseases derived from such “procedures,” poses a viable threat to our country’s moral compass, which is pointing a little too southward for my taste.

There are several more examples I could heap on to illustrate the Left’s duplicity in all things moral or ethical, such as their propensity to ask salacious questions about a Congressman’s homosexual proclivity whenever he’s caught soliciting a minor or their love of lotteries which do nothing more than tax the poor...but I’m fairly certain they’ll surface during other blog installments.