When asked why ticket prices were not free, he said that would be silly. He said, “I’m not against Capitalism, the more people pay to see my movies the more money I make. People use my movies as an outlet for their frustrations. There is no money in trying to make things better, the money lies in pissing people off and creating monsters that can be blamed for their problems.”

He continued, “My fans are reasonless emotional people who think the world owes them something and throw blame around at everyone else while refusing to accept their own part in their current predicament. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, which led directly to international fame for him as well as wealth, gave the public the monster of industrialization. Never mind that that the movie itself was transported all over the country to large footprint single purpose buildings that are air conditioned even when nobody is there, just so people could watch the movie and damn everyone who has ever exhaled.”

“My method is more subtle”, admitted Moore. “At first I gave them one human monster, Roger Smith, but that was not big enough. So next I gave them guns, then insurance companies. I have revealed bigger and bigger monsters that affect more and more Americans. Now I can unveil the largest enemy to people, no not government, Capitalism. It won’t matter that the lives of the people seeing this movie have benefited from Capitalism more than any other outside force, they will still only see external enemies. They will consider me a friend and a champion of the common man who is beset by intruders who are responsible for all of their problems. And I will make millions. It’s not a bad gig.”

Republican lawmakers are fervently attacking the bill as a classic example of government overreaching saying that the government could never achieve the efficiencies of the private sector. The Democrats, however, say that the profit motive of these consumer goods companies is out of alignment with the needs of all consumers, especially those who cannot afford the products.

Democrats have been accused of introducing this bill as the first in an overall strategy to eventually make the U.S. government the sole provider of consumer products. “They want to dismantle the large and very successful consumer goods companies which have hundreds of years of experience, and replace them with a brand new government agency and hope for the best”, said House Minority leader, John Boehner.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi responded to this by saying this about consumer products companies, “They are the villains in this. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They have been doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening. The public has to know that. They can describe their arguments any way they want, but the fact is they don’t want the competition. They don’t even want anti-trust laws. They have had a good thing going for a long time at the expense of the American people and the health of our country. Our members have to go out there ready to take on a big special interest that has not made our country healthier and have made our cost spiral upward and for whom that is coming to an end.”

Some opponents of the bill are quick to note that Congresswoman Pelosi has taken large sums of campaign donations from these “immoral” companies. A spokesperson from the Speaker’s Office said that the congresswoman does not believe that taking money from “immoral” companies is, in itself, immoral.

The Obama Administration seems to be in lock-step with House Democrats. On ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said that consumer products need to be available to every American, and the only choice for cutting the costs of these products is having the federal government produce these goods.

The 95 year-old widow of Walter Cronkite said, “If nothing else this bill will prevent Congressmen from using this term as an excuse for goals not achieved or a slight against the opposing party. Also, reporters spend an enormous amount of time referencing the term ‘bipartisan cooperation’ as if there was some debate about its virtues and everyone universally agreed that it would be a good thing. With this bill the public can finally be spared the bloviating of modern reporters about this topic.”

Brian Brainerman of the KATO Institute says that since all votes would be unanimous, all of the current representatives will be able to take credit for any success and not be individually blamed for any failures. He goes on to say, “This bill will remove any credible differentiator for voters to judge the performance of their elected representatives, and will likely end up creating virtual appointments for life for these representatives.” When asked, “Then why would any current representatives vote against this bill?”, he responded, “Because the Democrats currently have a majority, and with the passage of this bill they would keep that majority for a very long time.”

Mr. Brainerman told us that the constitutionality of this bill is unclear since it is a modification of House procedures that does not seem to violate the constitution. “In summation,” he adds, “This bill brings Democrats and Republicans together so that they may use their combined skills and influence against the real enemies, freedom and the rights of individuals.”

Promise #1: Increased transparency and accountability.

The people are currently being left out of the process. They have no time to review legislation before it is signed into law. For his second term, the President proposes a five-day waiting period to allow the public to review potential legislation before he signs it into law.

There has been a sharp decrease in government accountability recently, and to combat that the president proposes fewer Czars who are not overseen or accountable for their decisions. There are currently 20 of them in the Executive Branch.

Promise #2: Close down the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

It is a travesty of justice and a black mark against us with the rest of the world, just European nations but that’s always what we mean when we say “the rest of the world”, that this facility is still in operation housing prisoners. This week, the Attorney General reported that many prisoners will never be let go or stand trial in the US. President Obama will bring this to an end.

Promise #3: No more lobbyists in government.

No political appointees will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.

In the current administration, this has been done 17 times. President Obama will bring an end to this ‘inside baseball’.

Promise #4: Make it Impossible for Congressmen to slip in Pork Barrel Projects

The public is enraged at federal government spending that simply does not make sense. Recently, there was an omnibus spending bill with over 9,000 earmarks totaling an estimated $7.7 billion. President Obama will stop this trend in his new term by going line-by-line through earmarks and make sure the projects are viable instead of just awarded by congressional seniority. Also in his new term, the president will post all pork barrel projects online for the public to review.

Promise #5: Presidents will follow the law.

Recently an Inspector General who was investigating a friend and ally of the executive was fired. He did so without the 30 day notice and an explanation to Congress which is required by a law. Senator Obama was a co-sponsor of this legislature in the Senate and was outraged that it was circumvented by a sitting president. Obama’s promise is to stick to the law as president.

When it was mentioned that some of these points sound familiar, David Axelrod chief campaign strategist for President Obama said, “This platform is based off of common ‘pain points’ of the electorate and many feel very passionately about them. We feel that addressing these points can secure a positive outcome for us in the 2012 election.”

We will tackle the questions about 9/11 one at a time.

How can fire destroy a building?

Anyone who has played rock-paper-scissors knows that paper covers rock, scissors cut paper, and rock smashes scissors. Introducing fire into the mix yields these new additions: fire burns paper, rock snuffs fire, and fire does nothing to scissors. Since the 1800’s, scissors are predominantly made of steel. If fire does not do anything to scissors, then a fire could not bring down buildings made of steel, like the World Trade Center buildings.

How did the “hijackers” successfully hit 75% of their targets?

Most pilots will agree that landing a plane is the most difficult aspect of flying. Landing is defined as, “the act of coming down to the earth or other surface.” Since both the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon can be defined as having surface, then it stands to reason that the terrorist successfully landed the aircraft over which they took control. Do you think that slightly-trained terrorists in a pressure situation could complete the most difficult aspect of piloting?

What hit the Pentagon?

All of the pictures and video of the strike on the Pentagon before the E-ring collapse, showed lots of smoke which obscured the building. There is no evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the building at all. In fact, someone who was there to witness the aftermath said that they saw an intact set of plane wings on the ground sitting atop what appeared to be a piece of charred fabric. They said that the wings were only a few inches in width. The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is 124 feet 10 inches. It is clear that, a much smaller plane hit the Pentagon and the smoke was created to purposely obfuscate the impact site.

Where are the large pieces of debris?

We hired a prolific model builder, under the supervision of his father a Physics professor, to build a model of the World Trade Center buildings. To achieve a model that would be destroyed by aircraft flying into them, he created the model with Jenga® blocks. When aircraft attacks were simulated the buildings fell as expected, however most of the debris was almost fully intact pieces of the buildings. Yet, there were no large pieces of debris at Ground Zero. When demolition experts want to demolish a building, they place charges on the large structures, not only to bring the building down but also to make sure no large pieces of debris are created and force the falling building outside of its own footprint.

Last but certainly not least, what does this new footage show?

Shortly after the footage was recreated digitally at a prestigious digital laboratory, the technician watched 10 minutes of it to verify that the process worked. When he presented it to his boss, he said that he thought it would be “all over the Internet in no time.” Instead, he did not hear a word about it. As it turns out, nobody can find the tape. His boss is known to have slept at the Washington D.C. Marriott hotel, a hotel known to have been used by the exclusive Bilderberger Group.

In a short non-recorded interview, the technician who watched the first 10 minutes said that it was clear that on the morning of 9/11 there were many people wearing dark suits and sun glasses entered the building during the short time that the camera was filming. He said that he felt that they were all US government agents. He continued to say that many of them were carrying bags and briefcases. Why were federal agents swarming into the World Trade Center buildings before the attacks, and what was in those bags and suitcases? It would take hundreds of people in a coordinated fashion to plant explosives throughout the buildings so that they could be brought down in their own footprints as they were on 9/11.

The 9/11 Commission report did not contain any of this information. But that is to be expected when the government investigates a crime perpetrated by the government. We must demand a new and independent investigation now.

Today, President Obama has announced a $20 billion bailout for the industry stating that “The economic cost of a failure in the industry and the domino effect on other industries is a strain that the country cannot handle at this time.”

The President also pointed to requests from police organizations around the country that favor the bailout. Bill Johnson, Executive Director for The National Association of Police Organizations said that it would be devastating to the country if the industry would fail. He mentioned that there is a “longstanding tradition in this country of police beating and harassing hippies.” He said that it is “therapeutic” for officers that are under a great amount of stress, and to disallow them from taking out their frustrations on these individuals would send them searching for other outlets. Mr. Johnson continued, “It is a matter of national and individual security that the marijuana industry is bailed out to maintain the status quo. If the president fails to keep the industry afloat, nobody is safe.”

Citing the recent comments by Mexican ambassador to the U.S., Arturo Sarukhan, that the U.S. should consider legalizing marijuana, President Obama was asked if he were in favor of legalizing marijuana. He replied, “Marijuana should not be legalized. If it were to be legalized, my party and I would want to tax it as much as we now tax cigarettes, and it would be more difficult for people to get their hands on some.”

The President continued, “The problem is that marijuana is not addictive. So if we tax it to the extent we do cigarettes, people will stop using it and thus the government will have a revenue shortfall. We need to concentrate on increasing taxation of addictive chemicals which we can portray as being bad for the user, but not have them stop using them.”

Free from pricing restrictions, labor unions, and government intrusion, these stand operators find it easy to determine their profit margins, pay their operating expenses, and set fair market wages to pay their employees. They also learn quickly that they are not the only game in town, something larger companies with government contracts or those that are “too big to fail” need to learn.

However, the U.S. Congress, led by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, is fed up with how these lemonade stands are run. Representative Steve Conway, chair of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Commerce and Labor said in a statement, “These stands take advantage of the so-called ‘lemonade stand loophole’”.

Congressman Conway continued, “They are not inspected by the Department of Health, the operators do not pay sales taxes or unemployment, and we have reports of some operators not adhering to federal employment laws by paying employees as little as 1/100th of the federally mandated minimum wage. In lemonade stand break rooms all over this country, we see signs that state ‘No girls allowed’, which is a clear violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

When asked if the lack of government control over this small sector of commerce was worth the hassle of removing the loophole, he responded, “Yes, it is worth it. It is secondary for the education of our children to include free market principles. The paramount issue is that children understand that transferring private property between people in this country is a government concern. They are not simply free to trade toys or sell their possessions to other private citizens without the okay of the government. It’s for their protection. Children need to learn that the government provides valuable services that need to be paid by someone, and their friends who are off playing are not going to do it.”

California Congresswoman Maxine Waters said, “I’ve been trying to get this loophole removed in my state, and it will be a great day when these lemonade stands are properly zoned and run like any other business. Also, my state of California has petitioned the U. S. Government for extra federal aid to pay unemployment benefits to proprietors and employees of lemonade stands that lose their jobs when the school year begins.”

In response to that request, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, prepared a two-page report on the current status of Operation Get God and delivered it to Congress. The report states that the U.S. Military has mobilized three divisions of fighting men and women, including the 10th Mountain Division, who are specially trained to fight in unusual circumstances in unusual terrain.

The total costs of the preparations are estimated to exceed $75 billion. This includes research and development of weapons that can dispatch angels and souls, transportation for three divisions to the border of heaven, aid and support to allies who border heaven, and finally the God neutralization machine.

One striking situation in the war is mentioned near the bottom of the second page of the report. Chaplain (MG) Douglas L. Carver Chief of Chaplains states, “Since God is pure love and the source of all things, when an American soldier dies in this conflict, their soul is instantly delivered to God, retrained, and sent to the front to fight for heaven. This accounts for a net resource loss of two soldiers. For this reason, God may very well be an unbeatable enemy.”

In a joint press release, Congressmen Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Maxine Waters stated that this is the most important war in which the US has ever been involved. The statement read, “God is the largest obstacle to the mainstream progressive ideals of this country that were shown in the most recent presidential election. President Obama inherited this enemy, known as God, and we must provide all of the money and resources needed to unseat him.”

Congressional Republicans are unanimously opposed to this action. House Republican Leader John Boehner said that this is an unjust war on a benevolent entity upon which most Americans rely. This is an end-run around our constitutional protection to freely practice our religion.

CBS and Mr. Letterman released a joint statement today which read:

As a late-night talk show host, and thus much more important than the average American, it is Mr. Letterman’s duty to try to sway public opinion to oppose elected officials that he does not like. However, the innocent joke that he delivered on Friday’s program was not written by him, and did not reflect the views of Mr. Letterman or CBS. It was unfortunate that the joke was ever conceptualized, let alone delivered. The staff member who wrote the joke was immediately fired, and will never be able to find a job for any major network. We sincerely apologize to President Obama, his family, and the American people for portraying him in a light that does not flatter him as much as we are used to. We will continue only to do jokes that make the president look good so that the uninformed masses who watch this show will continue to form their opinions based not on actual fact, but on whatever we tell them.

In the hours between the unfortunate joke and the release of the press statement, many prominent individuals were arrested for acts of assault against Mr. Letterman and vandalism against his personal property. Keith Olbermann, a hard-hitting MSNBC host, was arrested after pummeling Mr. Letterman’s car with a bat as it sat outside of his home. He also defecated on Mr. Letterman’s doormat. His incoherent screams as he smashed the car alerted Mr. Letterman’s neighbors who called the police. Other arrests included several co-hosts of The View, Chris Matthews, and Oprah Winfrey. John Stewart, current chairperson of Fake News and Talk Shows for the Advancement of Liberal Ideals, revoked Mr. Letterman’s lifetime membership as soon as he saw the joke.

Recently, there have been a rash of deaths amongst notable Pluto supporters. At first, it was not clear what tied the deaths together. Many died from exsanguination due to leeches. Several died by being hit by cars. Still others refused to take antibiotics for simple ailments. Local law enforcement agencies were stumped for some time until they stored interviews from witnesses in the same computer system. The system categorized the reports and found similarities in the statements given by people who knew the victims.

The computer began to match cases like the case of Fred Erlicson who died after being bleed to death by leeches and the case of Elsie Stevens who was hit by a car. Statements about both victims revealed that they both refused to accept the existence of new discoveries and inventions that were not around when they were in school. From there, the computer used that criteria to search all of the records, and found 99% of the cases matched. Investigators began re-interviewing friends and family of the victims armed with the computer models. Though most of the people interviewed did not know what a computer was, the investigators found that each of the victims supported Pluto being reclassified as a planet.

Investigators closed the cases and have coined a new pathology called ‘plutomoronism’ which is defined by the inability to accept things discovered after the person has decided to cease all learning. This pathology is distinctly different from the similar ‘creationidiotism’ which refutes modern discoveries based on political and spiritual beliefs.