This magazine recently ran two pieces endorsing Barrack Obama, firmly ensconsing Receiving Me? in the radical tradition of Hollywood Celiberals and neo Clooney-ism. And by tradition, I mean left wing moonbat conspiracy. Before you call me an A.M. radio listening wingnut [i] for making such an accusation, I offer you unequivocal proof: Hollywood provided this very magazine with a quid pro quo [ii] for endorsing Imam [iii] Obama. I am quite sure Receiving Me? will remember to declare the value of this corruption to their beloved IRS this April, lest they bankrupt their sacred Social Programs.

Thanks to the rigid grip the FCC holds on all forms of “expression” [iv] here in God’s own Land, the beneficent oligarchy of the Superclass has appointed myself, a humble descendent of John Hobbes, Niccolo Machievelli, and Tomás de Torquemada, to purify Receiving Me?’s position on the upcoming election for People’s Tribune. [v] Some have ignorantly declared that the stakes of this election are high, but I assure any common reading this in any American inner city that nothing could be further from the truth. Voting in the upcoming election, urban reader, is entirely unnecessary and non-compulsory. [vi] Despite that plain fact, I will now take up my task to explain to you commons who cannot accept the wisdom of the Superclass on its face alone why the Honorable Reverend John Sidney McCain III [vii] is predetermined [viii] to become People’s Tribune.

John McCain will return God’s own Land to the principles of Its founding, not necessarily principles enshrined in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, or other public or personal writings of the Founders, more like principles the GOP assumes the Founders really secretly intended. Principles sacred to the Judeo-Christian tradition [ix] as lived by the commons in our particular social and historical moment. I don’t have to tell you what those are, unless you go to some Church with less than Ten Thousand members at a service. If you still don’t know, I’d really rather communicate these principles to you in tongues, so you get the full effect, so come to the huge building with the spotlights outside that isn’t part of the local sports complex. Anyway, McCain has been into this stuff for the rememberable past. He’s well positioned to dictate the social order in a way you’re comfortable with, but also feel masochistically fulfilled by.

In contrast to the aforementioned vaunted Principles, Receiving Me?’s [x] bought and paid for endorsement of Imam Obama rests on the amorphous concepts of “Hope” and “Change”. You, the common, are forced into the rhetoric corner: “I mean … I’m for hope! Aren’t you? If you’re against hope, I think you need to learn to CHANGE that frown from upside down and embrace HOPE.” [xi] This is exactly the type of “expression” [xii] the left uses to confuse you, common reader, into believing the Imam is some type of magical being who can bring the ineffable into existence. This is snake oil salesmanship at its finest. Where does this hope come from? Does the Imam have a hope factory, where he produces hope like model-T’s, for the widespread consumption of you, the commons? As the Superclass entirely owns the means of production throughout God’s Own Land, I can assure you, reader, that he does not.

The illusion of choice is presented thusly: you, God fearing reader, can acknowledge your own ignorance as a common and your desire that your betters [xiii] structure your existence, or you can hope that the Imam’s secret rituals bring change that doesn’t include a new Caliphite. [xiv]

But we agree on “Mrs.” Clinton. That’s a dude.

i. Which is what you would say, you slanderous, weak kneed, illegitimate child of Bill Maher and Tony Blair.

ii. http://receivingme.com/blog/archives/14.

iii. For those ignorant of the Mohammedans, an Imam is a leader of Obama’s secret faith. This is not one of the secret faiths of our Forefathers, gentle reader, Obama is neither Bilderberg, nor Templar, nor is he a Brethren of the Rose Cross.

iv. The reader will note that the term “expression” is a Liberal neologism that I define, for the chaste reader’s benefit, as the spreading of insanity.

v. People’s Tribune is, it hardly bears mentioning, the correct title for what the commons call the “President of the United States of America”. Implying that office has any authority over the beneficent oligarchy of the Superclass is both a venial breach of RightThought and an example of the kind of soft naivete in Liberal thinking that makes the movement dangerous to commons and Superclass alike.

vi. This is not Brazil, urban reader, your participation is neither required nor desired.

vii. Captain, recipient of a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit, the Purple Heart and a Distinguished Flying Cross, Representative of the First Congressional District of Arizona, Senator from the Pretty Decent, Really Better than New Mexico in Certain Ways, if you Think About It State of Arizona, Campaign Finance Reformer, Veteran, Prisoner of War, and Guy You Commons would much Rather Have a Domestic Lager With, I assure you.

viii. Cynics and Clooney-ites would say predetermined by the Superclass, which is true but besides the point, completely Ignoratio elenchi undecided voter - reader. I would also remind you, fickle minded and feckless reader, slanders of the beneficent oligarchy of the Superclass constitute mortal breach of RightThought and Hammurabi’s Code.

ix. Well, not really the Judeo part, and by Christian I mean as Christ was interpreted by a Nineteenth century Scot, not by anyone for the first 1800+ years of Christianity. You aren’t reading these anyway, right? This isn’t exactly David Foster Wallace here, more like Jonathan Franzen (ohh, burn!).

x. Observant reader, you have surely noted that Receving Me? is phrased as a question so that any attempt to use the possessive with Receiving Me? is inherently awkward, grammatically disastrous, and just makes the writer look like a douche. Why do you think it is, discerning reader, that the authors of Receiving Me? wish to disclaim possession of their own writings?

xi. And the left accuses Fox News of rhetorical bludgeon.

xii. See supra note iv, fastidious reader, for definition and definitive proof re: “expression”. For the indolent reader, expression is the spreading of insanity.

xiii. If you resist this description of your inherent value relative to the Superclass, crass reader, ask yourself: have you understood the Latin phrases that pepper this soup of argument?

xiv. Beneficent Superclass or the yoke of neo Mohammedan rule? For those of you commons still unable to decide, remember to face east five times a day when you get your hoped-for change.