Sunday, October 19, 2014

The Gay Mafia Coming to a Church Near You.

For a long time now, liberals have argued that in no way would legalizing gay marriage ever interfere with the Christian religion.  However, it was easy to see through this lie time and time again.  Take, for example, the Christian couple who lost their bake shop after refusing to make a lesbian wedding cake.  Or, how about the New Mexico Supreme Court ruling that Christian photographers cannot refuse gay marriage ceremonies.  Or, how about the Kentucky commission that ordered a Christian company to print pro-homosexual t-shirts.  This list could go on for a while.

Now, the gay mafia is attacking Christian beliefs on all new levels.  The first this past week came from Houston, Texas, where Mayor Annise Parker ordered five Christian pastors turn over their sermons related to the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) to the city.  Later, they amended the motion, and now require the pastors to turn over all speeches related to HERO.  Has anyone in this gay mayor's administration ever even been to church?  The terms sermons and speeches seem pretty interchangeable to me.

These sermons, or speeches, are made by pastors to their communities through private communication.  It is not the city of Houston's damn business what pastors say to the members of the church.  Where is the First Amendment protecting the freedom of speech and religion?  Nowhere to be found in America today.  We are in a post-Constitutional America where members of both parties have pushed the boundaries of the Constitution further and further for the past few decades to the point where a city asking a pastor to turn over what he said to his constituents doesn't bother half of America.

The mayor's response to the backlash was, "We don't need to intrude on matters of faith to have equal rights in Houston, and it was never the intention of the city of Houston to intrude on any matters of faith or to get between a pastor and their parishioners."

Bullcrap.  This mayor isn't happy with the efforts of local parishes to oppose such legislation as the "Bathroom Bill."  This is a way for her administration to put the pressure on local parishes as to say "We are here.  We are watching you, and we will take you up in court."  This is an effort to silence opposition by the religious community in Houston and should be tolerated by no one.

However, that's only the first story of last week.  The other, lesser known one, comes from Idaho.  A senior citizen couple, both ordained pastors, are being threated by city officials to perform gay wedding ceremonies or not be allowed to perform ceremonies at all.

Donald and Evelyn Knapp run the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel.  They are being order by the city of  Couer d'Alene, Idaho, to perform the ceremonies or face months in jail and/or hefty fines.

They perform the ceremonies with references to God and the Bible.  Additionally, they provide the couple with a CD that includes two sermons about marriage and recommend religious reading.  However, since the couple charges a small fee for performing the service (probably just to be able to afford to keep it operating), they are being treated like a business.

Just want to make one point here.  The Supreme Court just ruled this year that businesses like Hobby Lobby could refuse to provide certain forms of birth control because of religious objections.  Shouldn't it be pretty clear that this would apply to an elderly couple running their own marriage ceremony service in which they have religious views?  Seems pretty basic to me.

But no, the gay mafia will hunt you down and drag you to court.  You can be certain of that.  With the way events seem to be going, I wouldn't be shocked before their was a court case against the Catholic Church for refusing to performing a gay marriage.  It's probably in the works.

And it's not the entire gay population that's trying to make everyone agree with their lifestyle, but it's enough for these events to bring up thousands upon thousands of pages on Google.

There actually are Christians trying to live their lives according to the Bible.  We just don't want to deal with things like this.  However, gays will track you down from the shadows of society, drag you out, and try to make you agree with them.  The gay mafia is coming to a church near you.

Friday, October 17, 2014

There is Reason to Fear Ebola.

Before we begin, I think it's important to establish that I'm a bit of a germaphobe.  Last school year, I went through a big bottle of germ-x.  I'll wash my hands for no reason besides just feeling dirty.  I take longer showers than the average human being and after I've gotten out I've been told I should "really do something about that sunburn" because I just like the water scorching hot.  I am the one who is nervous when people don't cover their mouths when they sneeze.  When I sneeze, I usually pull up the neck of my shirt over my mouth, aim towards my armpit, and try to hold in the sneeze because I'm afraid I might be passing germs.  I hate unnecessary physical contact (which is basically any outside family) and my disdain for public restrooms is unmatched.  I do not want to get sick; I don't have time for it and neither do you.

With that being said, I am extremely concerned over Ebola.  I understand it is a rare disease, but guess what.  If you catch Ebola, you will most likely die.  70% of people who contract Ebola die.  We have no cure at the moment.  That is what is frightening.

Also, take into account all the screw-ups.  Start with the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas.  The hospital sent Mr. Duncan, a man whom had been in West Africa, home when he had Ebola!  He could have infected tons of people.  What if he had gone to the store?  Or any public place for that matter?  Additionally, when Duncan came back the second time and was admitted to the hospital, he wasn't immediately isolated.  He sat in a room with other patients for hours.  Hours!

Furthermore, the hospital, following CDC protocol, had protective suits with neck gaps that exposed their skin to the Ebola stricken patient.  Reports said nurses were taping their necks in order to cover the gaps.  Great protocols CDC.  When pressed on this issue by Megyn Kelly, CDC Director Thomas Frieden said he would go into a room with a contagious Ebola patient with nothing on his head, one pair of gloves, and feet exposed stating, "More is not always better.  Better is better."  Well obviously, more must have been better for him because on the CDC's own website there is a photo of him in West Africa.  There was no neck gap.  He was even double gloved.  If it isn't good enough for you, then it's not good enough for anyone else.  Hypocrite.


Furthermore, have you seen this picture yet?  The one where they're transporting the nurse who caught Ebola and the man with the clipboard isn't wearing a Hazmat suit!


News flash: Ebola is a deadly disease, and you are standing feet away from a woman you know has Ebola.  I don't care what the protocol for your job is.  You wear a Hazmat suit like everyone else.  Where is the common sense?  Please... anybody.

But wait.  Just when you thought the CDC couldn't mess up anymore, they pulled the biggest screw-up of all.  They allowed a nurse who provided care for Mr. Duncan to fly from Houston to Cleveland on Frontier Airlines when she reported a low-grade fever.  She had a warning sign you idiots!  Do you know how much stuff and people she came in contact with?!  Ebola can live on surfaces for hours and can infect someone through sneezing or coughing within a three-foot radius.

And all you people like Shepard Smith just want me to "calm down."  Here's another idea to think about.  Go back to high school math when you learned about exponential growth.  Almost all the problems dealt with bacteria and diseases because they grow and spread exponentially.  One people can come in contact with many, many people.  Not only have the 132 passengers on the flight been notified, but now the reach of just this one woman has been expanded to 750 passengers who flew on the same plane before it was disinfected.  Take into account how many people this woman came in contact with at the airport through either physically being there or the surfaces she touched, and you see that this one woman could possibly have infected upwards of 1,000 people.  You have got to be kidding me CDC.

But don't you know?  Instituting a policy to ban flights from West Africa wouldn't do anything the administration says, and if you believe there should be a travel ban, then you must be a racist.

Let's take these one at a time.  A travel ban would be effective.  Nigeria has successfully closed off its borders from the infected African countries, and guess what, they're Ebola free.  However, we won't close our borders to West African countries.  Ann Coulter writes an awesome article on Ebola this week, which you can read here.  She states Mr. Duncan got $500,000 worth of free medical treatment.  Half a million dollars!  With that price, why don't we hang a sign in every airport saying, "Yes, we'll take your Ebola victims and pay for them too."  This is absolute madness.  If you have Ebola in West Africa, there is certainly a great incentive to get to the United States.  You get the best medical care in the world, and you don't even have to pay for it.

Obviously, you must also be a racist if you want a travel ban.  Oh, I don't want a travel ban from just West Africa.  I want a ban on every flight coming into America with someone holding a passport from one of the infected countries.  Most West Africans would have to come through London.  Don't let them on the plane.  This ban is also not going to be administered by the CDC or any government entity because they have shown how truly ineffective government can be.  Rather, make the airlines enforce it.  Tell them that if they let someone into this country from one of those countries, they will pay a hefty fine, and then, if a person does have Ebola, they will be footing the bill, not the American taxpayers.  Trust me, no Ebola would be coming into America unless these diseased people were walking across our Southern border.

However, back to the "racism" arguments from MSNBC.  Turns out students at my college must be following MSNBC like little lemmings off the cliff.  This weekend at the University of Rochester is our version of a homecoming weekend, called Meliora Weekend.  A lot of people are gathering in a congested area, so the University Health Service posted on its door that if you had been to Africa in the last 21 days, then you needed to let the receptionist know.  They are doing their jobs to promote the well-being of everyone on campus in case someone for some odd reason did come in with Ebola.  As a result, some leftist student had the nerve to post this sign next to UHS's sign.


Hey idiot, 21 African countries have imposed travel bans on those from West African countries that have people infected with Ebola.  Does that make them racist?  And substitute this with any other continent on the planet if they had a deadly disease we have no cure for.  The only other continent I could see liberals getting so choked up over is Asia.  They would have no problem if it said Europe or Australia or South America, but because Africa has blacks liberals jump to the conclusion of assuming this must be racist.

News flash: white people could also be in Africa.  We have a guy in College Republicans who was in South Africa over the summer, and I know this will come as a major surprise, but he was white.  There are white people who live in or have visited Africa.  All the University is trying to do is take necessary precautions in case someone actually did have Ebola because a lot of people are coming from a lot of different places.  With all the events going on, there's going to be a lot of human interaction on campus.  Instead of criticizing this for being racist, maybe you should thank UHS for taking the necessary precautions to know how to recognize Ebola and put protocols in place to help deal with an extremely rare circumstance.  No one should have to die from Ebola because of the iron fist of political correctness.

If you want an awesome video summing the whole Ebola timeline up, fellow germaphobe Dana Loesch completely takes down the entire timeline of Ebola in one epic rant.  (If you do not wish to watch the whole video, the best part begins at the 3:20 mark.)


Now, I'm not going as far to say that it's time to panic.  However, would it be too much to ask to see any sense of urgency or rational fear from the CDC or Obama administration?  That's the problem with this whole situation.  Obama has to prove that the Democrats have everything under control before the election in order to avoid a Republican wave on November 4th.  For those arguing Republicans are just trying to gin up fear on Ebola for the election, trust me, we have better issues to run on, like foreign policy.  The Republican Party is 10 points ahead on a generic ballot on the economy, 10 points on foreign policy, and 21 points ahead on terrorism than the Democrats according to the latest CBS polling.  We should be hammering issues like ISIS into the pavement until election day.

The Obama administrations, working its greasy grip into the CDC, is trying to make people "calm down" about this issue until after the election.  It might be too late if we wait that long to take any form of action.  As a result of playing politics, the Obama administration has put the American people in harms way of a deadly virus so that they might retain one or two seats they look like they will lose in the Senate come November 4th.  Thanks Obama.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Circling the Drain.

America has been the world's powerhouse since WWII.  However, in this short amount of time, we have managed to squander the traits which made us so great.

I would argue our downfall began before the world realized what made America so great.  This all began with the establishment of political machines in the late 19th century in cities such as New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago.  The machines realized that by promising to provide something for free, even if the machines never followed through on it, they could still trick uneducated voters, usually new immigrants of the time, into voting for their candidates.  The leadership could then use these machines for their own financial game.

Though the machines wouldn't last in American politics, the basic principles they operated on would survive and thrive a few decades later.

In comes FDR.  With the passage of the New Deal, FDR instituted many policies that went against economic reasoning, but sounded good to the average voter.  One of these was the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, which tried to end competition in industries by establishing rules of operation, minimum prices, an agreement not to compete, and production restrictions.  These would later be struck down by the Supreme Court.  Then, FDR would propose adding additional justices to the high court but would fail.  Two measures that were passed by FDR were Social Security and minimum wage laws.  Though many of FDR's attempts would fail, the sentiment to go against economic reason in order please the voters began.

Then comes LBJ.  His Great Society led America into its "War on Poverty," which we seem to still be fighting today.  Less than a decade of the Iraq War was too much for liberals, but fifty years of the failed War on Poverty is still not enough.

LBJ's measures of Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and many other programs would pass and still remain in place today.  However, the policies came at a cost.  With the chaos that surrounded LBJ's final years in office, liberalism in America virtually died for a few decades in America.

Fast forward to the Obama years (trust me, there are many faults of the many presidents between LBJ and Obama).  We now have a Senate that changed the rules of the Senate in order to push through controversial nominees.  We have a president who changed his own healthcare law 42 times through executive orders.  We have a president who would rather comment on how you didn't build that instead of focusing efforts on growing the economy. We have a president who would rather be on the golf course than Addressing the nation after the beheading of our journalist, while he didn't wear a tie and wouldn't even have the decency to send a representative to the young man's funeral.

Why should any of this surprise us though?  It's been happening for decades, and it's been happening in both parties.

When politicians realized they could win campaigns by promising America "free" things that were not even free, they stumbled upon the same scheme of the political machines.  This time around, however, political correctness came with it.

When you see the government imposing strict legislation opposed to fundamental economic principles (one example being rent controls), how can you not throw your hands up in the air when people wonder why the economy isn't growing like it used to?  When you see people vote based on feelings instead of logic, how can you not be frustrated?  When we vote into office men and women who have no expertise in economics, how can you be upset when the economy doesn't thrive?

When you see more and more Americans becoming dependent upon the welfare state, how can you not be upset as a taxpaying citizen?  Then, when you try to explain the problems, such as the public school unions and out of wedlock births, people get angry at you for addressing the problems instead of introducing a new law, as if that would do any good.  When you see the loss of jobs due to increases in minimum wage and regulations, how can you not hang your head knowing the uneducated clearly outnumber the educated?

When you see Washington politicians using the lobbyists for their own gain, how can you be upset when you see gridlock?  Then, how can you be upset at Congress for doing nothing when you continue to elect your own representatives?  When you see politicians so concerned with their own election that they lied to you, how can you believe when they come up for re-election next term that they won't lie to you again?

When you have an administration that would classify an act of terrorism as "workplace violence" because they don't want to offend anyone, how can you not see political correctness overtaking society?  When you have an administration who would blame the deaths of four Americans on a YouTube video in order to aid the re-election of their own candidate, how can you not feel the government always has something to hide for their own gain?  When a president would intentionally mislead the American public on issues from healthcare coverage to the threat of terrorist groups abroad, how can you continue to remain loyal to a man who has already betrayed you?

When a government would spy on its own people, how can you trust that government to do the right thing?  When a party would piggyback upon a tragedy in order to limit your Second Amendment rights guaranteed to you by the Constitution of the United States, how can you trust they have your best interest as a citizen at heart?  When a party would continually vote in the Senate in order to amend the First Amendment which provides freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly, how could you support that party?

I see the signs.  I can see the writing on the wall.  As we are $17 trillion in debt, as politicians continue to disregard the Constitution on which this country is founded, and as the welfare state continues to bloat into unsustainability, this country is circling the drain of prosperity.  You've got to make a drastic change America, unless you want to be a nation that looks like Detroit.  I'll be able to see when I need to get out and will if need be but not many will.  I'm young and educated; another country will gladly take me.  You can rest assured that the affluent will leave if it gets bad enough, but will you be able to?

It's time to get back on track America.  We have clearly tried something new.  It hasn't worked.  If you want your children to be reading about the decline of America, like the Roman Empire, I suggest you keep it up.  If you believe America is on the wrong track, then I suggest you fix it before it is too late.

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Dancing with the Duck.

When it comes to the Robertsons, controversy is sure to follow.  Not because they try to create controversy like many stars try to do in order to remain relevant, but rather because they follow their Christian values.  Therefore, some in the media like to go on witch hunts to stir up controversy over the family to promote their own agenda.

The most recent of these ginned-up "controversies" revolves around Sadie, granddaughter of patriarch Phil Robertson.  She is competing as a contestant on this season of Dancing with the Stars.  Naturally, liberal reporters put their hands into the hat to draw out the next way they will attack this family.

The media has criticized Sadie Robertson for her wardrobe choices and suggestive dance moves from week to week.



First off, I would like to sarcastically reply by saying I'm sure Sadie is the one choreographing these dances.  Still, this is what liberals always do with social conservatives; they put them in no-win situations.  Because Sadie is dressing and dancing just like any other human being ever on Dancing with the Stars, she's bound to get criticizes because of her family's religious background.  However, if she would have worn dresses down to her ankles, like the media seems to be criticizing her for not doing, they would have been criticizing her for not getting with the times.  It's a no-win situation.

It is extremely ironic that these attacks are coming from liberals, instead of conservative Christians.  At least with conservative Christians, they would be practicing what they're preaching.  However, when left-wing liberals with no moral backbone attack Sadie for being like a normal human being, they engage in trying to label someone else's beliefs that they do not even follow.  The liberals are trying to define what Sadie believes and hold her accountable to their interpretation of her beliefs, while also not believing what they're telling her she should be.

I know it sounds confusing, but hey, they're liberal journalists.  They can spin anything.

Point number two I would like to make is that there is a difference between sexy and slutty.  She moves her hips like a normal dancer.  It's not like she went on national television and did the dance routine to Nicki Minaj's "Anaconda" video.  She's just being a normal person, but because her family actually has values, the media will question whether God would approve of the way she breathes.

These liberal journalists are the same ones who have never stepped foot in a church, advocate for killing of human life through abortion, believe the solution to teenage pregnancy is to hand out free birth control and condoms, and believe it is not right to question anyone's beliefs, unless of course they are a Christian.  Yet, they will be the first people to tell you what you believe and what you are doing wrong.  However, they could never be criticized for their own moral hypocrisy because they don't have morals.  Still, they will seek out ways to make Christians seem like hypocrites.

There's no way to win with these people.  The Robertsons just need to keep doing what they're doing because only they know what they believe.

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Reality Check, Christians.

Fair warning, this is one of those posts where I disagree with a group I belong to.  I am often much harder on those I share a common denominator with because I expect much better of them.  I write everything I do because I believe we should expect better than we currently are.

Tonight, I saw an article on Carrie Underwood's new single "Something in the Water," so I decided to read it and listen to the song.  "Something in the Water" is a country, Christian-themed song that is currently the 5th best selling single in the US on iTunes.  The single even ends with a rendition of "Amazing Grace."


On a fairly conservative-sided website, I expected many to embrace the song when I read the comments.  However, I was dead wrong.  The comments didn't focus on the song at all, but rather Underwood's support of gay marriage and hate-filled comments on Underwood's "cherry picking" of the Bible. 

Apparently, if you do not follow that person's exact interpretation of the Bible to a tee, then they must obviously be a better Christian than you.  A "true" Christian.

This is reality check time, Christians.

Different Christians are going to interpret the Bible differently than others.  There are reasons we have Protestants and Catholics and Evangelicals and every other denomination of Christianity under the sun.  People choose to see the Church's teachings differently.

I certainly don't agree with the Catholic Church on everything.  I believe euthanasia should be legal under certain circumstances.  I personally do not support gay marriage, but believe states should have the right to make their own decisions based on the power dictated to them by the Tenth Amendment.  I do not support this outreach to those who illegally jumped our border and disregarded our laws.  I don't believe in purgatory.  That is just the beginning of it too.

Honestly, if I found a denomination that was closer to what I believed in, I would have no problem switching.  However, Catholicism is the closest I know of, so does that make me a worse Catholic than you because I don't believe everything the Catholic Church teaches?  Does that not make me a "true" Catholic?

We are all different people with different ideas.  Not everyone is going to believe exactly what you believe.  That doesn't give you the right to attack what they believe.  I didn't know Christianity was this zero-sum game where we compete with each other to see who is more Christian.  If you get down on your knees and pray more often than your neighbor, does that make you a better Christian?  No.  In fact, it might make you a worse one because you look at Christianity as some competition.  It's not.

Our jobs as Christians is to be God to others.  That means spreading love, not hate.  Jesus associated with tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners.  He reached out to those who needed God the most.

And what do you do?  You go and attack a fellow Christian because her views aren't Christian enough for you.  Guess what.  Instead of being so strung up on her own views, maybe you should be happy that a Christian-themed song is going to get some radio airplay.  Maybe you should be happy that in-between hearing about wiggling, "anacondas," and "birthdays" this year, you can hear a Christian-themed song as it experiences mainstream success.

Look, Carrie Underwood is not some left-wing liberal.  Most assume she is a conservative-leaning individual.  If you cannot even look past just one position she holds, how on earth are you going to act as Christ to another.  She put out a Christian-themed song, and you all went off on tangents, vilifying her for one single view she holds.  Is this what you do to people everyday?  Or are you just that much cockier behind the anonymity of the Internet?

This is gut check time, Christians.  I'm not saying you have to agree with everything everybody says or does.  However, it is possible to still love and respect others while also disagreeing.  If you cannot even listen to a song without getting worked up over the positions an artists holds, maybe it's time for you to do some soul searching and rediscover Christianity because yours seems to have been tainted.

This is what you should strive for:

"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. Second is that to love someone means that you must agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate." -Rick Warren

I think the bridge of this song is for all of you:

If I believe there's a Savior,
Is the proof in me?
Is He alive and breathing?
Is He what they'll remember?
Is He what they see
When they look at me?

Saturday, September 27, 2014

Black-ish is Great-ish.

For the first time in my life, I was actually excited for a new season of television to start.  With The Middle returning, as well as new shows Red Band Society and Black-ish starting up, I looked forward to the new season.  I can honestly say that I was not let down by any of them.  However, I want to focus on Black-ish.



The story revolves around the perspective of Andre Johnson, the patriarch of his family who grew up in poverty but has come into wealth with hard work.  He's always looking at life through a racial lens.  In the very opening, we see him imagining a tour going through is neighborhood declaring, as they drive by "the mythical and majestic black family."  He feels that in order to "make it" blacks have dropped some of their culture.  Finally, he states the days of being "the big, scary black guy" had its advantages.



In the first episode, we see Andre is being promoted to the position of senior vice president.  Only to his surprise, however, does he find out that it is the senior vice president of the urban division.  He gets upset because he thinks because he is black, the company promoted him to be in charge of "black stuff".  However, his wife, a mixed-raced woman, seems to be the voice of reason between the white and black perspectives on the show.  She tells him that he is upset because they chose him to be in charge of urban; however, he would have been just as upset if they had given the job to a white person.

The other plotline of the first episode revolves around Andre's son, whom he calls Junior.  Andre drives Junior to school thinking Junior is trying out for basketball, only to find out he's trying out for field hockey.  Then, when they arrive to school, Junior's friend calls him "Andy," instead of his real name Andre because Junior has changed it.  Believing his son is losing his blackness after Junior tells him he wants to have a Bar Mitzvah for his 13th birthday, Andre decides he needs to throw his son an African rites of passage ceremony instead.  You just have to see it to believe it.

Another important moment in the first episode is when the younger twins describe another child in their class as the one who is "weird", "wears the Nemo shoes every single day", and "wears the polka dot backpack."  Andre immediately asks if they are talking about the only other black girl in their class.  When they say yes, he wants to know why they didn't say that.  His wife thinks it's wonderful that the children don't see color; Andre thinks they "need to be tested."

An insight into Andre's character comes in the scene where Andre talks to Rainbow, his wife, in their bedroom.  Andre says that this is how it starts and goes on to say that first it's field hockey for Junior, and then, he's running from the police in a white Bronco.  His wife then asks if he is really suggesting Junior will grow up to murder his wife, and Andre immediately retorts, "Aha! You think OJ did it!"  He is always looking at everything through race.

In the end, we see Andre compromising his hard black versus white lines and understanding how to hold onto his black roots in the modern world.  Most likely, this is why the series is called Black-ish.  I think this is where the series is headed.  It will follow Andre's track to tear down these hard racial lines of blacks versus whites in a way that American television has not seen since The Cosby Show.  Right now, the show has great potential, a great message, and great writing, which makes it a show you should definitely watch.

Friday, September 26, 2014

Scott Sense: Why Did I Watch That? Part II.

The last time I did this kind of blog post it went over quite well, so I'm doing it again.  Here's how it works.  I'm going to scroll through my YouTube history and pick out the most random videos I've seen.  You're going to laugh.



Last time, there were a lot of cute and funny videos.  This time, I think we're just heading into territory of straight-up weird.

1) We'll try to ease into the weirdness.  In order to get the joke of this first clip, you have to understand that Clay Aiken had a mildly-successful single after American Idol titled "Invisible," which they pull quotes from.  You also need to know that Aiken is running to be the Representative of a North Carolinian district this November.




2)  Ok, we're just going all-out weird now.  If you have never seen Jenna Marbles before, sorry that this is your first video of hers but I laugh every time.  If you don't want to backstory, you can jump to 1:44.  (Disclaimer: Extremely colorful language.)


3) I really have no explanation for this next one.  It's just 13 seconds you have to experience in your lifetime.


4) Ok, let's bring it back to reality for this next one.  It may be the most amazing thing you witness today.  This woman is 87 years old and suffers from Alzheimer's.  However, you have to see the conversation she has when she realizes the woman next to her is her daughter.  It's titled "Gods Gift."


5) Oh, Ellen can always make me laugh.


6) So, Disney redid the DuckTales theme song with real ducks.


7) I'm pleading the Fifth on this next one.


8) This woman is straight-up hilarious.  Once you see one of her sets, you're going to want to see them all.


9) What happens when you put the news to song?  This.  Featuring Joe Biden, Rand Paul, John McCain, Bill O'Reilly, Megyn Kelly, and Edward Snowden.


10) Ok, we'll bring it back to reality a little bit for the last one.  A man drove all over the United States snapping photos from his dashboard.  Then, he compiled them into this five minute video.  It's awesome.