I'm helping!
Let me be honest with you: I know you do not read this journal to hear about the things I do at gas stations. No, you read this journal to hear my prescient, sparkling political insights, and at no time is this more in demand than in the months leading up to a presidential election. And with Nancy Pelosi already making history as the first female speaker of the house, and Hillary Clinton trying to do the same as the first female presidential candidate of a major party, many of you have asked me: "Can a person without a penis be an effective leader?"
The answer to this question, briefly, is "no". At greater length, the answer is "absolutely not". Women, while a major part of our economy and much better than men at things like cleaning the house, raising the children, shopping, and letting their emotions get in the way of things, suffer from an inability to keep more than five things in their heads at one time (especially if those heads are covered in blonde hair). Those things are:
1. Having babies
2. Shoes
3. Menstruation
4. Talking to us while we're trying to get some work done
5. I dunno, soap operas? Jell-O recipes? Something
As a result, they cannot possibly be expected to understand things like throw ratios, the alternative minimum tax, the location of Canada on a map, the infield fly rule, or any of the other extremely complex ideas of which one must have a complete understanding before becoming president. This is not a bad thing: this is just as God made them, when he created us a helpmeet out of our extra rib, and it only becomes bad when mankind attempts to thwart God's plan by letting women kill their babies or play sports.
Additionally, the possession of a penis is what gives men their mighty strength. (It is a little-known fact that in the Bible, "Samson's hair" is actually a metaphor for "Samson's dingus", just as "Satan" is a metaphor for "Soviet Russia "Islamofascism".) All of the great warriors throughout history have had penises, both their own and those of other people, and without one, it is impossible to make war against your enemies, the most important skill a leader can possess. Who would follow a woman into battle, knowing the only thing between her legs is a baby-slide? Only the French, and look what happened to them. What are we to do on the day the King of Mohammedstan challenges our president to a fistfight, and then finds out it's a sissy girl? The day we elect a woman president is the day before we all start speaking Muslim.
It is sometimes argued that America is backwards, because other nations have elected female leaders. In fact, the opposite is true! We are frontwards, for having the good sense not to do so. Most of the countries that have elected female leaders are run-down third world garbage piles with nothing to lose; they elect women to positions of leadership in much the same way one might elect Carrie prom queen, or make a German Shepherd president pro tem of the Senate. As for the oft-cited case of Margaret Thatcher, let us be perfectly honest. I've seen Monty Python. I know a man in drag when I see one. Clearly, Margaret Thatcher, a woman with the good sense to help poor people help themselves and show Argentina who's boss, was a transvestite. Why this quirk was tolerated by the British is as incomprehensible to me as why they court Stalinism by allowing their citizens universal health care, but at least they did not do something so autohomicidal as elect a woman Prime Minister.
None of this is to say that women have no place in the political process. They should be allowed to vote for the correct candidate; they form a strong voice against the evils of abortion and out-of-control coloreds; and they are especially useful (especially if their heads are covered in blonde hair) at helping relieve penis-equipped leaders of the unbearable pressure of guiding the nation safely through a dangerous world when you have an aging, no-longer-optimally-attractive wife. But the role of President must always, for the good of the country, go to the non-vaginal.
Also to the non-darkly-pigmented, but that's a topic for another day.
The answer to this question, briefly, is "no". At greater length, the answer is "absolutely not". Women, while a major part of our economy and much better than men at things like cleaning the house, raising the children, shopping, and letting their emotions get in the way of things, suffer from an inability to keep more than five things in their heads at one time (especially if those heads are covered in blonde hair). Those things are:
1. Having babies
2. Shoes
3. Menstruation
4. Talking to us while we're trying to get some work done
5. I dunno, soap operas? Jell-O recipes? Something
As a result, they cannot possibly be expected to understand things like throw ratios, the alternative minimum tax, the location of Canada on a map, the infield fly rule, or any of the other extremely complex ideas of which one must have a complete understanding before becoming president. This is not a bad thing: this is just as God made them, when he created us a helpmeet out of our extra rib, and it only becomes bad when mankind attempts to thwart God's plan by letting women kill their babies or play sports.
Additionally, the possession of a penis is what gives men their mighty strength. (It is a little-known fact that in the Bible, "Samson's hair" is actually a metaphor for "Samson's dingus", just as "Satan" is a metaphor for "Soviet Russia "Islamofascism".) All of the great warriors throughout history have had penises, both their own and those of other people, and without one, it is impossible to make war against your enemies, the most important skill a leader can possess. Who would follow a woman into battle, knowing the only thing between her legs is a baby-slide? Only the French, and look what happened to them. What are we to do on the day the King of Mohammedstan challenges our president to a fistfight, and then finds out it's a sissy girl? The day we elect a woman president is the day before we all start speaking Muslim.
It is sometimes argued that America is backwards, because other nations have elected female leaders. In fact, the opposite is true! We are frontwards, for having the good sense not to do so. Most of the countries that have elected female leaders are run-down third world garbage piles with nothing to lose; they elect women to positions of leadership in much the same way one might elect Carrie prom queen, or make a German Shepherd president pro tem of the Senate. As for the oft-cited case of Margaret Thatcher, let us be perfectly honest. I've seen Monty Python. I know a man in drag when I see one. Clearly, Margaret Thatcher, a woman with the good sense to help poor people help themselves and show Argentina who's boss, was a transvestite. Why this quirk was tolerated by the British is as incomprehensible to me as why they court Stalinism by allowing their citizens universal health care, but at least they did not do something so autohomicidal as elect a woman Prime Minister.
None of this is to say that women have no place in the political process. They should be allowed to vote for the correct candidate; they form a strong voice against the evils of abortion and out-of-control coloreds; and they are especially useful (especially if their heads are covered in blonde hair) at helping relieve penis-equipped leaders of the unbearable pressure of guiding the nation safely through a dangerous world when you have an aging, no-longer-optimally-attractive wife. But the role of President must always, for the good of the country, go to the non-vaginal.
Also to the non-darkly-pigmented, but that's a topic for another day.