Actor Kal Penn, a prominent campaigner for the President who now works in the Obama administration, was forced a gun point to redistribute some of his wealth. According to Yahoo News,
Actor Kal Penn, who appeared in the TV medical drama “House” and the “Harold and Kumar” movies, and worked as a White House aide, was robbed at gunpoint in Washington DC Tuesday, his publicist said.
Penn, 32, who served as a political liaison with the Asian American community, was in the Dupont Circle area of the US capital after midnight when a gunman stole his wallet and other belongings, the Washington Post said.
Isn’t this what President Obama wants? We need to spread the wealth around, right? I’m sure Kal Penn has plenty of money to spare and that poor disadvantaged citizen is now better off after taking Penn’s wallet. Liberals shouldn’t be mad at the poor man who forcibly redistributed the contents of Penn’s pockets, he was just following Obama’s political philosophy of spreading the wealth around. Of course, the “redistributor” did use a gun, so liberals will still be mad at that. Maybe D.C. needs to pass some more gun laws to keep rich liberals from having their wealth redistributed?
No related posts.
Very ironic!
[...] was forced a gun point to redistribute some of his wealth. According to Yahoo News, …Next Page Cancel [...]
Call it Karma??? Or is it just irony?
Yeah, but they’re never upset about collecting taxes that way.
Poetic justice.
[...] Kal Penn Robbed, Forced Redistribution of Wealth [...]
[...] Forgotten Liberty writes a satire piece about re-distribution of wealth (this time at the hands of armed [...]
oh well then rich people must be robbed then
So, because someone is wealthy…they should be robbed and give it to the American people. I am not a millionaire. However, I am financially stable. I work hard for my money. He didn’t deserve to get robbed and if he did its not right to make fun of.
It’s sarcasm Dee. Of course it was wrong for someone to rob him.
I love the title of this article!
The question is: Will he show typical liberal leniency to his attackers? Will he except the fact that his attacker is the real victim? Will he excuse him because his father did not love him enough?
I doubt it, another liberal hypocrite.