CHANGE? YOU GOT IT!

In the words of John Adams, America was to be “a nation of laws, not of men.” Barack Obama and his minions have destroyed that ideal. In his efforts to “change” this country he has adopted the concept that his progressive ends justifies his lawless means. In so doing, he, along with his contemptible Attorney General, have demonstrated their disdain for the rule of law and our concept of the separation of powers. It is clear they have a deep-rooted animus toward the very framework of our constitutional republic.

Liberals don't seem to have much of a problem with Obama ruling by executive decree but I wonder what they would say if things were reversed. Suppose, just for fun, that in a shocking and unforeseen moment of clarity, the American people suddenly understood the need for reason, integrity, competence and a love of freedom in their leaders and they elected me president of the United States. Awesome! If the American people had the good sense to elect me then this fantasy assumes they also voted for substantial Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. Now, for an indeterminate time, I will govern by the new paradigm as established by Obama.

First, I would encourage the Republican leadership in the House to form a new alliance. Let's call it the Nancy Pelosi Caucus. Their job would be to don hideous masks and pass legislation in support of my agenda. Debate would be rendered superfluous. When the Democrats and media types start whining, the leader of the Nancy Pelosi Caucus can tell them, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.” The first thing on their agenda would be the repeal of the Affordable Care Act- (I've noticed the liberals have stopped calling it Obamacare). The second thing I would like them to do is pass the Affordable Bible Act. As I am governing by the Obama paradigm, I am not terribly concerned with constitutional constraints, but that's not even an issue with the ABA. Now that the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John “WTF” Roberts, has ruled that it is quite acceptable for the federal government to compel Americans to buy a product, the ABA would surely pass constitutional muster. Yes, it is our birthright, as Americans, to have affordable access to bibles. And by affordable access, of course, I mean that all Americans are compelled to purchase a bible. I'm sure the Democrats will be apocalyptic over this law but I will demonstrate my willingness to compromise and “reach across the aisle” by granting waivers to select groups. In fact, I will grant waivers to any religion that doesn't think it's okay to strap explosives to their chest and blow themselves up in a crowd of innocent people or condones the beheading of anyone that disagrees with them.

Over in the Senate, a once august assembly referred to as the greatest deliberative body in the world, they will now be operating under Reid's Rules of Order. Reasoned debate and measured deliberations? I don't think so. The Republicans will broaden Reid's Rules to cover all Senate business. Why even waste time talking. Just vote. Fifty-one votes wins! Hey, libtards, you lose again, you bunch of losers!

Now that things will be moving expeditiously in the legislative branch, I can get on with the business of wielding executive power. Remember now, under the Obama Doctrine, the chief executive is still called the president but he now has the power of a king or dictator. The president can change codified law at his pleasure. Under the Obama regime, when he did this, his administration and media types simply called it “tweaking” the law. No worries, it's just a little “tweak.” Well girl, I'm just a tweakster for your love! I will be tweaking away on the thin ice of a new day! The possibilities for good here are endless but let me mention a few of my priorities. I would “tweak” the tax code by establishing a ten percent flat tax. This should allow us to get rid of 90 percent of the IRS leviathan. Most of the remaining staff could be organized into a new department. Let's call it the Department of Jack-Booted Thugs. Their job would be to levy and collect confiscatory taxes on any individuals, institutions or businesses that have anything to do with windmills, solar panels or electric cars. We've been subsidizing this garbage for years. Time to re-coup our losses. They would also engage in “heightened scrutiny” of community organizers, race pimps and anyone having anything to do with George Soros. Perhaps this will strain credulity, but the Department of Jack-Booted Thugs will be run by three low-level staffers out of the Omaha office with no connection to or knowledge of by anyone above middle management.

A top priority of mine will be to tweak abortion law. I would make all abortions illegal after the first day of pregnancy. Coupled with a newly instituted three day waiting period, I'm sure many libtards will cry foul. Well let me just say, and I want to be very clear with this, If you like your abortionist, you can keep your abortionist, period!

America, when led by someone who loves freedom and recognizes the sovereignty of the individual, can once again save the world.

 

BREAD & CIRCUSES

The rise of the oceans has begun to slow and the planet has begun to heal. Thanks to Hillary and Barry pushing the “reset button” with the Russkies, those commie bastards are now our new BFF. There is peace in the Middle East, health care is free and everyone loves us! I think now is the time the Dear Leader would like us to obsess over our bread and circuses.

So, lets talk some football! 49ers coach Jim Harbaugh thinks Clay Matthews is a dirty player. Back in the fifties there was a defensive back named Emlen Tunnell who had a reputation for clothes-lining people. Of the Claymaker's allegedly late hit on the 49ers quarterback, Harbaugh said, “I was standing there and was kind of struck....I'm seeing Emlen Tunnell here.” What a coincidence. After about 80 close up shots of Harbaugh's reaction after every play, I was kind of struck: I'm seeing Forest Gump with a scorching boil on his ass here. Stupid and irritated is as stupid and irritated does, Jim.

The Mighty Packers blasted the Washington Redskins last weekend. It's early but I'm getting that Championship Season feel with the Pack. Not so for the Redskins. Not only are they stuck with Master Splinter for a coach but now they got the Indians after them again bitching about their team name. About two dozen protesters showed up at Lambeau on Sunday to let Packer Fans know that they consider “Redskins” to be a derogatory term. The protest was organized by the Wisconsin Indian Education Association's Mascot and Logo Task Force. (I bet those meetings are a blast.) According to Brandon Stevens of the Oneida Tribe, “We're actively and proactively creating an avenue of education and seeking out remedies to see how we can come to an understanding where the offender isn't the one dictating what the intent of the mascot is.” Consulting my Libtardese to English dictionary, a rough translation of this jibberish is, “We're going to be throwing hissy fits until we get everything we want.”

Now comes the first jackass out of the box. Sports Illustrated's Peter King says he will no longer use the “Washington team nickname.” Wow! Check out Pete's prodigious social conscience! Before I develop a debilitating case of social conscience envy I need to respond so here is what I'm going to do. I will no longer be using the name of that Sports Illustrated writer. From now on I will refer only to Sports Illustrated's ELF. (Elitist Liberal Fool) There you go ELF. We have both engaged in the same empty symbolism and accomplished nothing. But I bet you feel better about yourself. I know I do.

Jackass No. 2: NFL Commissioner Rodger Goodell said, “If one person is offended, we have to listen.” What if one million people are not offended? Will they listen to them also? I think the NFL owners need to call an emergency meeting to fire this idiot. Do they really want someone this breathtakingly stupid running their league?

This sort of crap is happening more and more often in this country. A few malcontents dictate societal standards for all. In this case the claims of the offended are demonstrably false. They say that Indian mascots demean their culture and they feel personally disrespected. But team names have never been intended to impugn anyone's culture or ethnicity. Names and mascots of this nature are chosen to represent what the team aspires to be. Warriors, Minutemen, Vikings, Seminoles, Fighting Illini, Patriots and so on. Team names are meant to conjure images of a fearsome and formidable foe. They are a source of pride for both the team and their fans. Nobody wants a nickname that encourages laughter and derision. For cripes sake, no team would ever call themselves the “Fighting French.”

The owner of the Redskins said he will never change the name. Good for him but the grievance culture of Obamaland has so elevated the status of the perpetually offended that I put the over/under for a name change at three years. Accepting the inevitability of this change, I think an effort should be made to get in front of this thing and avoid the dreaded “Golden Eagles” or “Senators” or “Red Storm” suggestions that are sure to pop up. If we all commit to this effort we can get a much better name into the social conservation. From now on I will be referring to the Washington football team as the Washington “Cracka's.” Will you join me? This name is a winner on many levels. First of all, doesn't it just fit? Washington Cracka's. Just sounds right. Also, it's not offensive to anyone who counts. Oh sure, maybe some white supremacist will bitch but really, who cares. Besides, those hillbillies have nothing to complain about. It's not a racist term. As explained by Trayvon Martin's girlfriend to Piers Morgan, “Cracka” should not be construed as a pejorative by white people: “...that's a person who act like they're a police...,” she said. Well, I guess it's settled then. Go Cracka's!

WRONG AGAIN BARRY

So, just like that, our constitutional scholar president has invented another “right.” Barack Obama recently stated: “...in the United States of America, health insurance isn't a privilege – it is your right.” Of course, he made no mention of the corollary to this assertion. To wit: If Americans are born with the right to health insurance, than somebody, somewhere is born with the obligation to provide it. Liberals respond with the tired platitude, - “It's a societal obligation.” But, in Obamaland today, our society consists of two roughly, in numerical terms, equal groups. Those that pay taxes and those that don't. I think it is important to remember, and this applies to all the sundry liberal programs, that when liberals talk about “societal obligations or responsibilities” they are referring to only half of the people.

Liberals also never want to contemplate how securing their invented “rights” might infringe on those rights that are actually enumerated in the Constitution. Examples abound how the implementation of Obamacare is diminishing individual liberty, privacy rights and religious freedom. A true right never places a positive obligation on another. We have the right to “the pursuit of happiness” but that does not mean somebody is obligated to make us happy. And while we have the right to speak, nobody is obligated to listen to us.

Obama went on to excoriate Republicans that oppose Obamacare. “They're actually having a debate between hurting Americans...just because they've been sick – and harming the economy and millions of Americans in the process... A lot of Republicans seem to believe that if they can gum up the works and make this law fail, they'll somehow be sticking it to me. But they'd just be sticking it to you.” I expect this type of vitriol from the Solidarity Singers and other assorted malcontents in Madison, not from the president of the United States. This nonsense illustrates another thing about many liberal politicians that I find irritating. They live with the self-righteous delusion that their willingness to spend other people's money somehow makes them more benevolent and caring than the rest of us. Not true. In fact, their profligate spending on “entitlements” only serves to cultivate a culture of dependency. Dependent people are not free people but they do vote Democrat and that's what matters to liberals in power.