A few days ago, Fox “news-puppy” Chris Wallace rounded up the unusually usual suspects for a square-headed roundtable discussion of the week’s knucklehead news from Capitol Hill. Mr. Wallace’s panel was drawn from across the political spectrum, from fawning Absolute Monarchists to foaming-at-the-mouth Schutzstaffel bully-boys. After an exciting and informative segment in which the disingenuous panelists swapped their favorite recipes for Hareng Rouge de Jour, the group got down to discussing a narrow range of predigested ersatz-issues, including the president’s latest assertion that either we retroactively revise the Third Geneva Convention no later than Tuesday, or prepare for decapitation by Akhmed and his scimitar in the frozen food section of Albertson’s on Thursday.
One of the impeccably hair-helmeted guests on this practically-unscripted program was House Majority Leader John Boehner, a true Patriot (with a capital “P” [for “putz”]). Unless this reporter’s lying eyes and ears deceived him more than usual, the following vacuous platitudes appeared to issue forth from the Congressman’s thoroughly lip-glossed mouth, if not from his alarmingly cavernous head.
"I listen to my Democratic friends, and I wonder if they're more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people."
Bravo, Signore! And this: “The fact is, is that, if you look at the USA Patriot Act, we're trying to give the president tools to protect Americans; they [Democrats] fought against us.”
But wait, there’s more: “Democrats were jubilant that the [Supreme] court was taking away the president's ability to do these military tribunals.”
And finally: “We're willing to give the president the tools that he needs to take on the terrorists. And many times, they [Democrats] stand in the way and try to fight us giving the president these tools.”
So I guess the question we should be asking ourselves is: Why do the Democrats hate us so much? Is it because of our freedom? If so, what can we, the average citizens of this country, do to protect ourselves from these cowardly Democratic terrorists who seek to launch ever-deadlier attacks against our increasingly threatened homeland?
First of all, Mr. Boehner, I’d like to suggest that simply revising (or even scrapping) the Third Geneva Convention against torturing prisoners-of-war will not be enough to make us safe. We must also have the courage to make necessary and overdue changes in the Third Amendment to the Constitution. That’s right, it’s time for us to repeal the quaint and outdated provision that prevents the legitimate quartering of troops in our homes.
Let’s face it, having armed soldiers permanently stationed in each and every home in America will go a long way toward making us all feel a whole lot safer. But that’s only part of the story. There’s an even more pressing reason to repeal the Third Amendment. You see, that’s the amendment that’s been used so effectively in the past by activist liberal judges to justify their shameless promotion of what liberals like to call the “right to privacy.” In the landmark case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), for example, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas used this amendment to argue in favor of protecting privacy regarding sexual matters, of all things. What’s the purpose of that, for God’s sakes? Sounds like something Bill Clinton slipped in there to cover-up his own immoral behavior!
And while you’re at it, Mr. Boehner, let’s not forget to revise or repeal Newton’s Third Law of Motion, which states that “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
[NEWS FLASH: CNN IS REPORTING THAT HOUSE LEADERS MET WITH THEIR SENATE COUNTERPARTS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION EARLIER THIS YEAR AND PASSED EMERGENCY LEGISLATION ABOLISHING NEWTON’S THIRD LAW OF MOTION, CITING NATIONAL SECURITY AS THE COMPELLING FACTOR IN THEIR DECISION. PRESIDENT BUSH IS SAID TO HAVE SIGNED THE BILL INTO LAW LAST APRIL IN A SPECIAL SIGNING CEREMONY HELD BY PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR IN ISAAC NEWTON’S HOMETOWN OF WOOLSTHORPE.
THE HERETOFORE UNANNOUNCED REPEAL OF THIS NATURAL LAW HELPS TO EXPLAIN THE RECENT ABSENCE OF SUBSTANTIVE REACTION BY CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS TO ACTS OF INEXPLICABLE LUNACY ON THE PART OF THE PRESIDENT. CLEARLY, IT’S NOT A LACK OF MORAL FIBER THAT PREVENTS THEM FROM SPEAKING OUT ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. RATHER, PHYSICS ITSELF MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO DO SO.]
After all, this would not be the first of Newton’s laws to come under attack from Congressman Boehner. In a little-publicized speech he delivered back in 2003 to the Dayton Chapter of the Mesozoic Thinkers Club, he told a startled but enthusiastic audience the following:
“I intend to sponsor a bill later this year that will repeal Newton’s so-called Law of Gravity. I can tell you without fear of contradiction that I, for one, never voted for that flawed piece of legislation, and even though it bears his name, I am fairly certain that my good friend Newt Gingrich didn’t support it in its amended form, either. The truth is, if it wasn’t for that law (passed on Bill Clinton’s watch, I believe), the World Trade Center Towers would still be standing today.”
[Boehner then went on to point out that if the law in question had never been passed, the country would have been spared the grief and humiliation of the Monica Lewinsky Affair, as it never would have been possible for Bill Clinton to drop his pants at all. “Besides,” he went on, “gravity or no gravity, if there had been a Boehner in the presidential power-pants back in 1997, Ms. Lewinsky could have saved a wad on her dry-cleaning bill…”]
The Congressman continued:
“I would remind all you forward-thinking Ohioans that “gravity” per se. is nothing more than a theory, and if it must be taught in school at all, it should be taught alongside the equally valid Levitational Design Model of the Universe, whose proponents include such distinguished scholars as the Nobel Prize-nominated Dr. David Copperfield, and the renowned Israeli freelance physicist and spoon-bender, Uri Geller.
“Now I know that some well-meaning liberals out there have contended that Newton’s Law of Gravity is a universal law of physics. That may be so. But personally, I concur with Ambassador John Bolton’s expert opinion that the United States is in no-way bound by international law, let alone universal law. Maybe some of my colleagues across the aisle are willing to turn this country’s sovereignty over to a bunch of Jupito-fascist terrorists, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit by and let it happen on my watch…”
Three cheers for Boehn-headed Republicans, and another gallon of petrol on the Raging Bonfire of Freedom…
Mark W. Bradley is a schoolteacher and political satirist in Sacramento, California. He can be contacted at: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Other Articles by Mark W. Bradley
Till November? Get Your 2006 Congressional Election Results Now!