State of the Union 2013

 

by Lance Thompson

Reaction to the President’s State of the Union speech has been as predictable as the speech itself, split along the usual partisan lines.  But Obama’s next one, to be given after the 2012 election, figures to be a game-changer, and here’s an exclusive early look at what it will include:

Good evening.  And a special welcome to the many outgoing Democrat congressmen and senators.  I know you blame me for the staggering losses our party suffered in the last election.  The good news is, you and I have pensions for life.  Incidentally, that’s almost as long as the new, long-term unemployment extension we passed during the lame duck session.  The bad news is, we’ll have to borrow the money to pay for those programs from Uruguay.

I want to thank each and every American who voted for me, especially the record numbers who did so posthumously.  I only wish you had voted more often.

I want to take a moment to look back on our achievements.  We passed a national health care program.  I know the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional last summer, but remember, the law was on the books almost long enough for an average American to read the entire 1300-pages of that law.

I stopped the Keystone pipeline, hobbled the domestic energy industry, and made worldwide oil reserves available to the Chinese.  I think we can all see the results in reduced traffic at the drive-through and increased sales of bicycles and skateboards.  I know a gallon of unleaded will now set you back twelve bucks, but the good news is, you can now pay for that gas with food stamps. 

The size of our military is now one tenth what is was when I took office, and we are engaged in no foreign wars.  Sure, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Maui are now colonies of the People’s Republic of China.  Yes, Mexican drug cartels have surrounded the Alamo.  And, admittedly, the number of rogue states with nuclear weapons has grown exponentially to include Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Luxembourg and Solyndra.. 

But we’re not economizing on our security.  I have doubled the number of TSA airport security officers, and authorized them to conduct strip searches on anyone who even drives past the airport.

Thanks to bailouts and takeovers during my administration, the government now owns 45% of private businesses in this nation.  We have had a 98% success rate in running those businesses into the ground.  By the way, I don’t agree with critics who say that including permanent Obama 2012 bumper stickers on all new GM cars was responsible for that auto company’s plummeting sales. 

The best news is that this nation, struggling with unsustainable debt, massive unemployment, declining international prestige and influence, and worthless currency is not my problem anymore.  Since the election, the Republicans are in charge, so we can go back to blaming them. 

(Since it is not customary for the outgoing President to deliver a State of the Union address, Mr. Obama will deliver his remarks on the ABC program “The View” immediately following the Harry Reid aerobics segment and the Nancy Pelosi cooking demonstration.)

Obama Closes the Arsenal of Democracy

by Lance Thompson

Communist China is building a naval aviation program around its new aircraft carrier and cranking out new submarines at the rate of two per year.  Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, forbids American ships from returning to the Persian Gulf, and is building an ICBM base in Venezuela.  Waves of bombings mark the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.  North Korea and Iran are on the verge of fielding nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them.  In this time of crisis, international tension and threats from every corner of the globe, President Obama naturally responds by cutting half a trillion dollars from the military budget of the United States.

The excuse Obama offered for this lunacy (and offered at the Pentagon, to add insult to inanity) is that wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are “winding down” and that there is no longer a need for the powerful military we’ve had since President Reagan rebuilt it.  Obama, whose administration has spent more than all previous administrations combined, pointed to the need to save money, and fully intends to do that at the expense of our nation’s defenses.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said the new strategy would be to focus on Asia and the Middle East, then identified the high cost of providing health care for military personnel as a reason for the cutbacks in other areas of defense.  Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey characterized the traditional requirement that theUnited States maintain a force able to fight two major wars at the same time as outdated, and “a bit of an anchor, frankly.” 

These decisions and comments come from an administration that only recently had five conflicts cooking–Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.  Obama has shown a willingness to commit troops without congressional approval or even the slightest indication of American interests at stake.  But now he evidently believes that he can “turn the page on a decade of war” and ignore the ever-spreading threats we face around the globe. 

Panetta also said that defense cuts “must be driven by strategy and...not be driven by numbers alone.”  But it is clear that the size and capabilities of American armed forces will determine and limit the missions they can undertake.  In none of the conflicts mentioned above was the United States engaged with a nuclear power.   A few years ago, when our political leaders actually put the nation’s safety first, our military prepared to confront the major states who opposed us.  We created strategies and plans and weapons to counter a Soviet invasion of Eastern Europe, a Communist Chinese takeover of Taiwan, or nuclear strikes from any of the growing number of rogue nations eager to join the nuclear club.  Now, however, the Obama administration hopes to avoid the danger of fire by reducing the number of fire departments. 

Obama has been consistent in his three years as president.  He has followed fiscal, judicial, legislative and military policies that have weakened, constrained and threatened our nation.  So this recent decision should come as no surprise.  It only remains to be seen how this country’s enemies will exploit yet another retreat from America’s greatness by this president.

The Magnificent Seven?

by Lance Thompson

The Magnificent Seven, now considered a classic Western, wasn't a hit when it was released in 1960. Based on Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai, this allegorical tale was transplanted to the southern border of the American frontier and populated with a stellar cast of manly actors--Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, James Coburn, Robert Vaughn and Eli Wallach as the leader of the predatory bandit band that terrorizes a small Mexican village. In view of Hollywood’s enthusiasm for sequels and our current political situation, I believe the time is right for a remake.

In the original film, the peaceful farmers of the Mexican village are all hard-working and able to support themselves. For the remake, recast in the villagers’ roles would be the American middle class. They are self-reliant, industrious, and uncomplaining. They are the settlers, the providers, the builders of their community.

The villagers are regularly raided by the bandit Calvera and his gang of thieves. They take anything of value, from produce to poultry, leaving only enough to allow the villagers to subsist and produce more goods for the taking. The villagers are beyond the help of the law--Calvera makes the rules. When one villager suggests hiding a little extra from the raiders, another says, "Calvera never takes everything. He always leaves us something." Calvera would be played by Barack Obama in the new version, and the bandits by his administration's tax collectors, law makers and appointed czars. They prey upon the middle class, taking an ever greater share of their wealth while placing restrictions on how they produce it, what they can do with it, and how much of the proceeds they can keep.

The villagers realize they cannot permit their children to grow up under this brutal system, and decide that they must fight. They are not powerful enough to resist Calvera by themselves, so they hire seven gunfighters to rid them of the bandits. In the remake, those who decide to find champions would be the Tea Party, scouring the land for real conservatives to turn back the liberal tide.

The gunfighters are all loners, and each takes the job for his own reasons. They are warrior entrepreneurs, offering services that are valued by others. Some live by a strict personal code, others hope to make a profit, one just to make a name for himself. On a lawless frontier, they are the only hope against marauding bandits. The gunfighters are the GOP candidates, each one seeking the nomination for his own reasons, but all standing up to a confiscatory power that ordinary people cannot resist.

After being turned away in the first battle, Calvera does not relent. The gunfighters learn that Calvera and his band cannot support themselves. They can't afford to lose--the village's modest earnings are their sole means of survival. Similarly, the government knows it cannot exist without the wealth generated by the private sector. As the government has gone from a guarantor of our freedoms to a parasite on our earnings, its increasing size and appetite require ever greater sacrifices from the American people.

When it is clear that the bandits will not give up, some villagers lose heart and want to submit to Calvera's demands. They think it would be better to serve a cruel and capricious master than perish. These parts would be played by liberals who believe that only the government can ensure people's well-being, and no price is too high to pay. Ultimately, a majority faction in the village turns against the gunfighters, and sends them away, just as a majority of Americans embraced Obama and servitude to the government in 2008.

But the gunfighters don't give up. They regroup, ride back into town, and challenge the bandits. At first, it seems an impossible task--they are outnumbered and outgunned. But they are determined to defeat the bandits, knowing the odds are against them.

Likewise, conservatives in November will challenge an overreaching, overintrusive, overdrawn government supported by the mainstream media and all those who long to be wards of the state.

Will the villagers surrender their freedom and their livelihood to Calvera? Will they trust their lives and their children's futures to his promises to be fair and benevolent? Or will they join the gunfighters to rid themselves of their oppressors, though the price of freedom may be high?

I won’t give away the ending of the original. How the remake comes out is up to all of us.

The Letter O

by Lance Thompson

In his upcoming book "Ten Letters," Eli Saslow, a reporter for the Washington Post, informs readers that President Obama has staffers select ten out of the hundreds of letters he gets each day to provide a representative sampling of American public opinion.

Saslow states that sometimes Obama feels "powerless" to help ordinary Americans, and on occasion has been known to respond in person and enclose a check to the correspondent, or make a phone call to fix a problem. Many cynical critics of the president doubt this, as Obama himself is the only source for this story. None of the many recipients of Obama checks has yet come forward.

But this story does not sound far-fetched to me. Examples of Obama’s largesse are many and verified. There is no reason to doubt this account. In fact, I can well imagine the conversation between Obama and his letter czar.

 

LC: "Mr. President, here is a heartbreaking letter from a major Democratic contributor and Solyndra investor."

 

O:  "Send him half a billion."

 

LC: "This one is from a member of the New Black Panthersaccused of voter intimidation in Philadelphia."

 

O:  "I’ll call Eric tomorrow."

 

LC: "This one seems to be about a hybrid car company that’s struggling to save the planet. But it’s all in Finnish."

 

O:   "Send half a billion. Dollars–not euros."

 

LC: "This one is from a Tea Party member who was beaten and run over by union reps at a right-to-work rally."

O:  "That’s enough for today. We have to draw the line somewhere."

Occupy Busch Stadium

by Lance Thompson

The Occupy movement widened significantly today with the formation of "Occupy Busch Stadium," an ad-hoc group dedicated to redistributing the wealth, opportunity and rewards of professional sports.

Exploiting the attention paid to the World Series, the OBS has demanded fairness from Major League Baseball. Highest on their agenda is income redistribution for baseball players everywhere. Statistics show that the top one hundredth of one percent of people who have ever played baseball make 99.98% of the money paid to baseball players. A handful of players who are fortunate enough to make it to the big leagues--such as Alex Rodriguez, Vernon Wells, and CC Sabathia–make multi-million dollar salaries while people who play exactly the same game in back yards and in local sandlots make little or nothing. OBS simply demands fairness–all baseball salaries to be placed in a pool and the funds distributed equally among all baseball players in the nation.

A major cause of income inequity in baseball is the unfair selection process for major league teams. The prejudicial system that requires prospective players to participate in the game for years, constantly training and developing skills, is designed to keep those of limited ability, ambition and dedication out of the majors. OBS has created a new opportunity network that ensures that every person who has an interest in playing baseball for a major league team will get that chance. Of course, the system is expected to be oversubscribed at first, so most people will be limited to a lifetime maximum of one inning, or one stand at the plate, but at least everyone can participate.

Another aspect of major league baseball that smacks of elitism is the inequality of baseball scores, a primary cause of a few top teams getting into the playoffs while the majority are left behind. Working with experts at the United Nations, OBS has developed a home run redistribution system that will ensure that every team, regardless of talent, effort or level of play will get an equal share of the total number of runs scored every season. This system will ensure that every team gets to the playoffs, as well as providing a somewhat extended post-season schedule.

Critics have complained that OBS efforts will result in chaos. But certain restrictions will apply. OBS partners in organized labor have vowed to keep the more important jobs in baseball, such as groundskeeping, maintenance, transportation and sanitation are available only to union members, and permanently closed to freelancers. This will serve to maintain the quality of play.

OBS spokespersons claim the organization is apolitical, but critics question this statement. Since President Obama has been invited to throw out the first ball at the season opener, Democrats have complained. They insist that the requirement to put one over the plate is unfair to a president who was brought up from the minors too fast, leads the league in errors, and is likely to be traded in 2012.