Stoos Views

Hello Arley, Well Hello, Arley, It’s So Nice to Have You Back Where You Belong!

By William Kevin Stoos  Wednesday, April 29, 2009

- Satire -
No sooner had Former Democrat/Former Republican/Now Democrat Senator Arlen Specter (“Specter the Defector” as he was known in the halls of Congress) abandoned the Republican ship, than he got a surprise call from President Obama welcoming him to the ranks of the Democratic Party. Stoos Views’ own White House Correspondent, Hugh Betcha was invited to listen over a speaker phone in the Oval Office.

“Welcome back, Arley,” the President said, grinning widely, “it is nice to have you back in the fold. I guess my campaign message of “Hope” and “Change” hit home, huh?” “Thank you Mr. President,” Specter replied, “I appreciate your kind words. Yes, I now believe in Change, and Hope that it gets me re-elected in 2010. It is nice to be back for awhile…I mean, back. I know I can count on you to campaign for me in 2010. You can, in turn, count on me to change my votes anyway you want, abandon my previous views, and toe the party line until then,” he replied. “Great,” replied the slightly befuddled Chief Executive, “please drop by the White House tonight for a little get together.” Surprised, Specter agreed. Later that evening, Hugh was invited to cover the impromptu gathering at the White House.

As he walked through the door of the White House Specter was hugged warmly by the President, then ushered into a dark ball room.  Suddenly, the lights were turned on and the Former Democrat/Former Republican/Now Democrat Senator was greeted by a bawdy chorus line composed of Obama, Harry Reid, George Soros, Rahm Emanuel, Chris Mathews, Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi who, accompanied by the White House band, belted out several raucous verses of “Hello Arley” to the tune of “Hello Dolly,” with their arms locked, high-kicking as they sang.  After a night of drinking and dancing, Specter, who plans to run in the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate race in 2010–having no reasonable chance of winning since no one in the state trusts him anymore–was asked to say a few words.

“I appreciate your support so much,” he began.  “As the British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston once said, ‘England has neither eternal friends nor perpetual enemies; England has only eternal and perpetual interests.’ That, my current friends, is the Specter credo. I will level with you. You need me, and I need you. If turning my back on a party with whom I have been associated for decades gets me re-elected then that is what I will do. I have neither eternal friends nor eternal enemies, but merely an eternal interest in getting myself elected. This is a win-win for all of us–the President gets a lap dog for the next couple of years, and a potential “super majority;” I get to ride the President’s coat tails during my ill-fated run for the Senate in 2010. I was sure as hell going to get my butt kicked if I remained Republican, but have a better chance if I turn tail and run to the Democratic Party. If the President does not screw up, and maintains his present approval ratings, the people of Pennsylvania might even overlook the fact that I am a selfish, opportunistic, SOB whose word cannot be trusted. I might actually luck out and win.” Whereupon, a hush fell over the party attendees.

“But if the unthinkable does happen, and I lose as a Democrat in 2010, well, I can always switch back. To my Republican friends I say (to borrow the words of the Governator): “I’ll be back.”

Cover Him Up or Put a Helmet on Him!

By William Kevin Stoos  Thursday, April 23, 2009

-Satire

Concerned about the creeping secular humanist bent displayed by the former “President Obama,” Stoos Views ace reporter Hugh Betcha, Head of the World Religious News Desk, called the President for an exclusive interview. As usual, the audience was granted. But something was different about this one. Frisked by members of Obama’s Domestic Security Force for the presence of any religious paraphernalia, Hugh was forced to check his crucifix and IHS tie tack at the front door of the Oval Office before entering.

“It’s ‘Obama The Secular’ now,” the former President declared as the pair sat down to discuss Obama’s recent repudiation of all things religious.  “That is how I will be referred to in the future. I am signing an Executive Order to this effect today. Let the word go out from this time and place so that all shall know me by my new title.” Pressed as to why Obama ordered the monogram “IHS,” an ancient symbol for the name “Jesus,” to be boarded over during a recent speech at Georgetown this month, the former President was rather direct. “Simple,” he said, “when I make a major policy speech I do not want the press or the audience distracted by Jesus and God stuff–you know. After all, I am The President, ah, er “Obama The Secular” and there is no higher office on the planet than mine. Besides, since I have officially declared that we are not a Christian nation why would I want an abbreviation of Jesus’ name distracting the audience from something important–like my speech? Besides, His Majesty, and My God on Earth and Keeper of the Holy Places, the King of Saudi Arabia, and others, might be offended if they saw me speaking from in front of a cross or monogram of the name of Jesus. It is time to start elevating Man a little more and eliminating the divisive influence of Jesus and God.”

Asked whether the President’s program of gradual secular humanism in government will offend the majority of Americans who do believe in God and attend church, he replied: “Of course not! After all, 54% of Catholics voted for me in the last election. Imagine that–a President who believes that teen pregnancy is “punishment,” who favors partial birth abortion, and even the killing of babies who are lucky enough to survive botched abortions (See: “Obamabortion Abomination,” Stoos Views). Hell, I even blocked the passage of the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act when I was a state senator–and I still get honorary degrees from a Catholic university! Nope, it is clear to me that Americans do not mind a little less God and a little more humanism–we are clearly winning the war. Big government, loss of freedom, takeover of industry and the banking system, registration of all guns, and the diminishing of the role of religion in America–I would say our platform is succeeding quite well. Like they say: ‘When Government outlaws God, Government becomes God.’ Gosh, I like the sound of that…..”

When asked about future speaking engagements, Obama noted: “From now on, I intend to speak only in venues that are “religion neutral.” Take Notre Dame, for example. When I give my “Obama Family Values” speech to the graduating class in May, I have directed that the President of Notre Dame make the campus religiously neutral. Since he is dying to have me speak there, he will do anything I say. I have advised him I do not want a bunch of religious crap on campus when I speak there. Don’t want no Son of God looking over my shoulder when I give my speech, and that sort of thing. No, this is not religious censorship at all. I just do not want to offend any atheists who may be in the audience or any Islamic jihadists who may watch the speech and get mad at the United States or myself.  They might confuse me with a ‘Christian’ President.” Asked what conditions Obama has placed on Notre Dame as the price for the honor of His presence, Obama The Secular replied: “Before I speak there and receive my honorary degrees, including my B.A. (Bachelor of Abortion) and my PhD (Promoting Human Death) I have directed that the President of Notre Dame remove all religious artifacts within camera range of my podium, and cover Touchdown Jesus with a black shroud or, in the alternative, paint a football helmet on his head, so he looks less like a deity and more like a football player in a bath robe.  With those changes, I shall agree to speak at the school.”

Asked why he bows low in deference to a foreign king, but hides Christ at every speaking engagement, he noted: “Hey, the King of Saudi Arabia is here and now. He is a powerful Muslim leader with a lot of oil, and keeper of the Most Holy Places in the Muslim world. Jesus? I don’t see him around here anywhere…do you?”

At this point, the interview concluded, the reporter bowed and took his leave of Obama The Secular, retrieving his crucifix and tie tack from the Domestic Security Police at the front door.

                William Kevin Stoos Most recent columns

Harsh Words Exchanged Between the Two Leaders–The Truth as Told to Hugh Betcha

By William Kevin Stoos  Tuesday, April 21, 2009

President Obama, back from his South American summit in Trinidad, called Stoos Views World News Desk reporter and Pugilist Prize winning journalist, Hugh Betcha, at his home in Wynstone, South Dakota, to set the record straight on his recent encounter with Venezuelan President, Dictator for Life, and Petroleum Magnate, His Rotundity, Hugo Chavez, in Trinidad.  And, it appears, all is not as it seems. 

“It was anything but cordial,” the President noted, “and there was a lot said during this exchange that the public does not know. Although we have to keep up appearances for the sake of the camera and international relations, we had a frank exchange that was honestly not very pleasant. While the American public perceives me as soft on the enemies of this country, the truth is, I am a pretty tough guy. There is a limit to how much I will take from some fat little despot like Chavez. Frankly I let him have it–but you would not know this from the pictures.”

When asked what really happened between the two, Obama was anxious to set the record straight. “Well,” he said, his brow furrowed, “the fat little bastard got out of his chair unexpectedly and handed me this anti-American book. As he handed it to me, he said, under his breath: ‘I hope you are able to read it, you Yankee ingnoramus.’ He was smiling as he said this. Now, he had already called me ignorant once before, so I thought ‘screw it,’ I will let him have it. As I took the book, I replied, under my breath: “You are nothing but a fat little pimp in a parrot suit!’ whereupon, he shook my hand and returned to his seat. It is time for the public to know the real truth and how tough I am on foreign despots,” the President remarked while pounding his fist on his desk.

When asked what he plans to do about Chavez insults, Obama stiffened up, “You know those nine refineries that he and his oil company own in the United States? Well, I am sitting here thinking that I sort of like Chavez’ idea of nationalizing assets within Venezuela. We might just do the same thing here with his refineries. He is always threatening to cut off his oil exports. Well, he needs us more than we need him. After all, 60% of his exports go to the United States and Venezuelan imports account for only 11% of our oil supply. So, if he wants to mess with me, I will just nationalize the nine refineries in the United States that he owns either in whole or in part. As long as I am taking over the United States’ banking system and the auto industry, why not take Fatso’s refineries. I wonder if he will call me an ignoramus then?”

Then, in a surprising move, the President shoved a draft Executive Order across his desk. “Read this. I am about to sign a new Executive Order. I like to call it “C.I.T.G.O.” he said, chuckling. “That is, ‘Confiscating the Illiterate Tinhorn’s Gas and Oil.’ It provides for the immediate confiscation of all of Chubby’s refineries and his CITGO stations across the United States. Certainly he will understand–after all he did the same thing in his own country. The Republicans will like me because much of his oil money goes to support terrorist groups in South America and the purchase of Russian armaments. The Democrats will like me because they like the idea of an all powerful federal government that controls all industry and the private lives of its citizens. So it is a win-win politically for me.”

The interview concluded rather abruptly as the President opened his shirt, beat his chest and yelled loudly: “I got the powah!” Whereupon the reporter hastily retreated, escorted by two brown shirted members of Obama’s recently organized Domestic Security Force.

Obama Recovering from Serious Back Injuries

By William Kevin Stoos  Monday, April 13, 2009

Just back from his “World Groveling Tour” President Obama invited Stoos Views’ Chief White House Correspondent, Hugh Betcha, to his room at Bethesda Naval Hospital where Obama is recovering from self inflicted back injuries received while apologizing for the United States in Europe, the Middle East, and Turkey.

“I guess I overdid it with the Cat O’ Nine Tails last week,” the President admitted, “but I thought that a little medieval self flagellation would impress the Europeans and show them that we are truly sorry for all of our past sins. But, boy does that thing hurt,” he said, pointing to the painful lash wounds on his back which were being treated by the President’s doctors. The President, referring to the wounds received during one rather embarrassing moment when he took off his shirt and beat his back repeatedly with this bizarre torture device in a symbolic mea culpa for everything the United States has done the past two centuries, grimaced in pain as he closed his hospital gown. “While that was very painful,” he exclaimed, “I think the Europeans were impressed. I am sure they will like us now.”

When asked about the back brace that he wore under his hospital gown, Obama noted: “Oh that–that was from my deep bow to His Glorious Majesty and Guardian of the Holy Places, my God on Earth, the King of Saudi Arabia. Despite the fact that I play basketball, and thought I was in great shape, that bow was so obsequious and so low that I seem to have crushed two lumbar disks in my low back. I could almost kiss the floor. But, I do not have time for surgery right now, as I have yet another groveling tour coming up this week and must prepare for that. Thank God or Allah–whoever–there are no more Arab kings to suck up to this week.”

When asked why the President of the country who fought a war of independence precisely because it refused to bow to a king would grovel in front of the ruler of the world’s biggest financier and sponsor of world jihad, Obama shrugged: “Hey,  it is important that the Arabs love us. By sucking up to His Majesty, they will take it as a sign of peace and friendship and love us even more. I would have knelt down and kissed his feet too, but the staff forgot to pack my knee pads.”

Asked by Stoos Views why a country that has sent more of its youth to fight and die for freedom in foreign lands than any nation in history; who saved a Europe that would still be speaking German were it not for its blood and treasure;  a country that, for decades, protected all of Europe from the threat of Soviet domination, a country that donates over 25% of the United Nations’ budget and provides more than 25% of its humanitarian aid;  a country that is the first on the scene with hospital ships, food, and humanitarian aid whenever there is an earthquake, cyclone, or tsunami in a foreign land, and a country that is doing more than any country in the world to fight the scourge of international terrorism, has to apologize to Europe for anything, Obama replied: “Well, above all, I want everyone to like us.  Being liked is far preferable to being respected and feared. I intend to spend the next four years showing the world the softer side of America.”

In closing, the President was asked what he had in mind for his upcoming Caribbean tour. Obama indicated that he plans to meet with Caribbean leaders in order to apologize for anything and everything we may or may not have done wrong in our own hemisphere, apologize for our success and wealth, offer each Caribbean leader free backrubs and mojitos, and hand out Happy Face stickers to all.

When Is 7 More Than 3,000,000?

Copyright (c) 2009 William Kevin Stoos

By William Kevin Stoos  Thursday, April 9, 2009

With the stroke of a pen the Iowa Supreme Court has turned Iowa into a Mecca for gay marriage, redefined marriage for the people of Iowa and, most disturbing of all, overruled the will of the people.  Perhaps–as a friend told me–this is their way of stimulating the Iowa economy, or just another example of judges dictating how the citizens of a sovereign state shall live. Either way, it is a bad decision and a bad precedent.

On April 3, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously struck down Iowa Code Section 595.2 which provided that “Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid” and held that sexual orientation is an “immutable” characteristic, shared by a “powerless” category of persons. Therefore, any attempt to legislate a definition of traditional marriage is presumptively invalid and subject to strict scrutiny by the Court.  Put simply, the Court has held that the good people of Iowa cannot define marriage as between a man and a woman–as has traditionally been the case in this state for over 160 years.  Rather, the Court has reserved unto itself the power to redefine marriage in a way that cuts against the grain and the values of the vast majority of Iowans– traditional, hard working, honest folks who share the belief that marriage between opposite sexes has something to do with the power to create human life and propagate the species according to Judeo-Christian principles.

But the issue far transcends the debate over the gay and lesbian lifestyle or their ability to marry. This issue is, pure and simple, one of disenfranchisement.  For over two hundred years this country has harbored the funny notion that we express the will of the people through our legislators, who pass laws governing conduct, morals, commerce, and a host of other matters necessary to conduct civilized society.  But when a handful of judges decide to abolish traditional marriage and tell the people that they must accept a new definition of marriage, they are clearly thwarting the will of the people and, in effect, outvoting them.  

After reviewing the ruling of the Court in Varnum v. Brien, my son, David, had a great idea:  Why not review the legislative history of the Iowa Code Section which the Court decided to void, in order to see what  the actual representatives of the people thought about that language?  The results were revealing.  As it turns out, The Iowa House of Representatives voted 89-10 for the language that “Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.” Further, the legislative history showed that the Iowa Senate voted 40-9 for the language that “Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid.” If my math is correct here, then 129 men and women elected by the people of Iowa voted that “marriage” is a legal relationship existing between a male and female, and 19 voted against that proposition. Put another way, 87% of the people elected to do the will of the citizens of Iowa believed that the only valid marriage is between a man and a woman.   Yet, when it came time for the seven justices of the Iowa Supreme Court to vote on the subject, these seven folks outvoted, overruled, and trumped the will of the three million Iowans as expressed through 87% percent of the people they elected.
               
I have vigorously defended judges in this state during campaigns to vote them out, or when newspapers have unfairly attacked them, and on other issues–and have not been afraid to do so.  However, there are times when we must voice our respectful disagreement with them. This ruling is less about gays and their legal rights than to what extent citizens have a say in their own lives. Why must the vast majority of people be deprived of the simple right to define what traditional marriage means to them?  Shall the morals, values, and rules by which we live be decided from the bottom up, through our elected representatives? Or shall they be dictated from the top down, by judicial fiat issued from this august body (whom I respect and are themselves good people–if wrong on this issue)? It is a question worth contemplating, given its implications for all levels of government. If a group of  appointed judges can presume to define our morals and legislate our conduct from above rather than simply applying and interpreting the laws our legislatures pass—why do we engage in the exercise of electing people every two, four, or six years as our county, state, and federal representatives?
               
If judges are able to fix potholes, run our schools, legislate from the bench, provide for the defense of the country, and appropriate funds, then perhaps we should amend our constitutions, abolish our legislative branches, and let judges tell us how to live. It won’t be democracy, but, then again, it would be easier.