Remember? I wrote to you about a year ago, suggesting we pawn off one of the lesser states to raise money for economic recovery. I still think it's a good idea, but I can understand why you chose not to use it. I don't suppose it would have helped much in your attempts at bipartisanship had you sold some conservative crapper like Mississippi or Oklahoma to the Chinese.
But onwards to the future, eh? I have a few more ideas, each and every one intended to remind average Americans who's working for 'em, and who ain't. First, I want to congratulate you on your remarkable performance in Maryland last week when you mopped the floor with that Republican caucus. Terrific job, sir. It must be most unnerving to dingleberries like Reps. Mike Pence, John Boehner and Eric Cantor to have their own glaring insufficiencies handed to them on a such an eloquent and well-reasoned platter. You make me proud I'm on your side of the noble bipartisan effort, and not those a-holes.
OK then, here are my ideas: Idea 1. C.L. "Butch" Otter, who is our governor here in Idaho (much to the dismay of the more agile minds) is so worried the Dems might get some health-care reforms through Congress, he has threatened to sue the federal government to keep any such reforms out of our state. Furthermore, our Legislature--as fine a collection of blithering bed bugs as you'll find anywhere in the nation--is already preparing to reflexively opt out of any solutions the Democrats have to offer.
I'm sure the same thing is happening in other states, notably those controlled by the same sort of ideologue goons we have running Idaho. What I suggest is that the Democratic National Committee establish a voluntary fund committed to giving financial support for countersuits (or other appropriate legal action) against any governor or legislature who would deny reforms to the people of their states. If nothing else, it would force Republicans to explain why they are spending constituents' tax dollars to keep health-care relief from their constituencies.
Idea 2. Another pool of contributed money, this one designed to assist in a medical matter rather than a legal one. This fund--I have tentatively named it "The Poor Girls Have Choices, Too Endowment"--would supply the means for low-income women to get the same quality care when seeking to terminate a pregnancy that the girlfriends of hedge fund managers and South Carolina politicians have available to them.
Mr. Obama, I'm certain you appreciate the need for such a resource, after watching the health-care bill being held hostage by those Blue Dog birds. So fine, let Sen. Ben Nelson and Rep. Bart Stupak have their way--no government funding for abortions. But just because they are such office-clinging cowards should not restrict the choices of less privileged women.
Idea 3. This one comes in response to the decision five dwarves on the Supreme Court made giving corporate entities unlimited influence over the political process under the guise of free speech. Sir, I don't believe there is an honest American alive who believes a corporation is entitled to the inalienable rights of an individual. Yet it seems there is nothing to be done about that travesty of a judicial ruling short of amending the Constitution.
So by golly, let's amend the Constitution! Amendment 28, it would be, defining what an individual is, and what the hell an individual isn't. After all, the Constitution was adopted to protect the freedoms of people, but they forgot to include a section explaining exactly how to tell people apart from non-people. I don't blame them. How could they foresee a future in which twisted freaks like Justices Antonin Scalia and John Roberts could ascend to the highest court of the land?
I have taken the liberty to hash out a rough draft of this proposed amendment. You could put a few lawyers on the job to polish it up to Constitutional standards, but the following, basically, is the general gist of the thing:
We the People recognize through the Agencies of Common Sense and Conspicuous Reality that the term "Person" applies only to such an Entity as meets the Singular Requirement for being a Person--e.g., belonging to the Human Race--and does not apply to that which is not a Person, even if some number of Human People are a part of that Entity which is not, in and of itself, a Person.
Furthermore, no Rights or Liberties may be accorded to any Non-Person Entity other than the specific Rights and Liberties granted to any Individual Human Persons who may incidentally be Components of said Non-Person Entities.
Furthermore, no Non-Person Entity may attempt to redefine itself, even through the agency of Corrupted Members of the United States Supreme Court, as belonging to the Human Race--thereby transforming itself from a Non-Person to a Person entitled to Individual Rights and Liberties--for such a Contrivance patently defies Common Sense and Conspicuous Reality, and would be attempted only for the Lowly Purpose of accumulating and concentrating Wealth or Power, or as is likely, Both.
Just imagine, Mr. President: The effort to kill such an amendment would expose Republican leaders for the corporate whores they are. And I am quite certain Americans are in no mood for more favors to big business, sexual or otherwise.
Must close for now, but I'll write again soon.