OBAMACARE — “In the Year 2025” (Parody of Zager & Evans’ ‘In the Year 2525’)

In the Year 2025 (Sung to the tune of “In the Year 2525” by Zager & Evans).
**Note: I do not own the copyright to this song.  For satirical purposes only.

SING ALONG! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQzpVeirus8


In the year 2025
If man is still alive
If Obamacare survives
We may find…

In the year 2035
The gov’ment won’t tell the truth, they’ll just tell lies
Everything they think, do, and say
Paid for by taxes your grandkids’ll pay

In the year 2045
Ain’t gonna have no teeth, won’t have no eyes
You won’t find a doctor, nor a dentist, too,
Nobody will be treatin’ you

In the year 2055
Your arms hanging limp at your sides
You need rotator cuff surgery
But your insurance has been taken away

In the year 2065
Ain’t gonna need no husband, won’t need no wife
Abort your son, abort your daughter too
Or else they’ll have a big tax bill due, whoa whoa  .  .  .

(key change, pause)

In the year 2110
If God’s a-comin’ he ought to make it by then
Maybe he’ll see death panels and say
”Guess it’s time for the Judgment Day”

In the year 2210
God’s gonna shake his mighty head
He’ll either say ”I’m pleased with this health care plan”
Or tear it down and start again, whoa, whoa .  .  .

(key change)

In the year 2295
I’m kinda wondering if man’s gonna be alive
He’s taken everything the system can give,
And he ain’t paid back nothing  .  .  .  whoa, whoa  .  .  .

Now it’s been 200 years
Man has cried a trillion tears
For what? he never knew
Now man’s freedom’s through
But through the eternal night
The twinkling of starlight
So very far away
Maybe we can still choose today  .  .  .

In the year 2025
If man is still alive
If woman can survive
They may find…

In the year 2025  .  .  .

Satirical lyrics ©2010 Doug Buck

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Stevie Wonder’s Boycott of Florida

Stevie Wonder is boycotting Florida, but I don’t understand why.  I can certainly understand if he doesn’t regard the Sunshine State as the sunshine of his life.  That’s fine. 

But rather than boycott the whole state, he should just call and say he loves them.  That would do more to improve relations between ebony and ivory.

Even if George Zimmerman was a racist murderer, and the jury members were all racists, to go on and condemn the entire state of Florida seems to be based on superstition. Maybe he’s a part-time thinker.  He’s too uptight, anyway, and everything is not all right. 

He should seek higher ground.  After all, he has the advantage.  He’s not in Florida, a state with a maximum elevation of only 345 feet.

The confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin was personal to them, and should not be allowed to divide the rest of us.  And the jury’s verdict was signed, sealed, and delivered, and there’s nothing we can do about it.  To take that verdict and go on to judge a whole state constitutes discrimination more worthy of David Duke, sir.

As for Rachel Jeantel, Martin’s Cherie Amour . . . 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment




Image | Posted on by | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Screw the Mayans — The World Will NOT End on December 21, 2012

I have often thought that our culture does not have enough defenders.

Even after our victories in World Wars I and II and the rise of the United States as a world power — not to mention our victory in the Cold War — we have now entered a time of hand-wringing self-doubt. Even our president seems to want to apologize for our past.

Well, Our Lord Himself said ye shall know them by their fruits. Therefore, I am going to try to defend OUR culture and compare it to the Mayan culture, and put BOTH to the test.

As everyone now knows, the Mayan calendar predicts that the world will end on December 21, 2012 (my 54th birthday, by the way).

However, I have consulted a SIMILAR ICONIC DISC from OUR culture, and ACCORDING TO IT, THE WORLD WILL NOT END on December 21, 2012 or any time in the near future, for that matter.

In about a month, we’ll see who’s right.Image

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment



Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Press Statement

Antoine Dodson

Assistant Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson

US Department of State

Washington, DC

September 17, 2012


American diplomatic personnel in embassies and consulates throughout the world but especially in Tunis and Khartoum are hereby placed on HIGH ALERT following the storming of American Embassies in Cairo and Tripoli and the American consulate in Bengazi.

Al Qaeda operatives have been spotted climbing into embassy windows, taking hostages and attempting sexual assaults against them.  All embassy and consular personnel are directed to take their minor children and spouses to a secure location.  Repeat:  all embassy and consular personnel are directed to take their minor children and spouses to a secure location.  Even husbands should be hidden since al Qaeda is known to have committed sexual assaults against persons of every description.

The State Department has received no claim of responsibility for the recent incidents, but issued a statement that such a claim was not necessary in light of American, NATO, and UN efforts to find the terrorists.  All agencies expressed strong confidence that the terrorists will be found and the terrorists were further urged to disseminate this message themselves.

Libyan authorities recovered a T-Shirt left behind by one of the demonstrators at the consulate in Bengazi.  Fingerprints were also left at the scene.  Demonstrators are known to be of below-average intelligence and this point was particularly emphasized.  Demonstrators got away but left behind a trail of evidence.

One female staffer in Cairo indicated that she was sexually assaulted by a man of apparently subnormal intelligence who appeared to be from the poor neighborhoods of Cairo.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

John Roberts’ Internal Monologue (as imagined by me)

“I’m a the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. My main duty is to apply the law to the facts before me. The Constitution, ideally, is the fundamental law of the land, and trumps all other laws. However, I need to take the long view. If the Court is discredited, one of the three branches of government will have been crippled, and therefore may not adequately be respected in the future (remember when Andrew Jackson said, ‘John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!.’ Yeah, I remember it, too).

“In 2000, the Court was faced with an agonizing decision. Even though Bush was ahead during every recounting of the votes, a Constitutional crisis was emerging that had to be cut short by a decision of the Court. There was no other choice. The law wasn’t 100% clear, but we came up with something that ended the standoff, and seemed to reflect what the recounts generally were saying anyway. Nevertheless, one effect of this process was the reinforcement of the perception that the court has become politicized — that five conservatives can trump four conservatives, or vice-versa. The law wouldn’t be the law at that point; rather, the court would be just another partisan über-legislature. (Clinton and Obama didn’t help matters by appointing hyper-liberals like Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayer, and Kagan, by the way).

“So as I surveyed the landscape in 2012, I feared that the Court would be perceived as irredeemably partisan were I to rule with the conservatives as a monolithic bloc. So, in search of a satisfactory resolution, I decided also to consider other, opposing “truths” as well.

“Again, I weighed not just one truth, but competing truths. The main truth, again, is that a judge should apply the law to the facts; period. But there are many instances in which simple truth-telling isn’t satisfactory. For example, if your grandmother says, ‘How do you like my hair-do?’ Her hair may look like a bird’s nest, but you lie and say she looks beautiful. The “truth” that you should show love and kindness to your grandmother “trumps” the literal truth that she looks frightful. A more serious example is seen in ‘Les Miserables,’ in which Victor Hugo has a nun lying to the relentless Inspector Javert, who has come to her convent in search of Jean Valjean. After the nun lied — twice — by saying Jean Valjean wasn’t there, Jean Valjean said, ‘Oh, holy maiden . . . may this falsehood be remembered to thee in Paradise.’

“The falsehood I decided to perpetuate in this case, of course, was that I believed that Obamacare was Constitutional. The reason the nun in Les Miserables lied was to save Jean Valjean, since he had already been redeemed; and a life behind bars would only nullify all the good he could otherwise do. That consideration trumped even the injunction against bearing false witness.

“In my case, I am hoping against all hope that by declaring Obamacare constitutional, I will have done my part to save the republic by upholding the principle that, generally, the people’s will is paramount in a democracy and in any republic. Even though Obamacare was passed without a single Republican vote, it was still the will of the people at that time, inasmuch as it was the expressed will of the chief executive — elected by the whole people — and a majority of the 535 members of congress — again, elected by the whole people.

“So I decided to uphold the verdict of the people. This decision flew in the face of my conviction that the law was unconstitutional (rumors that I wrote most of the dissent are true, by the way . . . ).

“But it was my fervent hope that the people would then see the Court as a body willing to uphold the law even in the face of the ideological tendencies of the justices — and even though I was forced by circumstances to set this example myself — alone among the justices.

“Remember Judge Bork? Twenty years ago, he wrote in his book “The Tempting of America” that unelected judges generally should not substitute their judgment for that of the elected branches. Today the tables are turned. Back then, unelected liberal judges were shamelessly substituting their views for those of the people and their elected representatives (Don’t get me started on Roe v Wade — even if you favor abortion rights, this was a horrendous decision, poorly reasoned; and it overturned the democratically-enacted state laws of 50 states). Today, even though conservatives haven’t shown that kind of arrogance — at least not yet — there is a risk that they could do the same in reverse (Irony: Justice Ginsburg, in her well-written but tendentious opinion, favorably quoted Bork’s book!)

“So, I tried. God knows; I tried to do the right thing. Obamacare is a mess. In the extremity of my position I chose to err on the side of favoring the people’s representatives, whom the founding fathers knew “ran hot” as against the more deliberative and “cool” Supreme Court, of which I am Chief Justice. As custodian of that body, I would beg that the country understand, and, if necessary, forgive me.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Me, on the Obamacare decision

I was trying to think of something original to say about the Obamacare decision, because no one wants to read from me what they can read from many other sources on the internet. One thing I came up with, though, was the following:

If congress traditionally has been more eager to pass spending bills than enact tax increases — leading inexorably to ever-increasing deficits — then perhaps Justice Roberts did something good structurally for our future budget process. That is, if Justice Roberts got a majority to agree that Congress henceforth will be restrained from promiscuously exercising Commerce Clause powers — and henceforth will have to be up-front about its new spending initiatives and call them by their right names as tax increases, then they’ll shrink from spending so much — inasmuch as they will be afraid of retribution from an electorate which hates tax increases.

But then I read that Roberts’ opinion, WITH RESPECT TO HIS COMMERCE CLAUSE LIMITATIONS, was not explicitly joined by the four dissenting conservatives or the liberals (although Clarence Thomas made a favorable reference).

So I’m wondering if we’re left with the taxing power being expanded, but yet with no majority for limiting the Commerce Clause power.


Having said all of this, though, I also read that if the mandate is a tax, it may not be subject to the filibuster. From Marc Franc of the Heritage Foundation (h/t James Taranto):

“The mandate is now a revenue provision. Therefore, it is germane and not subject to a Senate parliamentary point of order to strike it from a repeal bill. The Senate’s filibuster process that would require a supermajority of 60 Senate votes to approve repeal is now irrelevant.”

So if Romney wins, and the GOP keeps the House and also takes the Senate, they will not necessarily have to have a 60 vote majority in the Senate to prevent a filibuster when they move to repeal Obamacare.

So when Roberts said it wasn’t the Supreme Court’s job to rescue the people from their political judgments, he may have intentionally “teed it up” for the country — that is, if the country is really serious about repealing Obamacare, it can take action for repeal (or reform) if it so chooses, and the path is relatively unobstructed. He may have been saying, “America: I’m just a judge. I respect the political judgments of the voters. Therefore, I’m loathe to overturn the decisions of the peoples’ representatives. In 2008 you meatheads voted for Obama and the Congress that voted for this dog’s breakfast of a bill. However: If you really don’t like this law, as it appears you didn’t based on your behavior at the polls in 2010, you are free to go to the polls again in 2012, and the filibuster won’t be an impediment to the efforts of your representatives to repeal or reform this piece of ____.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment