Overreach, Shmoverreach: A Special Note From The White House
by Jonathan David Morris
jdm@readjdm.com

Special to The Libertarian Enterprise

Dear The American People,

Hi there from your friends at the White House. As you may know, the worst paper in the history of civilization, The New York Times, recently published an editorial called "The Must-Do List." This editorial called on our friends in the Democratic Congress to undo the last five years of so-called "presidential overreach" and "Congressional collaboration." If the paper gets its way, everything we've worked so hard to accomplish will be overturned. Which would suck.

In the interests of open, fair, and balanced government, we've decided to answer a few of the Old Bag Lady's concerns point-by-point. As you will see, nothing the Worst Paper Ever says makes any sense whatsoever, while everything we say is better and good.

"Restore Habeas Corpus": For some strange reason, The Times seems to think enemy combatants should be able to challenge their imprisonment in court. Who would really benefit from that sort of move? Enemy combatants. . . or greasy, slimy lawyers? We're sick of attorneys attaching themselves like barnacles to every ambulance or global war on terror they see. Stop abusing the American legal system with your habeas corpuses and rights to fair trials. "John Edwards" is the British word for "cigarettes."

"Stop Illegal Spying": If we stopped spying, it wouldn't be illegal anymore. Then we could it. But then it would be illegal. Nice try, New York Times. We're not falling for that one again.

"Ban Torture, Really": The New York Times wants us to stop beating the crap out of prisoners in an effort to get information. This just shows how misinformed the paper is. America doesn't beat the crap out of prisoners for information. We do it for fun. When prisoners give us info, it's usually volunteered.

"Close the CIA Prisons": Now there's a good idea. Here we have special prisons set up in secret places to hold the enemies we catch on the field of war. What would you rather us do, New York Times? Put all those prisoners in American prisons back home? There's no room for them. Those prisons are overflowing with pot-smoking black people. You can't fit a round peg through a square hole!

"Account for 'Ghost Prisoners'": Walter Peck made that mistake at the end of Ghostbusters. Next thing you knew, the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man was stomping all over New York City. You know, we've said it before, we'll say it again: Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

"Ban Extraordinary Rendition": The New York Times wants us to stop sending prisoners to countries known for torture. If we did it more often, it wouldn't be "extraordinary." It would just be ordinary. But then you would complain.

"Tighten the Definition of Combatant": Once again, The New York Times shows its ignorance. There's a reason why the word "combatant" is vague. It's because it means anyone, anytime, anywhere in the world. We thought we made this clear years ago. Maybe The New York Times never learned to read.

We could go on and on about how silly this all is, but we think you get the point. After five years of conducting this war, we think we've proven we'll do anything to win it. And if that's not good enough for The New York Times' editors. . . well, bite us.

Love,
The White House

Jonathan David Morris writes from Philadelphia. He can be reached at jdm@readjdm.com.

TLE AFFILIATE

Vitamin Shoppe Special Sale/Discount
Over 20,000 products from more than 400 brands

Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates.
We cheerfully accept donations!