ALERT: The word “obstruction” has just been redefined

As of the 2014 election, the definition of obstruction has changed

We have an important announcement!  Please make sure to disseminate this information to everyone you know as soon as possible.

For the last five years or so, the word “obstruction” has been a very positive word, with a positive meaning. For example, when congress has “obstructed” Obama’s agenda, it has been in order to stop him from completely transforming the United States of America (whatever that means). When Congress “obstructed” the appointment of a Surgeon General, it was to protect America from having a Surgeon General who might think guns are bad. When the House of Representatives “obstructed” financial reform by voting “no” to every single reform bill that was ever put in front of them, that was good: because it was stopping Obama from doing something that was probably bad.

However, in the last 24 hours, in light of the 2014 mid-term election results, ALL THAT HAS NOW CHANGED!

Now that the Republicans have more of an ability to push their agenda forward onto Obama’s desk, everything is different.  After all, if Obama ever vetoes a glorious Republican bill… that means he is guilty of obstruction!

And that is obviously bad.

So, my fellow Americans: it is time to put away all of those tired arguments that you have been using over the last 5 years.

No longer will you say, “A do-nothing Congress is good, because I want government to do nothing!”

No longer will you say, “Saying ‘no’ to everything is good governing, because it’s stopping changes that aren’t needed!

Now, as of today, “obstruction” is officially a bad word. If Obama doesn’t completely comply in every single way to whatever the Republican Congress wants, then he is obstructing progress…..

Isn’t that terrible?