The Constitution of the United States fits on six printed pages. After the 1,990 page health care bill last year, Congress decided that bills were getting too long and too complex. Subsequently, a bill was passed limiting the number of pages that would be allowed in any single bill, known as the ‘Bill-Ceiling Bill’.

“It makes perfect sense that bills are getting longer; it’s called inflation,” Senator Bushman explains. “I’m sick of hearing these constitution comparisons. A $100 hair cut cost like 5 cents back then.”

The Bill-Ceiling has already been raised 26 times since it was originally created, and congress is in session once again to discuss another Bill-Ceiling increase for the latest revision of the ‘Corporate Donor Stimulus Bill’ which outlines the requirements under which corporations may receive a waiver for the health care bill.

When asked whether or not the Bill-Ceiling has ever caused any bills to be shortened, or prevented their passage. Senator Bushman replied, “Of course not. What a ridiculous thing to prevent important legislation from passing. We pretty much have to pass a ‘Raise The Bill-Ceiling Bill’ before we pass any new bill. In fact, our last bill to raise the ceiling was over the limit previously established.”

When asked what the purpose of the bill was, considering that the average number of pages per bill has nearly doubled since the original ‘Bill Ceiling Bill’ passed, Bushman answered, ”…to show the American people we hear them, to show we are serious about this issue. We’ll pass 1,000 more bills on this issue if we have to. Money is no object.”

by John Roberts

In response to the attempted bombing of a Christmas gathering in Oregon, Homeland Security has decided to take security measures to the next level.

After successfully quelling any Christian retribution in Oregon through increased security measures, Janet Napolitano has decided that her department must create a new agency to protect Muslims nationwide. This agency will be called the Muslim Security Agency (MSA).

Napolitano explains her decision. “Every time there is Muslim violence against Christians or other Americans, I wonder to myself how many Muslims this is putting in danger. It’s our job to protect them.”

The MSA will be responsible for performing a vigorous pat down of every non-Muslim that comes within 50 yards of all mosques and other Muslim gathering places.

One new MSA security hire was asked how one could identify a non-Muslim and responded, ”Are you kidding me? Nonnies dress differently, have different skin color….They’re butt easy to find.”

When asked why the Muslims aren’t patted down he said, “Duh! Muslims aren’t going to blow themselves up! Besides it’s against their religion to get pat downs. Listen, they are the victims here. No need to pour salt on an open wound.”

Reverse profiling charges filed by the ACLU have yet to gain any traction.

“Just a warning to all Christians out there. Every time there’s an act of violence by Muslims, we’re going to beef up Muslim security just that much more,” added Napolitano. “Don’t even think about trying anything. It’s been a long time since the crusades in Europe and Christians are seriously overdue for some violence. We’re watching you.”

By John Roberts

Fresh off of a win over toys in McDonald’s Happy Meals, the San Francisco legislature has a new enemy in its sights, fortune cookies.

Legislator Pam Cushman explains their stance. “Intelligent individuals understand that the so-called “fortune” received in a fortune cookie does not always come true. Most people in our city don’t realize this and make life changing decisions based on the advice of these cookies. We need to be here to protect them.”

The most public case of cookie caused damages was Robinson v. Panda Express, where 68 year old Maury Robinson stopped going to her full time job to try beginning a career as a DJ after reading the fortune from a cookie that read “Pursue your passions and you will find success.” Maury’s brief jaunt as a DJ was unsuccessful, and she has been living off of unemployment, and Social Security retirement for the last 12 months.

“This is completely negligent on the part of  the restaurant, the city, and the cookie manufacturer,” according to the prosecutor on the case. “There is no asterisk on the fortune saying that it is only for entertainment purposes. No warning that citizens shouldn’t put their life’s savings on the lottery numbers advised by their fortune…. Actually, I didn’t take that case. They couldn’t afford me.”

Under the new law, fortune cookie manufacturers will be required to put more realistic “fortunes” in the cookies in San Francisco. Examples given by the legislature were “Your current job is probably the best one you can find,” or “Don’t take risks, you’re doing just fine,” and ”Don’t ever follow the advice of a fortune cookie.”

Ms. Cushman concludes “In San Francisco we’ve had enough of the intelligence-based discrimination that is being perpetrated on the rest of the country. This should be a place where nobody has to think about whether they should or should not do something. Thinking is overrated, so in San Francisco, you don’t have to do it.”

The legislature also hopes that they can use the cookies as a means for advertising government services like food stamps, where, they say, participation is lower than ideal.

Startling news from Washington tonight, as it seems the new crime law that was recently passed may have been based on some faulty research. In early 2009, multiple scientists received instruction to investigate and predict future violent crimes, and may have released their findings a bit too quickly. The law passed early this year raised taxes on products deemed “dangerous” roughly 340%, and fined companies and specialty groups using any of the blacklisted items. In addition, it enacted a nation-wide curfew of 9:30, and gives monetary incentives for anyone who can go one whole calendar year without committing too many violent crimes.

The research, which is now in question, was completed by the newly founded Crime Board, which was made up of the same team that helped enact air pollution laws in California in 2007. Their estimates foretold that there would be roughly 1 million murders in the year 2010, which boils down to 1 in every 300 people being killed. This hypothesis was based on the tracking of sales for guns, knives, baseball bats and other items deemed threatening by the scientists. Independent researchers have now stepped in, however, and have found huge overestimates in the Crime Board’s work on violent crime and has attributed the flawed work to a faulty method of calculation.

“In hindsight, we might have wanted to base the research more in actual crimes, instead of crimes we thought might have happened,” stated Professor Henry Fairview, one of the scientists who received government funding for the research. “But when it comes right down to it, the government wanted stricter laws on crime, so we helped to facilitate that change.”

It is estimated that the federal government paid roughly $30 million for the research, and then an additional $500 million on putting the law in place, most notably installing X-Ray machines in the lobbies and foyers of every public building to help cut down on the movement of dangerous items and the sizable tax incentives promised to those who didn’t commit crimes.

“The majority of Americans, it turns out, didn’t commit any violent crimes at all in the 10 months since this law was enacted,” says politician and former proud supporter of the Crime Board Research Fund Kevin Hayward. “We might have to really rethink the $10,000 tax incentive for those adults who committed less than 3 violent crimes.”

The research is currently being repeated by the independent researchers, and the law will be repealed until more reliable numbers can be agreed upon.

A Decision For the Ages

by Martin Ricks

Things seem to really be changing here in the District of Columbia. Senator Dodd’s words sum up this momentous occasion best, “We all agreed. It was crunk.”

In a never-before-seen love fest, all of the senators gathered in the center aisle of the Senate Chamber and standing hand-in-hand voted in the affirmative.

Never before have both houses agreed with so much unanimity and mutual respect. Outside the U.S. Capitol, thousands had spontaneously gathered to commemorate such a momentous pair of unanimous votes. One portly fellow, clearly confused by the overwhelming joy he felt, shouted, “I cannot believe that they all agreed to this! Right when America needs them to be together the most, they all agreed… to this?!”

The crowd repeated many such comments as they hurled various gifts for the men and women of the Congress toward the Capitol building. Dr. Albatrossian, a historian who specializes in the United States Senate’s history, affirmed, “This really has never happened before with so much unity. I’ve heard of majorities, even unanimous votes on this topic, but never have they all visibly reached across the aisle in such an open show of mutual respect in the Capitol’s storied history.”

Senator Dodd explained how it all started, “I was eating my turkey sandwich from Quiznos, and Senator Hatch asked me if it was better than Subway. I told him that it was, and he said that he agreed that Quiznos was better in general. Well, you know how word spreads around in the Capitol. Soon everyone was talking, and when it was clear that none of us disagreed, we all just felt an overwhelming sense of camaraderie.”

Certain members of the crowd was clearly let down, believing this decision announcement may have had something to do with extending the Bush era tax cuts. Instead, it seems, such decisions will have to wait.

Dodd continued that it wasn’t long before the topic turned from delicious toasted subs to the true desires of the individual congressional members to just take a break from their jobs. “Someone was like, we should take a vote to take a break and go on a sweet group cruise! And I was all, ‘Yeah! We should!’” Dodd explained that it was then that Senator Franken chimed in, “I have a Caribbean cruise scheduled in a few weeks, let’s do it!”

Senator Dodd said that someone asked about a discount for such a large group, “I was like, ‘Screw a deal, this will be on the government’s dime!’”

Soon the House of Representatives was in on the gag. Both houses voted unanimously on a measure to fund their cruise and to take a break for a few months. Pending confirmation from Royal Caribbean, our very unified legislative branch of government will be enjoying an excursion in the sun, apparently one that’s well deserved. A woman, in the swelling crowd outside the capitol, who could hardly control her joy said, “Yeah, right, they completely deserve a break! They’ve been doing nothing for so long that they must be tired of it!”

Clearly this momentous occasion has struck a chord of deep appreciation for our governmental leaders. They stated they’d return in a few months.

A bold move from the House and the Senate today as rumors have begin circulating about the new “God-Blocking Bill” to be proposed just in time for the 2010 Midterm Elections. The new bill moves to “keep God out of governmental affairs until voting has concluded” and help “even the playing field for all candidates”. However, it encourages God to “return to politics after the election. It would be nice to have some help answering the hard questions facing America.”

“It’s not like we’re afraid,” stated a congressman, who wished to remain anonymous, “We just don’t want there to be an unfair advantage for people deemed ‘pious’ or ‘righteous’. Let’s just play with the cards already in our hands, okay?”

The bill arrives in the midst of a slew of last-minute proposals as the Democratic controlled Congress adjourns to begin concentration on campaigning for the November 2 elections. In essence, the bill states that God shouldn’t be allowed to take part for two main reasons: 1. He technically hasn’t ever registered to vote, and 2. He seems to hold too much sway over a large number of voters.

“It just seems when God gets brought into things, it tends to muddy up the waters. We just want the elections to be smooth sailing,” continues the congressman.

Enemies of the bill have been quick to decry the actions of these politicians, stating that it is a ploy to keep power in the same hands. The bill is being rapidly labeled as “heresy” and “blasphemy”. To combat these claims, several proponents of the bill have released the following press statement:

“We want to make something very clear. In moving to pass this bill we are NOT claiming to believe that a ‘God’ exists. We simply think that if there is such a being, He should have to go through the same process that all Americans do. If God shows up and registers to vote, He will be allowed to vote. Of course, He will still be expected to prove some form of legal citizenship.”

The White House still refuses to comment on whether or not President Obama will pass the bill before its October 31st deadline. Either way, the November elections are going to be interesting.

Some Dude at Press Conference

Earlier this week, employees of MSNBC were startled to find a man prepping in their green room, for what he assured them was a scheduled press conference. Upon further investigation, they realized that an entire hour of their programming indeed had been reserved by one “Joe B”.

“Really, it took us all by surprise,” said Robert Hughes, the man responsible for Monday’s programming schedule. “I am usually Johnny-on-the-spot with memorizing the most important upcoming events, but this flew way under my radar.”

“It was really weird,” stated Rachel Cavendish, a photojournalist for MSNBC. “One of our janitors came out of the green room talking about ‘some crazy dude’ who ‘swears he knows President Obama’.”

“We actually had to call all the way up the chain-of-command to our  COO who told us, ‘I guess if he had the money to pay for the hour, put him on for the hour!’,” continued Hughes. “I called all the staff back to the office. They had actually all gone to a birthday lunch for one of our employees. They were pretty bummed to hear they had to come back.”

News Reporter David Roberts said, “I got a call about 10 minutes after the hour saying that some old guy had gathered everyone for a press conference. I guess none of the other news stations had really showed up yet, so they kind of begged me to come in. It was surreal. As other reporters and anchors slowly filtered in, this guy kept rambling on about how the ‘American people’ had ‘washed our memories clean of him’. It was just so strange. He was very eloquent though, like he had given speeches before or something. Maybe he’s an English professor that has won some awards?”

When asked what questions Roberts had asked the man he simply stated, “No one really asked any questions. When he opened the floor, most of us hadn’t really been paying attention. There were a few awkward moments of silence, then he yanked his mic off, and stormed off the stage.”

In the press conference, the man urged citizens to remember the Vice President and learn more about cabinet-level officers. He went on to brag about Obama’s accomplishments as President, and how nice Hillary Clinton is in person. He finished his statement by exclaiming “I’m the Vice President! I’m the VP! Don’t you know me?!”.

In it’s latest polls, MSNBC estimates roughly 2,000 people tuned in for the broadcast, and yet just over 6.5 million watched the re-run of the USA-Canada hockey game that aired directly after the press conference.

Although multiple attempts to identify the man have proven fruitless, a new lead may have been found. An anonymous letter sent from the White House to the U.S. Senate has launched an investigation into their records, stating “That man may, at one time or another, have been a senator or something.”

We here at Narf.TV will keep readers posted if the true identity of this man is ever discovered.

Protesting the Good Protest

By John Wharff

For those of us concerned with the state of our great union, good news is just down the pipeline. Recently announced is the new American Freedom Anti-Propaganda and Family/Education Safety Act, or “The Bald Eagle Act” for short. As its name implies, this act has far-reaching and vast-sweeping effects, all of which are geared specifically towards helping America, Families, Freedom, Education, Safety or other important things that will be tacked onto the end of this bill along the way. Also, it aims to help people understand that propaganda is bad. Not necessarily our propganda here at home, but the bad guys’ propaganda. Real, real bad.

First, laws will be emplaced to help make you free. You might think, “Well, I thought I was free”. Don’t be silly. This is going to give you levels of freedom that would make your head explode if you even could imagine them. So free, there are really no words to describe it. Just know, freedom.

Next, as mentioned, it will help to let people know of the evils of propaganda. We didn’t really have enough pages written on propaganda to make it its own law, so we just kind of threw it in here. Hey, it’s important.

Additional powers will be given to families, like more time to spend enjoying sunny weather for recreational activities (see our endnotes on climate change). Also, we will make sure that older siblings stop picking on younger siblings by giving year end benefits to those kids who pick on their brothers and sisters less. Moms and Dads will enjoy more quality time together as babysitting will become much more lucrative with our new policies on government money for babysitting and new convict-to-babysitter programs. Look for families to become a lot more awesome.

We might give money to schools. Unless we use it somewhere else. Moving on.

The rest of the act gets really wordy, and I haven’t really had the free time to read it. I have been really busy doing other important things, but lots of people who also haven’t really read the whole thing have good feelings about it too. So, it’s a really good idea. There were some rumors started that somewhere around page 4500 there was something about “destroying the constitution” and “placing an emperor over the dumb sheep” and “sacrificing 1/2 of all children to a bloodthirsty god”, but those rumor were started by people who wear suits all day. Suits.

In conclusion, remember that if you don’t support this act it means not only are you a pinko-commie, freedom hating, pro-Big Brother, family hating, dumb child loving jerk who likes danger, you also are probably a meanie who wants to club bald eagles to death. Shame on you.

After his first year in office, President Obama can look back on his first year in office with pride, having delivered on his promise for change by all estimations.  Many a campaign promise was made, and almost all of them have been changed.

During the campaign, Barack Obama ridiculed John McCain for proposing a tax on expensive health care plans.  He said, “What if….you’ve given up wage increases in exchange for a better health care?  Well, Senator McCain believes you should pay higher taxes too.  The bottom line: the better your health care plan – the harder you’ve fought for your good benefits – the higher the taxes you’ll pay.”  Now, bringing forth the promised change, when Barack Obama was asked about his plan to tax these same plans, he said, “That helps to reduce the cost of health care over the long term. I think that’s a smart thing to do.”

Upon examination of the Iraq war, his stance has changed from “war is not an option” to “[t] here’s not that much difference between my position [on the war] and George Bush’s position at this stage” to let’s “immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq” and set a date of full removal by the end of 2008, then to 2009, then to August of 2010.

Dr. Todd of Shrewsbury, VT states,  ”I knew President Obama would bring change. I just had no idea there would be so much change, so quickly.  And I definitely didn’t expect so much change on the same issues.”

President Obama campaigned on transparency in government, promising that debates over health care would be televised on C-Span.  Even many of his staunchest supporters didn’t suspect change to this promise, but President Obama delivered, as none of the many debates over health care have been broadcast on C-Span.

“Sometimes I just can’t believe it,” says a supporter at a rally.  “All I really wanted was change from my president.  He’s delivering so much change, it gives me a tingle up my leg.  Change! Change! Change!”

There has been so much change in his first year, skeptics are quick to point out that there isn’t much change left.  “He only made so many promises, so there’s only so much ‘change’ that is possible.  Of course he can change back to his original promises, but I don’t know if I would really consider changing back to the original promises, change.  I guess he could change his promise of change to a promise of same. Man, that would be incredible.”

Only time will tell how long President Obama can maintain this break-neck pace of change.  If recent history is any indication, the safe bet would be a lot more change over the coming three years.

In an attempt at a compromise both sides of the aisle can live with, one senator is thinking outside of the box. Although in his efforts, a new type of debate has begun, with parties taking sides, sparking new fury over the sensitive topic.

Post-term abortions are defined as “The destruction of the fetus after birth and full development.” Senator Bryce claims “This type of abortion is much more humane than while inside the womb. Each life is given the opportunity to develop and either become a productive part of society or be aborted.”

When asked what types of “fetuses” will be chosen to be aborted, Senator Bryce explained, “Mostly murderers, serial rapists, criminals of that sort I imagine. But it’s really the choice of the woman who carried the fetus.”

Pro-Choice advocates have thrown their full support into the corner of the Post-term abortions. “Life is created from a woman’s body,” says Planning for Parenthood employee Lisa Zimmerman. “The woman should be the one to decide if that life is aborted. Her body, her choice.”

On the flip side, Pro-Life advocates consider the practice immoral. An issued statement from Pro-Life America on the topic states, “We believe life begins at conception. We believe abortion at any stage of a fetus’s development is ending human life, and is immoral.” When asked why their group would not want serial rapists and murderers to die for their crimes, another statement was issued. “We believe that convicted criminals of this sort should face justice for their crimes. However, we much prefer capital punishment to abortion.”

The language of their response has enfuriated House Democrats. In an interview, House Speaker Dennison stated “Capital punishment is a cruel and unusual practice and should be abolished. At the same time, we need to preserve the right for a woman to terminate her fetuses, at whatever point she chooses, without government interference.”

Thus, the debate continues.