EPA to Defy Judge

By John Semmens – Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News

JohnJudge Ralph Erickson of the District Court for the District of North Dakota granted plaintiffs an injunction against the Environmental Protection Agency’s implementation of new navigable waterways regulations that were set for immediate enforcement. The EPA’s new regulations would have extended its authority over every body of water within the United States including rain runoff, temporary puddles, and spillage from yard sprinklers and driveways where home owners wash their vehicles.

The Judge observed that “it seems extremely improbable that the proposed EPA authority could conceivably apply to the so-called ‘navigable waterways’ described. As such, the 13 states suing the EPA would appear likely to win based on the merits of the case. An injunction pending the outcome of their suit is the best means for limiting the damages that taxpayers will be forced to pay if the regulations are permitted to go forward.”

EPA Press Secretary Melissa Harrison said the Agency “will go forward with implementation in the 44 states that are not covered by Erickson’s decision. The Administration disagrees with the presumption that the plaintiffs will win their suit.” As evidence, Harrison cited Judge Lisa Godbey Wood of the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia’s rejection of a plea for an injunction in a suit filed by 11 other states.

What we have here is one judge attempting to impede a policy decreed by the leader of the free world,” she asserted. “Surely, the scales of justice will tip toward the greater weight represented by President Obama and the majority of judges who have accepted his rule. I mean, is there really any doubt that the US Supreme Court will eventually uphold this regulation? They’ve upheld every other major policy innovation he’s backed.”

Clinton Likens Planned Parenthood Critics to Terrorists

Seeking to divert attention from her admittedly unwise and likely illegal handling of classified material through her unsecured private email account, Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton sought to draw a parallel between advocates of defunding Planned Parenthood and Islamic terrorists.

Both groups relegate women to second class status,” Clinton claimed. “Both deny women the right to control their reproductive heath. Both would force women to be vessels for carrying unwanted children into the world. Both espouse out-of-date ideas about how the world should work.”

GOP presidential contender Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla) characterized Clinton’s claims “as twisted and malevolent an inversion of morality as we are likely to see from a purportedly sane person. Islamic terrorists are cutting off the heads of those who oppose their barbarism. Planned Parenthood is cutting off the heads of children and selling them as raw material for medical research. Lumping those who want to stop taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood’s diabolical profiteering from the murder and dismemberment of innocent babies with Islamic murderers is as evil a slander as any ever perpetrated by the Nazis.”

Unfazed by Rubio’s counter, Clinton pointed out that “all of the babies aborted are unwanted. Planned Parenthood is merely aiding both the women who don’t want them and the babies themselves to avoid a life of burdens and suffering. Defraying some of the costs of this noble endeavor by recovering and selling parts that otherwise would simply be trashed helps reduce the amount of public funds we must appropriate for the organization to carry on this vital work.”

In related news, Planned Parenthood announced that a study it commissioned exonerated the organization from all charges of wrongdoing related to the videos revealing some of its chief officials discussing the sale of baby parts. “In none of these videos do we see any money changing hands,” Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said. “What we see is the Center for Medical Progress getting Planned Parenthood personnel drunk and eliciting giggling boasts about some of the humorous aspects of the business. While some might find such behavior distasteful, both our attorneys and representatives from the US Attorney General’s office have assured me that it is not criminal.”

Boehner Warns GOP Voters Against Cruz

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) warned voters against falling for GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz’s “siren song of feel-good, but politically unviable policy prescriptions.” Boehner’s remarks came at a Colorado fund-raising event.

Securing the border, defunding Planned Parenthood, killing the deal with Iran may sound good to unsophisticated ears, but they aren’t going to go anywhere,” Boehner told wealthy donors. “President Obama is going to block all of these notions. If we follow Cruz we get nothing. If we go along with the President we stand a chance of getting a piece of the action.”

The “piece of the action” Boehner is so keen to hold onto includes “ensuring that important Republican constituencies get a share of government spending thrown their way. The federal government buys lots of stuff. Seeing that it buys some of this stuff from our donors is our responsibility Sacrificing this potential cash flow for the sake of futile challenges to the President’s agenda is foolish. Cruz is a jackass for pushing them.”

Administration Makes End Run Around 2nd Amendment

In a move said to side-step Constitutional impediments to reasonable gun control, US Secretary of State John Kerry signed on to a UN agreement establishing an international gun registry and controls over the sale and transport of “small arms.”

Every sensible effort to restrict access to guns in the United States has been blocked by court rulings citing the Second Amendment’s ‘right to bear arms,’” Kerry complained. “Well, the US Constitution doesn’t apply to the UN. It is not fettered by the kind of out-of-date notions that stymie policy in this country.”

While the gun extremists at the NRA may not be satisfied, the agreement will allow individuals to own and use guns for legitimate purposes,” Kerry reassured. “Duck hunters can keep their shot guns. Elk hunters can keep their rifles. Professional bodyguards can keep their pistols. But the availability of access to firearms for use in domestic murders or by self-styled militias and vigilantes will be sharply curtailed.”

Kerry dismissed possible Senate opposition as “a non-issue. The Senate only has jurisdiction over treaties. This is not a treaty. It is an agreement among sovereigns. President Obama, as the sovereign of the United States has the absolute right to make this agreement and commit this country to abide by its provisions.”

Congresswoman Calls Fetal Parts Sales Humane and Life-Saving

Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla) waded into the Planned Parenthood controversy and insisted that carving up the unborn for spare parts is both “humane and life-saving.”

First of all, what could be more humane than putting these unwanted creatures out of their misery?” the Congresswoman wondered. Saying that “I doubt that fetuses could feel pain, but even if they could the momentary pain of a medical instrument slicing the spinal cord has got to be far less painful than a lifetime of poverty and abuse as an unwanted child.”

Second, given that the law grants a woman the unrestricted right to terminate her pregnancy, doesn’t it make sense to try to salvage the residue?” Wasserman-Schultz asked. “I have heard that a company in California transplants salvaged fetal kidneys and implants them in rats where they can be grown and later used as a transplant for someone. Those heaping criticism on Planned Parenthood never mention this life-saving repurposing of recovered biological material.”

In related news, Planned Parenthood is suing the State of Louisiana for terminating its taxpayer-funded subsidies. Planned Parenthood official Cecile Richards called the State’s action “an illegal usurpation of President Obama’s authority to determine how government funds are to be used. The federal government gives Louisiana money earmarked for Planned Parenthood. The State has no right to refuse and return it to taxpayers.”

Obama Accuses Jeter of Cheating

President Barack Obama leveled cheating charges against former Yankee great Derek Jeter as the athlete easily beat him in a round of golf.

Press Secretary Josh Earnest alleged that “the president’s prowess has been borne out in hundreds of rounds over the past six years where he has gone undefeated against every prior opponent. How likely is it that Jeter would be the only person to win against him?”

Earnest brushed aside the possibility that a skilled professional athlete of Jeter’s caliber might have genuinely been a better golfer. “Let me point out that the president has more hours of golf under his belt than Mr. Jeter has,” Earnest argued. “Mr. Jeter was a baseball player. Any contention that skills that might have worked for him in that sport could somehow translate into golf skills sufficient to best the President seems dubious.”

Jeb Slams Asian Immigration

Hectored by Latino illegal immigrants for using the term “anchor baby,” GOP presidential candidate former Florida governor Jeb Bush contended that he was referring to Asian immigrants.

China and India are the real threat,” Bush maintained. “There are over a billion of each of them. That’s enough to totally overwhelm the 300 million Americans living in this country. There are only 125 million Mexicans. Even if every one of them migrated to the United States we’d still outnumber them by a wide margin.”

The candidate went on to outline what he called “a strong plan to interdict illegal Asian immigration using the vast size of the Pacific Ocean as our first line of defense. Unlike Mexicans they can’t simply walk into this country unless they go to Mexico first. But I will work with the government of Mexico on a joint operation to prevent Asians from using this route. Those flying or sailing to the United States will, of course, be intercepted at the airports and seaports.”

Bush hastened to remind reporters that “so far I’m the only candidate with a plan targeting this threat. Asians are worse because they come here to take our high-paying jobs. Most of the Mexicans who come here take jobs mowing lawns and cleaning homes—saving many middle class families from having to do these chores.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

John Semmens is a retired economist who has written a weekly political satire for The Arizona Conservative since 2005. He says working on his satires is one of the ways he tries to honor the liberties our Founding Fathers tried to protect. 

Please do us a favor. If you uses material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit and DO NOT change the context. Thank you.

Fund Planned Parenthood, You Anti-Feminist Woman Hater!

Bush Endorses Universal Surveillance

By John Semmens – Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News

JohnIn a bid to position himself as the “Big Brother” candidate in juxtaposition to what he characterized as the “Angry Uncle” candidacy of Donald Trump, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush called for an end to “private encryption of any and every kind.”

When private individuals encrypt their communications it makes it difficult, if not impossible, for government authorities to carry out their jobs,” Bush complained. The source of the problem, according to Bush, is the resistance of communications companies to the idea of providing a covert “back door” by which government officials can discretely access an individual’s phone and email without having to go through the cumbersome process of obtaining a warrant.

The former governor dismissed fears that the government itself might misuse such access as “fanciful. The government’s only interest is to protect the people from evildoers. The idea that government might use access to everyone’s data to oppress its own people is ludicrous. We live in a democracy. Democracies don’t oppress people.”

Bush went on to claim that “people who aren’t doing anything wrong have nothing to fear from government eavesdropping. Only those engaged in communications aimed at subverting legitimate government authority, slandering public officials, uttering hate speech toward protected groups, or other questionable activities would be targeted for enforcement actions.”

While admitting that the “back door” he is demanding be open for government access might also be used by hackers to pilfer an individual’s identity, Bush insisted that “it’s worth the risk. It’s time that we draw a ‘line-in-the-sand’ between the good guys and the bad guys. It will be every person’s responsibility to decide which side of that line they want to be on—either they’re with the government or against it. Selfishly trying to protect yourself from criminals at the expense of denying the government full access puts you on the wrong side of that line.”

Iranian President Lashes out at Those Who Slander Islam

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani denounced “those who would use the murders committed by ISIS, Hamas, and kindred terrorist organizations to contradict the truth that Islam is a religion of peace” and called upon all true Muslims “to rise up and slay the defamers.”

Rouhani rejected the contention that his own endorsement of the “death to America” slogan might fuel the perception that Islam might not be a religion of peace. “America is the prime opponent of world peace,” Rouhani argued. “Crushing the infidel enemy of peace is the only sure path to the universal peace that will prevail when all the world is united under the one true faith.”

The bombings, the beheadings, and the rapes will stop once the advocates of erroneous doctrines are permanently silenced,” Rouhani promised. “Peaceful submission to the will of Allah is a path open to every person of every race. Violence is only meted out to those who resist this peaceful path.”

In related news, Secretary of State John Kerry tried to downplay the disclosure that under a secret side agreement of the deal he negotiated with Iran, Iran will have the right to choose who will and won’t be allowed to inspect suspected nuclear weapons development sites by pointing out “its cost-saving impact. By using local Iranians as the inspectors we save travel expenses that would be incurred by outsiders who would have to fly in from some other country.”

In a related cost-saving measure, it has been revealed that the Veterans’ Administration has been shredding rather than reading letters from vets. Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson cited “the substantial reduction in hours of work and the associated costs avoided are key factors in staying within the budgetary limits imposed on the agency by Congress.”

Planned Parenthood Threats to Sue

Planned Parenthood’s executive vice president Dawn Laguens said the organization is weighing whether to sue the Center for Medical Progress, the group behind the release of videos showing that Planned Parenthood is engaged in murdering, dismembering, and selling aborted babies.

Since these videos were made secretly without Planned Parenthood’s explicit consent they constitute an egregious invasion of privacy,” Laguens maintained. “Invasion of privacy is a crime. That makes the videos the ‘fruit from the poisoned tree’ and inadmissible as evidence against Planned Parenthood for any alleged crimes depicted in the videos.”

Laguens also contested the idea that there are any grounds for prosecuting Planned Parenthood for the acts shown in the videos. She cited a letter to Congress from Jim Esquea, Assistant Secretary for Legislation for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, asserting that “dismembering fetal tissue and selling it with or without the permission of the mother is completely legal.”

Though the videos might not be admissible in any future prosecution of Planned Parenthood, Laguens contended that “they could be used as evidence in a civil suit against the Center for Medical Progress. Not only have the reputations of the well-regarded leaders of this great American institution been besmirched, but the privacy of the specimens has also been breached. Faces and naked bodies that were meant to be kept strictly private have been blandished all over the Internet. This amounts to the promulgation of child pornography—the very crime for which former Subway spokesman Jared Fogle has been convicted.”

While Laguens acknowledged that “there probably isn’t much money to be had in the form of court-awarded damages from the Center for Medical Progress, but making an example of them could be crucial to the financial success of Planned Parenthood going forward. On the one hand, crushing this small organization may dissuade others from pursuing similar stunts aimed at derailing Planned Parenthood’s historic mission. On the other, our friends in government will be better armed to fend off attempts to cut Planned Parenthood’s access to public funds if the instigators of this scandal are being sued.”

In related news, Planned Parenthood has launched a series of political attack ads targeting members of Congress who voted to cut its federal funding. “Those seeking to parlay these scurrilous videos into a mechanism for advancing their anti-abortion agenda will pay a price for their sins,” Laguens bragged. “We’re urging voters to terminate the political careers of those pushing this war on women’s reproductive rights.”

Islamic State Charges US with War Crime

The Islamic State announced it is filing war crime charges against the United States with the International Court of Justice at The Hague in the Netherlands. The complaint alleges that the growing number of IS fighters coming down with AIDS are “victims of germ warfare originating from the nefarious labs of the American Government.” IS doesn’t deny that the infections resulted from their troops’ rape of captured women, but alleges that “the taint of AIDS is the responsibility of the United States. Raping captured women has been a right exercised by Muslim warriors for over a thousand years. The introduction of this new and deadly pathogen exploits Muslim tradition and constitutes a criminal violation of the rules of war.”

The potential impact on the Islamic State’s ability to survive is deemed substantial. “Participation in this ‘spoil of war’ is nearly universal,” said IS lawyer Weir Sqru’ud. “It’s likely only a matter of time before the infection reaches pandemic levels. Our ability to defend the Caliphate is severely compromised.”

On behalf of the Islamic State, Squ’ud is asking for the Court “to order an end to US bombing of IS targets” and for “an award of damages in amounts sufficient for the recruitment of replacement troops from among Muslim populations around the world.”

Without accepting blame, the Obama Administration agreed to send Secretary of State John Kerry to meet with IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi or his designee to try to negotiate a settlement. “It’s a question of trying to come to some sort of reasonable compromise,” Kerry said. “Winning just because the enemy gets sick strikes me as a particularly dishonorable way to conclude our country’s interaction with ISIL. Finding a mutually agreeable means of leveling the playing field is, in my view, an attainable goal for our negotiations.”

Clinton Camp Deflects Email Scandal

The Hillary Clinton for President campaign is seeking to deflect criticism of the candidate’s handling of her email account while Secretary of State by casting her as “a passive and unwitting naif” rather than a deliberate liar and lawbreaker.

As anyone who has had to deal with government regulations knows, the rules are opaque and difficult to understand,” said Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. “Who hasn’t had nightmares trying to cope with IRS forms? What business hasn’t run afoul of incoherent EPA guidelines? It shouldn’t take much imagination for voters to comprehend the problems that confronted Hillary when she was appointed Secretary of State. How was she expected to know what was and wasn’t classified? We’re confident that the vast majority of voters will see her mishandling of secret material as an innocent mistake.”

Fallon further contended that “using a private server may have actually improved security. Can there be any doubt that foreign spies are constantly attempting to break into government communications? Just last week, current Secretary of State John Kerry conceded that China and Russia are probably reading the emails he sends and receives on his government provided server. By breaking the rules and conducting her communications through a server housed in a bathroom closet in Colorado, Secretary Clinton may have done a better job of keeping her emails confidential than her successor has by following the rules.”

In support of Mrs. Clinton’s innocence, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) suggested that “the confidential material found in Secretary Clinton’s emails may have been planted there by her political enemies. To-date, no one has conclusively proved that she was even aware of these emails. I suggest that we quiz her on the content to find out if she has even read them. If she doesn’t know what’s in these emails I think that would be pretty persuasive evidence that she neither wrote nor read any of them.”

In contrast, Representative John Yarmuth (D-Ken) was unimpressed by the effort to portray Clinton as an ignorant victim of complicated and confusing regulations, saying “if she was too naive to cope with State Department rules maybe she is too naive to be president. I mean, I have sympathy for the struggles of a person out of her depth, but can we really afford to put an innocent dupe in charge of our government?”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

John Semmens is a retired economist who has written a weekly political satire for The Arizona Conservative since 2005. He says working on his satires is one of the ways he tries to honor the liberties our Founding Fathers tried to protect. 

Please do us a favor. If you uses material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit and DO NOT change the context. Thank you.

Dr. Ben Carson: Current Border Fence ‘Certainly Wouldn’t Keep Me Out’

NACO, Arizona — As a motorcade carrying GOP presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson down to a service road behind part of the border fence that was built here, there were no Border Patrol agents in sight.

The fence—which local law enforcement from the Cochise County sheriff’s office confirms could easily be cut through with a blow-torch, something illegal aliens do quite frequently—ends a few miles up the road.

“This is a nice small impediment that certainly wouldn’t keep anybody out,” Carson told reporters as both Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels and Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu and several local deputies and ranchers showed Carson, his wife Candy, his staff and a handful of media around. “You need to have agents. This [a fence] will slow them down, agents will stop them. A wall or a fence is a good thing, but not in isolation.”

Dannels, speaking to Carson and the group about 10 minutes after arriving at the border, explained “we haven’t seen an agent all the way down here—and they knew we were coming today.”

“Not a single one,” rancher John Ladd, on which whose property the border tour took place, added.

It wasn’t until after the whole group was out here for half an hour that a handful of Border Patrol vehicles—seemingly coming out in response to a large motorcade coalescing on the border—showed up. In that timeframe, an illegal alien or drug smuggler could have cut through the fence and been well into one of the ranchers’ properties here on their way to freedom.

The fence that’s there—which agents explained illegal aliens cut through with blow torches while other gaps and holes exist throughout, while showing one such hole in the fence that’s since been patched over with a few rungs of barbed wire—“certainly wouldn’t keep me out” Carson added. When one reporter asked if Carson could scale either the 10-foot fence, or the 14-foot fence—there are areas where both types of fences are interspersed—Carson said he definitely could do it.

“It’d be a piece of cake,” he replied.

Carson said if he were trying to sneak into America illegally he’d throw a rope with a hook on it onto the top rung of the 14-foot fence “and climb up” and over into the United States.

“All you have to do is take a rope with a hook on it and hook it on that bar up there and climb up,” Carson said. “It’s no big deal.”

“I thought it would be more of an impediment than this,” Carson said when asked what he expected versus what he was seeing.

The barbed wire in the hole in the fence cut through previously with a torch was so ineffective a patch that two of the news photographers accompanying the Carson-led delegation to the border actually hopped through it to the other side to take photographs of the group. They were technically still in America because the fence doesn’t begin until three feet or so into this country, Sheriff Dannels informed the group, joking that he was “keeping on eye” on the photographers to make sure they didn’t accidentally enter Mexico a few steps away.

Carson said he wants to build a wall but doesn’t think that’s the only thing that should happen. He wants more people patrolling from the Border Patrol and the military, and tons of technology to back them up.

“I think there are ways to have physical barriers like this, but people are smart,” Carson said. “Given time and isolation, they will manage to get through that. But they will have a much harder time getting through it if you have other people trying to stop them from getting through.”

“I think the border wall is a good start,” Carson added. “But in and of itself it’s not going to be that effective. It’s going to require human beings to be involved and we have human beings who can do this job.”

“How easy would it be just to have a few drones flying through here?” Carson asked Dannels.

“A fence is only as good as the people behind it, and that’s the key,” Dannels replied. “You can put in all the infrastructure you want but you need good people behind it.

Ladd explained to Carson that since his ranch doesn’t have “severe terrain,” it makes it easy for illegal aliens, international criminals and drug smugglers to sneak through his property to the highway three miles away. “That’s why we’re so busy,” Ladd said. “The trails in the low spots, the cameras can’t see.

Ladd noted that while there is a radar system set up by Border Patrol at the highway, it’s only as good as its operator. And the Border Patrol frequently, nearly daily, rotates whoever is operating it—so sometimes the most talented operators of the radar system aren’t on that job—and people slip through undetected frequently.

“Sounds like bureaucrats in charge,” Carson replied to that comment from Ladd.

Carson’s trip to the border here on Wednesday came after an earlier helicopter tour in Pinal County–where 70 miles inside the border, Babeu explained, the drug cartels run free and the United States does not have operational control of American territory. Breitbart News accompanied Carson to the border and on the helicopter tour; more reporting from this trip and the tour are forthcoming, including an exclusive with Carson on how he’d secure the border.

Arizona Congressmen Introduce Grant’s Law to Fight the Border Invasion

Washington, D.C. — Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-05) today issued the following statement on news that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had released three dangerous illegal aliens into Pinal County, Arizona.

“Despite the repeated attacks on American citizens by illegal aliens released from our jails, DHS refuses to stop freeing violent criminals who are in our country illegally.  Just yesterday, we learned of three more individuals set free on law-abiding Arizonans by the Department of Homeland Security.  Their crimes included the beating to death of a seven-week-old baby and the stabbing, beating, and immolation of a police informant.

“Our Department of Homeland Security needs to focus more on securing our homeland, not on cornering the market as a transportation option for illegal aliens in the United States.  Americans need protection from violent criminals and an explanation for why DHS has been so miserably failing at their primary task.  How many more Americans must be murdered by illegal alien criminals before this administration begins taking the safety of Americans seriously?”

A copy of the letter Rep. Salmon sent to DHS Secretary Johnson on yesterday’s news is available here.

Carson, BLM Clash on Issues

By John Semmens – Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News

JohnGOP presidential hopeful Dr. Ben Carson and leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement clashed this week following Carson’s assertion that BLM is “creating strife.” As Carson sees it, “Blacks have been led down a dead-end road to dependency and murder via abortion by Democrat policies.”

The message that Democrats are sending by their support for the welfare state is that Blacks can’t make it on their own efforts,” Carson argued. “This is ridiculous. Blacks are as capable as whites if they apply their God-given talents to the world around them.”

The candidate was even more critical of Democrats’ unwavering support for taxpayer financed abortions, which he called “the leading cause of death in the Black community. More Black children are killed by abortion than by gang wars or cops.”

BLM co-founder Alicia Garza rejected Carson’s view. “The issue isn’t whether Blacks are capable of making their own way, but whether they should have to,” Garza said. “For centuries white plantation owners who were capable of supporting themselves depended on the labors of Black slaves. The government benefits Blacks are now receiving are a small down payment on the reparations owed for that debt.”

And Carson’s characterization of abortion as the leading cause of death for Blacks completely misses the point,” Garza continued. “All the Black babies terminated by abortion free Black women from the oppression of unwanted motherhood. These are women taking charge of their reproductive processes. These are women liberating themselves from burdens they choose not to bear. For Carson to compare these acts of self-liberation to cops shooting Blacks is shameful.”

Garza warned Carson that “he shouldn’t think himself immune to our wrath. We shut up O’Malley, we took away Sanders’ microphone, we drove Bush from the stage. We will make Carson rue the day that he chose to challenge our message.”

Court Rejects Challenge to Executive Amnesty

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s bid to halt President Obama’s executive grant of amnesty to those in the country illegally, calling the Sheriff’s reasoning “tenuous” and “unduly speculative.”

First, the argument that the grant of amnesty is imposing extra burdens on the Sheriff’s office cannot be supported by the facts,” Judge Nina Pillard wrote. “The laws against entering this country illegally are federal laws. The federal government has made it clear that it does not intend to enforce these laws. Sheriff Arpaio cannot claim his office is being burdened if he insists on doing something the feds don’t want done.”

The federal policy against enforcement renders moot the Sheriff’s contention that amnesty will attract even more illegal migrants into his state,” Pillard added. “As it stands, illegal migrants are already entitled to all the benefits available to legal residents, regardless of whether any formal amnesty is given. The lure of subsidized food, housing, education, and health care is sufficient on its own to lure illegal entry even in the absence of amnesty. Given that 80% of the illegal entrants in California are living off public assistance, it seems likely that Arizona is merely a place that these people will pass through on their way to greener pastures to the west. Therefore, the relief the plaintiff seeks is likely to be achieved by the mere passage of time.”

Obama Admin Urges Court to Block Restitution to Terror Victims

Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken argued against the imposition of jury-awarded damages to the victims of Palestinian terrorist attacks in 2002-2004. The jury award of more than $200 million in actual damages to ten families with three dozen injured, maimed, or killed is vigorously opposed by the Obama Administration.

Despite proclaiming its sympathy for the victims, the Administration seeks to void the damage award because, according to Blinken, “the amount represents a significant share of the Palestinian Authority’s annual budget. The loss of so large an amount would seriously infringe upon the PA’s ability to carry out its functions. Rocket attacks on Israeli civilians—the PA’s only tool to avert Zionist oppression of Palestinians—would have to be severely curtailed. Tunnel construction into the territories occupied by Israel would be dramatically impeded. Training and arming infiltrators would be brought to a standstill.”

Blinken hastened to point out that his remarks were “not an endorsement of PA policies that some might construe as ‘provocative.’ We may not agree with how the PA conducts itself, but we can take a stand in favor of the general principle that a sovereign state must have the freedom and the resources to act as it sees fit.”

In related news, Blinken refused to condemn the Islamic State’s legalization of rape and sexual slavery. “Granted, the idea of raping unbelievers and selling them as sex-slaves may seem odd to our ears,” Blinken conceded. “But if we believe in freedom of religion we ought to respect practices that differ from ours.”

Newly Released Emails Said to Exonerate Lerner

A newly released batch of emails from Lois Lerner, former IRS official in charge of denying conservative groups the same tax-free status as left-leaning groups, is said to have largely exonerated her of charges of unwarranted discrimination.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch cited email content in which Lerner referred to conservative groups as “evil and dishonest” as “fundamentally exculpatory. As a public servant, Ms. Lerner was certainly within her rights and duties to block the misuse of tax-exempt status to groups that in her mind posed a genuine danger to the government. While conservatives might be expected to disagree with her apprehension, there can be no dispute that her perception was heartfelt.”

Lynch concluded that “as far as we are concerned, there is no cause for further investigation, much less possible prosecution. Ms. Lynch was doing her duty as she saw it. In the government bureaucracy, sloth and dereliction of duty is all too common. Zeal is too rare. It is tragic enough that Ms. Lerner has been hounded out of office by right-wing extremists. It is time that the GOP hell-hounds in Congress let this woman try to rebuild her life free from further persecution.”

Obama Vetoes Planned Parenthood Defunding

Efforts by the legislatures of Louisiana and Alabama to reduce public funds allocated to Planned Parenthood this week were vetoed by President Obama. The president dismissed arguments that videos revealing PP’s participation in illegal trafficking in used baby parts warranted the states’ actions.

I learned in law school that the rule in our country is ‘innocent until proven guilty,’” Obama recalled. “Attorney General Lynch hasn’t deemed there is enough evidence to justify an investigation, much less a prosecution, trial, and verdict. These states’ attempts to inflict punishment before the judicial process has been given a fair chance to work does not live up to our standards.”

The president also ventured an opinion that “there may be nothing to this whole so-called scandal. I watch TV news every night and I don’t recall seeing any of these alleged incriminating videos. Surely, these ratings-hungry media outlets would be all over this story if it were legitimate.”

Obama appeared to be undaunted by the unprecedented action of a president vetoing a state law, citing his own authority as a constitutional scholar. “There is a clause in the US Constitution authorizing the federal government to do whatever is ‘necessary and proper.’ What could be more necessary and proper than to prevent a state legislature from penalizing an organization before it is convicted of a crime?”

David Daleiden, head of The Center for Medical Progress—the organization that released the videos, characterized the president’s stance as “willful blindness dedicated to preserving a cruel and criminal enterprise” and wondered “whether the $25 million the principal officers of Planned Parenthood have donated to the Democratic Party may have played a role in shaping his response to this organization’s continuing atrocities.”

Hillary Makes Bid for Latino Vote

Democrat presidential contender Hillary Clinton told a Spanish-language TV station Univision audience that she will make rich Americans pay the travel expenses of illegal immigrants. This is in contrast to GOP contender Donald Trump’s boast that he will make the Mexican government pay to build a border fence to keep illegal immigrants out.

Realistically, there’s no way an American president can make Mexico pay for anything,” Clinton asserted. “Why should the Mexican government pay for a fence? An open border allows their surplus population to escape to the United States where a generous slate of benefits awaits them.”

On the flip side, though, an American president has lots of leverage for extracting money from its taxpayers,” Clinton said. “With both the FBI and the NSA under the president’s control I’m sure I will have the information I need to persuade Congress to levy the necessary taxes. Or I could just issue an executive order or memo. One way or another, I’ll get the job done. People who make the arduous and dangerous trek to come to this country shouldn’t have to pay their own way.”

Illegal Immigrants Sue for Millions

Five illegal immigrants from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the federal government. As their lawyer Andrew Free explained, “they came to this country to exercise their Constitutional right to share in its abundance. Yet, unlike the Mexicans who got here before them they’ve been denied free food, free housing, free education, and free health care. Instead, they been detained in squalid conditions as if they were common criminals.”

Free called this lawsuit “merely the opening salvo in a protracted struggle for social justice. There are thousands, maybe millions, of future plaintiffs. We will carve up the golden goose until all her eggs have been fairly distributed to the world’s poor.”

It’s not only illegal immigrants angling for a piece of the action. Retired Cuban dictator Fidel Castro says “the United States owes every one of Cuba’s 11 million people substantial damages for the cruel and vicious embargo it imposed on our country for over 50 years.” In response to Castro’s demand for money, the Obama Administration has dispatched its crack negotiator—Secretary of State John Kerry—to hammer out a settlement.

In related news, racial justice expert Al Sharpton slammed GOP presidential hopeful Sen. Rand Paul’s claim that hard work is a path to financial success. “The claim is demonstrably false,” Sharpton contended. “I’ve never worked hard, yet I’m drawing six figures just for talking on TV. From my experience, luck and knowing the right people are what really brings home the big bucks.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

John Semmens is a retired economist who has written a weekly political satire for The Arizona Conservative since 2005. He says working on his satires is one of the ways he tries to honor the liberties our Founding Fathers tried to protect. 

Please do us a favor. If you uses material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit and DO NOT change the context. Thank you.

Lite Rail a Trainwreck, Derails Rationale for Prop 104

The contention that light rail is a good investment because “it serves nearly as many people as SR 51” is a ludicrous distortion of reality.

Even if we allow for the absurd comparison of the ridership for the ENTIRE light rail system to be compared with this single freeway we can observe that SR 51 carries over 150,000 vehicles per day at its busiest point near the junction with I-10 to over 80,000 at its least busy point near the outer loop. This is 100 percent more than the  touted 43,000 riders per day for all light rail routes combined.

Light rail is, and forever will be, a tiny contributor to the region’s mobility. Its less than 100 million passenger miles per year pales in comparison to the Phoenix freeways’ 11 billion vehicle miles of travel and the street system’s 30 billion vehicle miles of travel. Yet, Prop 104’s allocation of funds plans to spend only 7 percent of the revenues on roads–3 percent to add lanes and 4 percent to remove lanes to make way for bike paths, pedestrians, and light rail trains.

In contrast, Prop 104 plans to spend 40 percent of the revenues on a light rail system that will accommodate only three-tenths of one-percent of travel. This is an unbalanced allocation that compels the 99 percent who drive to heavily subsidize the less than 1 percent who use rail transit. Lest we think that these subsidies to light rail are aimed at helping the poor, Valley Metro boasts that rail is attracting more higher income riders.

Here’s the deal: if Prop 104 passes or if it voted down–either way–99 percent of travel in the city will continue to take place in automobiles. Light rail will play an insignificant role in how people move about the community. Is this insignificant impact worth taking on all the burdens of deficits, debt, and higher taxes that Prop 104 will impose?

John Semmens, retired transportation economist
Chandler

Dark Money

By The Goldwater Institute

The proponents of mandatory reporting of private civic activities have won a major marketing victory by the widespread use of the phrase, “dark money.”  As one commentator put it, “Dark money.  The name itself carries ominous undertones, undertones that critics of this relatively new campaign-finance phenomenon claim reflect a genuine threat to democracy.”[x]  But the term is misleading.  “Dark money” would be more aptly referred to by what those who find free speech objectionable actually support – mandated government disclosure.  The use of such terms is intended to cast suspicion on those who contribute to various civic causes so the debate revolves around ad hominem attacks rather than engaging on the issues.

So, what is “dark money”?  It conjures images of shady political operatives greasing the palms of politicians in dark, smoked-filled rooms.  But does it also apply to traditional political activities, like you and your neighbor contributing your time and money to civic and social activities that you support?  And is it really a threat to democracy, or are those who seek to silence the voice of opposition and limit speech the real threats?

“Dark money” generally refers to funds spent for political activities by businesses, unions, nonprofit organizations, and individuals who are not required by law to disclose the identities of their donors.  Depending on where supporters of government disclosure draw the inherently arbitrary line, dark money could refer to donations made to the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) or to your local church or soup kitchen.

As a general matter, all spending that calls for the election or defeat of a political candidate or constitutes “electioneering communications” involves some level of disclosure to the government.  In fact, there are more disclosure obligations on the books today than at any other time in our nation’s history.[xi]  Nevertheless, some supporters of government disclosure claim that current laws do not go far enough.  They assert that certain charitable and social welfare organizations, including those organized under § 501(c) of the federal tax code, should be forced to disclose the identities of their individual donors when those organizations engage in political activity, even if that is not their primary function.[xii]

Those calling for the elimination of “dark money” are thus attempting to dramatically extend the reach of government-mandated disclosure to a wide variety of organizations, activities, and communications.

Advocates for expanded disclosure call for such dramatic and far-reaching regulations despite the fact that “dark money” is not a pervasive element in American politics. Some government disclosure advocates claim that so-called “dark money” expenditures constitute a significant portion of political spending in the United States.[xiii]  But the characterization is inaccurate.  In the 2014 election cycle, the Federal Elections Commission reported approximately $5.9 billion in total spending on federal elections.[xiv]  Of that $5.9 billion, roughly $173 million came from groups that are not required by law to disclose donors.[xv]  This represents a mere 2.9 percent of all spending on federal elections – hardly a significant portion.  In fact, this figure represents a decline from the 2012 election cycle, where such expenditures amounted to 4.4 percent of spending on federal races.[xvi]  As the Center for Competitive Politics observed from the 2012 election cycle, “Nearly all of the organizations that financed such independent expenditures . . . were well-known entities, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Rifle Association, Planned Parenthood, the National Association of Realtors, the National Federation of Independent Business, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the Humane Society.”[xvii]  As a result, there is no secret as to what causes and issues such groups support.

Under existing campaign finance laws, the identities of these groups must be revealed when making direct contributions to candidates or political parties or engaging in other electioneering communications.  Additionally, donor identities must be disclosed when they specifically earmark their donations to nonprofit organizations to be used for electioneering communications.  Those types of donations can hardly be characterized as “dark money” in need of further regulation when under existing disclosure rules, anyone can see that the NRA contributed to Candidate X and Planned Parenthood contributed to Candidate Y.  The positions of those organizations are well known.  Characterizing those expenditures as “dark money” is, therefore, disingenuous.  But forcing further disclosure of donor identities is at best unnecessary, as donors may contribute to organizations to support the overall mission rather than any specific political candidate.  Their donations are intended to support certain issues, not politicians.

Claims that “dark money” is distorting American politics are even more tenuous when leveled at 501(c)(3)s, considering these nonprofit organizations are prohibited from participating in any partisan political activity.

Senator Ted Cruz’s Closing Debate Remarks

Russian Calls for War Crimes Inquiry into Atom Bombs Dropped by US

By John Semmens – Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News

JohnRussian legislator Sergei Naryshkin called for an international military tribunal to open an investigation of the United States’ bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, calling the bombings “a crime against humanity.” While most historians agree that the bombings resulted in fewer Japanese casualties than would have been the case had the country been invaded, Naryshkin contended that “the use of unconventional weapons had unforeseen and irreparable consequences on both Japan and Russia.”

“Instead of being permitted to sacrifice their lives in suicidal attacks on invading US and Soviet troops, the Japanese people were forced to endure the humiliation of surrender,” Naryshkin said. “The comforts of martyrdom and oblivion were replaced by the degradation of foreign occupation by American imperialists.”

“On top of this, the Soviet Union was denied its share of the spoils of war,” Naryshkin added. “No army suffered more casualties during World War II than the Soviet Army. Yet, these gallant troops were blocked from taking the same benefits of rape and pillage they justly enjoyed over the Germans. Similarly, Japan’s hasty capitulation deprived the Soviet government of its own zone-of-occupation within Japan. This allowed the United States to hog it all for themselves and shut out the progressive influences that Soviet occupation bestowed on East Germany and other eastern and central European states.”

Retiring Comedy Central TV host Jon Stewart hailed Naryshkin’s initiative as a vindication of his assertion that former President Harry Truman “was a war criminal for authorizing those bombings” and expressed a hope that “the United States will ultimately redeem itself for that atrocity by paying reparations to Japan.”

Trump Sure Debate Helped His Candidacy

Donald Trump, the current front runner for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, hit back at debate moderator Megyn Kelly’s implication that his insulting remarks about women might cost him votes.

“I’m just saying what everybody else is thinking,” Trump insisted. “Anyone who has eyes has got to agree that a distressingly large portion of women in our grossly overweight nation are fat slobs. Rather than keep quiet about this disgusting blight like so many other so-called opinion leaders, I have the courage to speak up. I don’t think voters will punish me for that. And only a bimbo like Kelly would try to make viewers believe otherwise.”

Trump was equally confident that his admission that he makes donations to movers and shakers in both political parties won’t be held against him. “Who knows better how to battle against the corrupt system of influence peddling than a person who has participated in it?” he asked. “For one, putting one of the major influence purchasers inside the government will, by itself, reduce the incidence of this sort of bribery. As president, I wouldn’t have to contribute to Clinton, or McConnell, or Boehner and hope they’d look out for my interests. I could look out for them myself from a position of impregnable strength. That’s why everyday Americans are supporting my candidacy.”

Trump also assailed the post-debate analysis where he took offense at Frank Luntz’s focus group report indicating that participants expressed negative reactions to the candidate’s performance. “Let’s not forget that Fox News’ ‘record-breaking’ audience for this debate was only 16% of those watching TV at that time,” Trump pointed out. “Eighty-four percent—the vast majority—didn’t even see it. Luntz is a low class slob for concealing that salient fact.”

In related news, recently recovered emails from Lois Lerner, the chief IRS persecutor of right-leaning groups, revealed a pattern of derogatory name-calling where she referred to conservatives as “crazies” and “assholes.” While Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee attributed these types of characterizations to possible political bias, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore) argued that “these seem like accurate assessments of the opponents of progressive policies to me.”

Kerry Bewails Schumer Opposition to Iran Deal

Secretary of State John Kerry bewailed Sen. Charles Schumer’s (D-NY) announcement of his opposition to the Iran deal as “profoundly misguided.”

“I understand that Senator Schumer needs Jewish votes,” Kerry observed. “What he doesn’t understand is that his Jewish constituents are not the Jews Iran intends to wipe off the map. Iran has made it clear to me that it is targeting Zionists in Israel for extermination. Jews who are willing to leave Israel and Jews who live in New York are not their targets.”

Kerry admitted that he “didn’t totally disregard the possibility that some of the funds granted to Iran as part of the deal could be used to fund attacks on targets in America,” but argued that “these attacks would likely be aimed at Americans, in general,” and that “Jews would not be inordinately exposed to risks not faced by other non-Jewish inhabitants of our country.”

The Secretary also insisted that war was the only alternative to accepting the deal. “GOP members of Congress like to assert that there are other measures short of war that might be taken,” Kerry said. “But President Obama—the only person who is in a position to take action—says there is no other alternative. People should know better than to doubt this man. If he decides we go to war, we go to war. He will not wait on Congress to authorize the use of force. He didn’t wait on Congress before deciding to take out Libya’s Khadaffy. He’s aggressively used drones to eliminate this country’s enemies. So, if he says it’s this deal or war, Congress had best take him at his word.”

Obama Denounces Murder and Organ Harvesting

In the midst of a series of covertly obtained and publicly released videos of Planned Parenthood’s murder of human babies and sale of their organs, President Obama has come out strongly against the practice of killing albinos and selling their organs in Africa, telling a group of African leaders “this cruel tradition has got to stop.”

Meanwhile, the “cruel tradition” practiced by Planned Parenthood still escapes notice at the White House. Press Secretary Josh Earnest has explained that “the President refuses to watch the defamatory videos being peddled by the Center for Medical Progress” and “saw no contradiction between his stance on what is going on in Africa compared to what is going on in this country.”

“In Africa, the tissues being harvested from albino cadavers are used in superstitious rituals,” Earnest explained. “The tissues being harvested from infant cadavers at Planned Parenthood are being used for scientific research. Perhaps if we were less squeamish about this more parts could have been extracted and more research undertaken. Maybe Christopher Reeve could’ve been saved or Michael J. Fox’s Parkinsons’ symptoms eased if more fetal cadavers at more advanced stages had been available for organ harvesting.”

“Unfortunately, restrictions on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions have reduced the quantity of viable organs that have been available for post mortem extraction,” Earnest lamented. “Suppressing the supply of fetal tissue, as so many state legislatures have done by restricting the window of opportunity during which fetuses may be aborted, thwarts science’s efforts to convert the wretched refuse of unwanted lives into medical therapies that could be used to save the lives of more worthy persons.”

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) rallied to President Obama’s side on this issue contending that “efforts to punish Planned Parenthood by cutting federal funding show that the GOP has lost its moral compass. They’re putting the interests of unwanted potential people ahead of the interests of real people—our wives, our sisters, our daughters, our granddaughters—people who will vote to determine who will and won’t retain their seats in government. The only saving grace is that these Republicans will be the instrument of their own political demise.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) also waded into the controversy and called efforts to defund Planned Parenthood “a vicious attack on women’s health. The GOP would like to pose as a champion of the defenseless fetuses. At best, only half of these fetuses could have become women. But all of those getting abortions are women. Cutting funding to Planned Parenthood would force their customers to seek other places to perform their abortions—places whose commitment to progressive values may not be as clear and firm as Planned Parenthood’s.”

In related news, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) vowed that he would not allow efforts to revoke or reduce Planned Parenthood’s federal subsidies to imperil the operation of the government. “Tragic as the loss of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives at the hands of this depraved organization may be, we must not permit our emotions to overrule our heads,” he declared. “Tens of millions depend on government for their subsistence—both welfare recipients and federal employees. And a long list of corporations depend on government contracts to meet their payrolls and pay their investors. The greater good of this greater number has to take priority over the interests of the smaller number of potential persons terminated and dissected by Planned Parenthood.”

Crimes Committed by Illegals “an Acceptable Cost” Says Congressman

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill) told Spanish channel Telemundo that “we shouldn’t overreact to a little thing like the murder of Kate Steinle” by a criminal illegal alien. Gutierrez advised that “we need to keep things in proper perspective. The thousands of crimes committed by the those who enter this country without permission should be weighed against the benefits to the tens of millions who don’t commit crimes.”

“Why should the much larger number of poor and oppressed people seeking refuge in the United States be deported and denied the food, housing, education, and medical care they so desperately need just because some of those who accompanied them in their journey turn out to be rapists and murderers?” the Congressman asked. “Are there not also rapists and murderers among those born in this country? We don’t use this as an argument against allowing the native born to receive government benefits, why should we use it against allowing the foreign born to receive government benefits?”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

John Semmens is a retired economist who has written a weekly political satire for The Arizona Conservative since 2005. He says working on his satires is one of the ways he tries to honor the liberties our Founding Fathers tried to protect. 

Please do us a favor. If you uses material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit and DO NOT change the context. Thank you.