First Lady’s Campaign Crosses Legal Boundary

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

While stumping for Democrats in Illinois, First Lady Michelle Obama took her campaign inside an early voting polling location. Politicking inside a polling location and within a 100-foot radius outside the location is illegal.

Presidential Press Secretary Robert Gibbs characterized the law as “unenforceable against the first lady. I mean, what state authority would have the brass to press charges against the wife of the president? They’d have to know that it wouldn’t work out well for them personally. So, I doubt we’ll be hearing from them on this.”

In a broader context, Gibbs allowed that the law “might serve a legitimate purpose in discouraging unwarranted intrusions by inexpert campaigners, but polished practitioners like the first lady, the president, or really, any elected official, ought to be seen as exempt because they are the people’s chosen rulers and should be permitted access to wherever, in their judgment, they need to go to conduct the people’s business. And I would argue that aiding the election of persons supportive of the president’s issues is the people’s business.”

In related news, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine suggested that “anyone readily identifiable as a ‘Tea Party’ person should be banned from polling places. The Tea Party has been so prominently linked with lower taxes and spending that their mere presence could be intimidating to Democratic voters. It’s hard enough for a person to overcome the shame of voting for more welfare, more bailouts, more inflation without the risk of having to do it right in front of neighbors who might question their actions.”

Republican Takeover of Congress: “Bring It on” Prez Sez

President Barack Obama insisted he is not troubled by polls showing huge GOP gains are likely in the upcoming election. “I don’t think the polls accurately capture certain advantages we possess in the process,” he said. “But even if the polls prove correct, a Republican Congress will still have me to contend with.”

The President pointed out that “unless they get a two-thirds majority they’ve got nothing. I will veto every initiative they try to take that conflicts with my vision of what America needs to become.” The President emphasized that he is willing to “employ ‘scorched earth’ tactics if that’s what it takes to defend the progress we’ve made so far in transforming the country.”

As an example of what he dubbed his scorched earth approach, President Obama vowed he “would veto even the continuing resolutions that are necessary to keep the government operating. If they’re so dead set against ‘big government’ let’s see how they like living with no government—no taxes, no spending, no welfare, no regulation, no nothing. We’ll see who blinks first. So, if voters want to trifle with me by voting for the Republicans, I say ‘bring it on.’”

President Corrects Voter

A voter at a “town hall” type meeting who expressed a fear that “America is becoming a communist country” was lectured for his “error” by a professorial President Obama.

“With all due respect to my ill-informed constituent, let me point out that under communism, all the major factors of production are owned by the government,” the President observed. “The transformation I am making does not require government ownership of the means for production. A simple public-private partnership will be sufficient to ensure that the government’s decisions are carried out by the private owners of the resources.”

“A more pertinent social model for describing my program would be that employed in Germany and Italy during the 1930s,” the President continued. “Ownership remained in private hands, but the major decisions on what and how to produce were socially determined for the good of the whole rather than for profit.”

While conceding that “Obamanomics” might be a flattering term to describe his program, the President said that “progressive” is the more modest moniker he prefers. Ironically, “progressive” is a term that Soviet leaders usually used when describing their programs.

UN Says Flush Toilets a “Human Right”

Noting that over three billion people lack access to running water and flush toilets, the United Nations’ Human Rights Council declared that “it is the obligation of those with means to rectify this injustice.”

Catarina de Albuquerque, the UN’s “Independent Expert” on human rights said that the UN’s declaration means that “the right to water and sanitation is now legally binding for all member nations. Pleading fiscal difficulties does not relieve a government of the obligation to provide this necessity.”

Ms. de Albuquerque cited the imbalance between nations as “especially egregious when it comes to sanitation. America, for example has far more toilets than it needs. Many homes have more than one. Meanwhile, in many other parts of the world people have none. A redistribution seems in order.”

“Redistribution need not be taken literally,” de Albuquerque explained. “We’re not demanding that toilets be ripped out of existing locations in America and shipped to underprivileged nations. But certainly a surtax on existing toilets with the proceeds shared among the most needy is a step long overdue.”

Pundit Charges Businesses Are Sabotaging the President

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews accused American businesses of “sabotaging President Obama and his program by selfishly placing profit ahead of the national interest.”

“The continued refusal of firms to hire is prolonging the recession and hurting the President’s Party in the upcoming election,” Matthews contended. “When we all should be pulling together to help President Obama, businesses are insisting that decreased sales revenue and negative net earnings make adding personnel too risky. Even worse, many of these businesses are now contributing money to help elect people who oppose the President. At the risk of appearing overly strident, I’d say this looks like treason to me.”

Matthews urged that “the President should do everything in his power to crack down on those who aim to thwart him. Even if Republicans do take control of Congress, President Obama still has weapons he can use. The IRS still answers to him. Let’s see how these businesses like being audited. Or he can issue Executive Orders shutting down whole business sectors if they are insufficiently cooperative. And there’s lawsuits. If Attorney General Holder can sue the State of Arizona he can just as easily sue any business enemies of the President.”

In related news, Presidential Advisor David Axelrod taunted the Chamber of Commerce for failure to disclose the names of those donating to its campaign against the President’s program. “What, are they afraid we’ll do something to hurt those donors?” Axelrod jeered. “Only a wimp hides behind a claim of confidentiality. The American people deserve to know all the facts about those who oppose the government. If they won’t give this information up voluntarily, well, we have ways of encouraging them to do so.”

California Dreaming

California’s Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown surged into the lead in recent polls after he rejected the idea that government ought to work toward creating a business-friendly environment that would lead to more private sector jobs.

“I think most people would agree with me that going to work everyday is a drag,” Brown asserted. “I asked myself, isn’t there a better way? Then it hit me. I don’t have a job and I’ve never been happier. I get enough income from my pensions to cover my expenses AND I have all this free time, to boot. Why can’t this be a model for others?”

Brown’s proposal is to have robots do all the work while providing California residents with a monthly stipend from the government seems to have struck a responsive chord with the majority of the state’s voters. One of them, unemployed day laborer Jose Perezoso, commented favorably. “I don’t normally vote,” Perezoso admitted. “I don’t know the issues, but Señor Brown’s idea is a dream come true. The work is hard. I’d rather not do it if I don’t have to. I say muchas gracias for Señor Brown.”

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) praised Brown’s “creativity” and said it would dovetail nicely with her proposal to put everyone in America on food stamps. “Research shows that for every dollar the government pays out in food stamps, $1.79 is put back into the economy,” Pelosi claimed. “Currently, only 40 million Americans are receiving food stamps. If we can expand the program to make it universal we’d ensure that (a) no one would have to go hungry and (b) we’d boost the economy enormously.” Pelosi further suggested that “part of that $1.79 gain could be used to buy the robots needed to implement Governor Brown’s idea.”

“You won’t hear this kind of out-of-the-box thinking from the Republicans,” Pelosi boasted. “They want us all to be stuck in the nine-to-five work day rut. Democrats say it’s time we move beyond such limited and old fashioned thinking. Just ask yourself, which do you enjoy more—the time you spend on the job? Or the time you have off? Why vote for a Party that says it will help put you in a job when you can vote for a Democrat who’ll give you the benefits without making you go to work? If we can just get this message out to enough voters I think this talk about the GOP retaking Congress will be put to rest.”

John Semmens’ Archives

More Semmens Archives

About these ads

About America Today

Conservative cultural writer/patriot/concerned American

Posted on October 16, 2010, in John Semmens. Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.

  1. Lonnie B. Collett

    My mouth drop open while reading the whole thing. I throughly enjoyed your short articles. Everything that needed to be said was there. I found every topic of interest. I have read a few about half way and stop. When something starts off interesting, but drags on and on you lose interest. Like this comment. ha Lonnie

  2. Presidential Press Secretary Robert Gibbs characterized the law as “unenforceable against the first lady. I mean, what state authority would have the brass to press charges against the wife of the president? They’d have to know that it wouldn’t work out well for them personally. Hey, Gibblet Brains Gibbs, we do not have Kings and Queens in this Country. Just because they come from Chicago does not mean they are above the LAW!! Then again you Statists think LAWS do not apply to you such as tax laws and voter intimidation laws. November 2nd is not that far off. I believe the Statists will try to steal this election with voter fraud and voter intimidation.
    Greg Zotta
    Republican Candidate for MO Senate 22

  3. DEAR WHOEVER: : : :
    TO MAKE AMERICA WORK WE NEED TO ABOLISH THE 16TH– 17TH AMENDMENTS AND ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT WE LOST IT ALL IN 1913 BUT FROM 1789 TO 1913 WE HAD NO 16TH 17TH AMENDMENT AND NO FEDERAL RESERVE ACT ANE WE HAD THE GREATEST GROWTH IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD – – – – WE LOST IT ALL IN 1913 WITH THE 16TH FED INCOME TAX 17TH WHEN THE STATES LEGISLATURES CAN NO LONGER APPOINT THE U.S.SENATORS AND WE GOT INSTANT INFLATION WITH THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT AND A BAIL OUT OF 887 BILLION DOLLARS BY PEOPLE THAT CANNOT EVEN VOTE GAVE IT TOUS BEN BENBENACKE AND THE PRESIDENT SPENT US INTO OBLIVION JFG

  4. Great post!
    Thank you for posting this.

    I always learn something new from this blog …

    Regards,
    Jack from Hearing Aid Reviews

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 149 other followers

%d bloggers like this: