Author Archives: America Today

Homosexual Group Wants to Deny Children Their Mother or Their Father

Equality Arizona is beginning a new effort called Project Jigsaw: Connecting Every Child with a Loving Family. The purpose is to “create an environment where all couples, regardless of sexual orientation or gender, have the opportunity to provide a stable, loving home for a child.” Through adoption.

Those are the talking points.

Here is the truth. There is a lot more to it than Equality Arizona is saying. It’s the quality of the home environment that counts the most. It means everything to children in their formative years.

Adopting children into the homes of either two men or two women is not in childrens’ best interests. Sure, we understand some same-sex couples want to raise children, but let’s ask the children who have already been through this experience.

They are telling us it was not a good way to grow up. Far from it. Katy Faust says so. Dawn Stefanowicz says so. Meg says so. Heather Barwick says so.

Read what Dawn said:

My biggest concern is that children are not being discussed in this same-sex marriage debate. Yet, won’t the next step for some gay activists be to ask for legal adoption of children if same-sex marriage is legalized? I have considered some of the potential physical and psychological health risks for children raised in this situation. I was at high risk of exposure to contagious STDs due to sexual molestation, my father’s high-risk sexual behaviors, and multiple partners. Even when my father was in what looked like monogamous relationships, he continued cruising for anonymous sex.

Governor Doug Ducey also made some noise recently about just putting children in any loving home. He and others are making a big mistake if they don’t take a deep look at the history, the social science and the personal testimonies on this.

The average homosexual relationship lasts 18 months — hardly a “loving home” or conducive to the stability young boys and girls need.

We have more than enough fatherless children in America. Our prisons bear the result of that. No two women can offset the absence of dad. No two men can offset the absence of a nurturing mom. The kids are not all right.

And we just saw another example of domestic violence with two female pro basketball players who beat the snot out of each other and then quickly got married to try to assuage law enforcement.

Homosexuals also engage in far more risky behaviors than married male-female couples. Like drug abuse. And alcohol abuse. AIDS, of course, is much more prevalent among homosexuals.

A majority of male homosexuals were sexually abused as children. Many girls also struggle with same-sex attraction because of the unhealthy home environments they were raised in.

So now you want to take people with deep-seeded personal issues and mollify them with all kinds of rights and complicate their problems by giving them custody of children?

It makes no common sense. Arizona, Governor Ducey, CPS, adoption agencies, do not repeat the mistakes with young, sensitive, impressionable children. It is not like you are operating in the dark with no credible information to base your decisions on. We know the results in advance if you go down this road. Stop. Think about it. Forget political correctness.

One more question for the governor and any other elected official: is it worth scoring political points at the expense of children whose lives will be put at risk.

No.

Every child needs a mom AND a dad. No alternative can substitute for this fact. Children raised in the homes of married mom and dad do better in every physical, emotional, social, and educational level. Every one. This is not debatable.

Feds Warn Lenders Not to Deny Loans to Welfare Recipients

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

JohnThe Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) warned financial institutions that they could be prosecuted if they deny home loans to persons subsisting on welfare benefits.

CFPB Director Richard Cordray asserted that “placing ability to repay ahead of need is contrary to federal regulations. Just because a person cannot support himself or herself doesn’t mean he or she should be excluded from the benefits of home ownership. Every person has an inalienable right to own a home. Lenders have a moral obligation to help people achieve this right.”

For banks to argue that the risks of default and foreclosure should preclude certain persons from obtaining loans places profit over social justice,” Cordray said. “Those who attempt to implement such injustice will face consequences. Fines or even imprisonment await anyone who would defy us in this matter.”

Cordray went on to question “whether requiring loans to be repaid even makes sense. Housing costs would be lower across-the-board if the burden of repayment could be lifted from those unable to afford it. Banks have billions of dollars and could easily absorb the losses from non-performing loans. If they should become insolvent the Federal Reserve would, as it has in the past, just create more money to bail them out.”

In related news, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is considering eliminating in-person interviews for Food Stamp applicants. Secretary Tom Vilsack explained that “forcing applicants to meet face-to-face is unnecessarily humiliating for them. I mean, having to look a government official in the eye and ask for help is intimidating. It might deter some from even seeking aid and try to make it on their own. By allowing applicants to simply phone-in a request for Food Stamps we can better maximize the volume of aid we provide.”

Global Warming Activists Demand Media Stop Calling Unbelievers “Skeptics”

The Citizen Engagement Laboratory (CEL) wants news outlets to stop using the term “skeptics” for those who question the global climate change meme. Instead, those who fail to adhere to the accepted view are to be universally referred to as “deniers.”

CEL Director Ronald Deibert complained that “using the word ‘skeptic’ makes opposition to our theory of global climate change sound reasonable. It implies that their assertion that evidence is needed to prove that mankind is the source of climate change deserves a hearing. It implies that the science of global warming is not settled, that differing interpretations of the data are permissible. Is this something we should allow?”

If we can eliminate the term ‘skeptic’ and uniformly replace it with ‘denier’ we can cast these doubters into the ranks of those who don’t deserve to be heard,” Deibert declared. “’Denier’ connotes an air of unjustified disbelief. No one need pay attention to the rantings of ‘deniers’ like those who deny that the Holocaust ever took place. Why should those who deny the reality of man-made climate change be treated any better?”

Deibert says he fears that “if we allow unacceptable views to continue to pollute the debate it will be that much more difficult to gain broad public acquiescence for the sacrifices we all must make to combat the threat. The slightest smidgen of doubt could derail the taxes and regulations necessary to avert disaster.”

Dean Claims Jesus More Leftist than Democratic Party

This week, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean claimed that “Jesus was more to the left than the Democratic Party. Look, Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple. We Democrats are content to merely tax and regulate them.”

If you listen closely to Jesus’ words about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, it seems clear that all the money properly belongs to the government,” Dean maintained. “Democrats haven’t gone that far. We still permit people to keep some of the money they earn.”

You know, Jesus didn’t work a steady job,” Dean observed. “While he was traipsing about the desert he was living off of handouts. Yet, the so-called ‘religious right’ assails those who accept handouts as a way of life today as shiftless and parasitic. Maybe it is they who are out-of-sync with Jesus’ message.”

In related news, President Obama castigated churches, saying that “those who focus more on abortion and gay marriage than eradicating poverty are out-of-step with Jesus’ teachings. Jesus urged people to give away their wealth. If Congress would adopt more progressive taxation the government could help make this happen.”

Can we be so sure Jesus would have condemned abortion or gay rights?” Obama wondered. “It seems to me that Jesus cared a lot about women. Why wouldn’t he care about their reproductive health? And didn’t Jesus spend a lot of time in the company of the apostles—all men? He never married as would have been normal for a Jew in those days. Can we be sure that Jesus himself was not gay?”

Obama Calls for Change in How the Media Reports

Citing the “especially grievous slant that FOX gives to the news,” President Obama called for “better policing of the public airways to prevent this intellectual pollution.”

When I see how FOX is constantly undermining what I am trying to do for America by pointing out every flaw and defect of my policies I feel sorry for America,” the President said. “How can our people be joyful if their TVs are parading so-called failures in front of them in their own living rooms?”

The abuse of freedom of the press and freedom of speech for the purpose of destroying faith in government is seditious,” Obama contended. “We should not sit by and let this go out of some reverence for the outmoded ideas of America’s founders. New times require new rules if we are to promote the general welfare.”

An idea that is starting to gain some traction inside the Administration is to employ the Federal Communications Commission to “fact check” all news broadcasts. “We owe it to the American people to ensure that the news they receive is accurate,” said FCC Chairman Thomas Wheeler. “No one has the right to inject inaccurate information or disloyal opinions into the nation’s communication system. The FCC has a wide range of tools it can and should use to clean up what is broadcast, transmitted, or posted to the web. My biggest regret is that we let things go too far and had to be reminded by the President to do our duty.”

Senator Says NFL Priorities “Screwed Up”

The announcement that the New England Patriots and Quarterback Tom Brady would be penalized for cheating drove Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) into a frenzy.

I find it stunning that the NFL cares more about how much air is in a football than it cares about a racist franchise name,” Reid raved. “No one need have known about the under-inflated balls. Covertly tipping the scales is simply business-as-usual. By going public with this scandal the NFL has ‘shot itself in the foot,’ and to what end?”

The much more serious offense is the refusal of the Washington team to change its name,” Reid argued. “Correct opinion concurs that the name ‘Redskins’ is an insult to Native Americans. For the team owners to persist in swimming against the tide of history in this matter can only lead to bad results.”

Potential “bad results” that Reid claims to foresee include “massive lawsuits filed by aggrieved Native Americans, government seizing the team from the owners, and street riots like we’ve seen in Baltimore.”

Bush Would Use Obama Immigration Order to Extort Legislation from Congress

Potential candidate for president and former Governor of Florida JEB Bush told FOX News’ Megyn Kelly that “unlike some other GOP presidential contenders, I would not move to immediately undo President Obama’s executive action granting special privileges to illegal immigrants. Instead, I would refuse to revoke it until Congress passed appropriate enabling legislation. In any case, the American voter can count on me to see that legalizing those in this country illegally will go forward with or without legislation.”

Bush acknowledged the shaky legality of Obama’s executive action, but averred that “doing the right thing is more important than confining policy to narrowly circumscribed authority. I could not, in good conscience, do nothing simply because there is no statutory authority for the action I deem morally necessary.”

The candidate said he hoped “my willingness to go beyond what the law allows will help set me apart from those who would allow themselves to be limited by the constraints of immoral laws. The American people need a leader who is not afraid to stake out new ground and to chart a path that others can follow. Congress will be invited to come along if they cooperate, but I will not allow them to apply the brakes to what needs to be done.”

In related news, JEB characterized his endorsement of big brother George’s Iraq War as “basic self-preservation. When we were growing up George always used to bully me if I crossed him. It didn’t matter whether he was right or wrong. If he didn’t get what he wanted he’d beat me up.”

While it would seem that the era of big brother George beating up little brother JEB must have long passed, the younger Bush alleges that “emotional scarring led to my knee-jerk statement in support of my brother’s invasion of Iraq. I’m just hoping that every little brother who votes will understand my reaction and forgive my fumbling of this issue. For the record, knowing what we know now, it’s clear that Syria is the place we should invade.”

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.

Study: How the Broadcast Networks Have Deleted Hillary’s E-Mail Scandal

From the Media Research Center

Deputy Research Director

Hillary Clinton’s official presidential announcement was a golden opportunity for networks to demand the former Secretary of State respond to unanswered questions about her e-mail scandal. Yet in the flurry of coverage since her official rollout (April 12 – April 20) the e-mail scandal garnered a total of just 3 minutes, 53 seconds* on the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) evening and morning shows.

Even a new angle on the e-mail scandal – the New York Times reported April 14 that Clinton never responded to a congressional inquiry [in December of 2012] that “directly asked” if she had used a private e-mail account – failed to re-ignite the interest networks initially showed when the scandal first broke in March.

Over the past five weeks, all three broadcast networks have essentially walked away from covering the ex-Secretary of State’s secret extra-governmental e-mail server and the possible loss of crucial documents needed by the House Select Committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks, with coverage on ABC, CBS and NBC’s morning and evening news shows falling by more than 93 percent from the levels seen in early March.

When news first broke that Clinton improperly used her own private e-mail account, the Big Three networks actually jumped to cover the story, filling their evening and morning shows with a total of 124 minutes and 55 seconds of airtime (NBC: 53 minutes, 51 seconds; CBS: 36 minutes, 39 seconds; ABC: 34 minutes, 25 seconds) within the first two weeks (March 3-16) of coverage that encompassed Hillary Clinton’s March 10 press conference.

But despite pundits and journalists like NBC’s Chuck Todd insisting that Clinton’s press conference “didn’t satisfy her media critics” a look at the coverage in the ensuing weeks shows they lost a lot of their interest in the story.

In the third week, (March 17-23), the networks reduced their coverage of the latest Clinton controversy to just 1 minute and 59 seconds (NBC: 23 seconds; CBS: 29 seconds; ABC: 1 minute, 7 seconds).

In the fourth week (March 24-30), the stunning news that Clinton’s own attorney admitted her server had been wiped clean caused a brief spike in coverage — but even that development generated just 11 minutes and 14 seconds of airtime (ABC: 1 minute, 32 seconds; CBS: 4 minutes, 48 seconds; NBC: 4 minutes, 54 seconds).

By week 5 (March 31-April 6) the story was virtually non-existent drawing just 1 minute and 16 seconds total coverage. (ABC: 0; CBS: 29 seconds; NBC: 47 seconds).

During week 6 (April 7-13), anticipation of Clinton’s official announcement, and the announcement itself on April 12, caused some reporters to bring up the e-mail imbroglio but even then the bump was minor, as it garnered just 5 minutes and 1 second of coverage (CBS: 1 minute, 38 seconds; NBC: 3 minutes, 15 seconds). Former Clinton administration press spokesman George Stephanopoulos’s network (ABC) could only manage just an 8 second mention.

And when the e-mail controversy was actually brought up in Clinton announcement stories, it was framed as an annoying issue those pesky Republicans refuse to drop. NBC’s Chuck Todd, on the April 10 Nightly News, noted: “Well, Republicans are trying to do everything they can to hit her and hit her hard. E-mails is something that they want to hit her on. Rand Paul who, of course, announced this week used a lot of his speech to try to go after Clinton and go after on ethics and things like that.”

Even though unanswered questions still persist (Why was her private server wiped clean? Was there incriminating evidence in those e-mails regarding the Benghazi investigation or Clinton Foundation donations? Could a foreign nation, like Russia, have hacked her server?) the networks have essentially discarded the story, reducing their coverage to just a total of 2 minutes and 11 seconds (CBS: 14 seconds, ABC: 42 seconds, NBC: 1 minute, 15 seconds) by the seventh week.

CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley may have signaled the decline in interest when he dismissed the controversy as something that would fall along partisan lines. On the evening of Clinton’s March 10 press conference Pelley huffed: “Well, it’s one of those stories that gets Washington hyperventilating. Today, Hillary Clinton explained why she used private e-mail to conduct official business as Secretary of State….The partisans are going to believe what they want to believe. There’s no chance any minds were changed there today, so what difference does any of this make in Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination?”

The waning interest in this latest Clinton controversy actually follows a familiar pattern of the networks initially covering Obama era scandals (IRS, Benghazi, VA) only to drop them like a hot potato and sadly seems to validate the Clinton strategy of stonewalling until they and their allies in the media can claim a controversy is old news and move on without ever really getting to the bottom of the story.

*UPDATE: An earlier edition of this story read: “Yet in the flurry of coverage since her official rollout (April 12 – April 20) the e-mail scandal garnered a total of just 7 minutes, 12 seconds on the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) evening and morning shows.” That sentence has now been corrected to read: “Yet in the flurry of coverage since her official rollout (April 12 – April 20) the e-mail scandal garnered a total of just 3 minutes, 53 seconds on the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) evening and morning shows.”

Lesbian Athletes Punished for Domestic Violence

ESPN.com reports …

WNBA stars Brittney Griner and Glory Johnson were suspended seven games each today for their domestic violence arrest last month — the league’s longest ban in its 19-year history.

WNBA president Laurel Richie said the league “takes all acts of violence extremely seriously” in handing down a suspension that represents more than one-fifth of the 34-game regular season. Richie called the players’ actions “unacceptable.”

“Brittney and Glory’s conduct is detrimental to the best interests of the WNBA and violates applicable law,” Richie said in a statement. “We also understand that people make mistakes, and that education and training are as important as imposing discipline.”

The players were arrested April 22 on suspicion of assault after they fought in a home they recently bought. Griner pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct and entered a diversion program. The assault charge was dismissed. She must attend 26 weeks of domestic violence counseling. All charges will be dismissed if she completes counseling. Johnson’s case was transferred to county court and is still pending.

The league spent the past few weeks investigating. The WNBA said Johnson pushed Griner in the shoulder and she responded by pushing her in the back of the neck. The confrontation escalated to include wrestling, punches and the throwing and swinging of objects. The 6-foot-8 Griner received a bite wound on her finger and scratches on her wrist; the 6-4 Johnson received a scratch above her lip and was diagnosed with a concussion.

The Arizona Conservative found this research on the prevalence of lesbian domestic violence, which could become more common in our state if the judicial activism that forced same-sex marriage on Arizona holds up on appeal …

Dr. Suzana Rose, author of the “Lesbian Partner Violence Fact Sheet,” says:

Partner violence in lesbian (and gay) relationships recently has been identified as an important social problem. Partner or domestic violence among lesbians has been defined as including physical, sexual and psychological abuse, although researchers have most often studied physical violence.

About 17-45% of lesbians report having been the victim of a least one act of physical violence perpetrated by a lesbian partner. Types of physical abuse named by more than 10% of participants in one study included:

Disrupting other�s eating or sleeping habits
Pushing or shoving, driving recklessly to punish, and slapping, kicking, hitting, or biting.
Sexual abuse by a woman partner has been reported by up to 50% of lesbians.
Psychological abuse has been reported as occurring at least one time by 24% to 90% of lesbians.

Lesbians abuse their partners to gain and maintain control. Lesbian batterers are motivated to avoid feelings of loss and abandonment. Therefore, many violent incidents occur during threatened separations. Many lesbian batterers grew up in violent households and were physically, sexually, or verbally abused and/or witnessed their mothers being abused by fathers or stepfathers.

In lesbian relationships, the “butch” (physically stronger, more masculine or wage-earning) member of the couple may be as likely to be the victim as the batterer, whereas in heterosexual relationships, the male partner (usually the stronger, more masculine, and wage-earning member) is most often the batterer. Some lesbians in abusive relationships report fighting back in their relationship.

This is What Progress Looks Like

By Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy

The country took a significant step forward yesterday when the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 36 – the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. On a 242-184 vote, the House approved legislation sponsored by Arizona’s Rep. Trent Franks that would prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Following the vote, CAP’s General Counsel & Vice President of Policy spoke with the Arizona Republic about this historic vote:

“‘Allowing abortions at that stage is inhumane,’ said Josh Kredit, vice president of policy for Center for Arizona Policy, a conservative social-issues group that supported the bill.

‘This is a great day for America and Arizonans,’ he said, noting a report from the Arizona Department of Health Services that 137 abortions were performed after 20 weeks of pregnancy in Arizona in 2013. ‘This law will literally save lives.’”

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibits abortion after 20 weeks because of the overwhelming evidence that preborn children can feel pain at this age. What’s more, abortion at this stage of a pregnancy presents serious risks to the health and safety of women.

The bill now heads to the Senate, where it faces stiff opposition. No matter what happens though, the significance of this bill passing out of the House cannot be overstated. The pro-life movement is making great progress in D.C. and in states throughout the country.

I want to thank all of you who took action and contacted your representative in support of this bill. Below is how Arizona’s delegation voted on this bill. If your representative voted for HR 36, please send them a note thanking them. If they voted no, I encourage you to send them a message letting them know you support life and this common sense legislation.

Mr. Santorum, I Voted No; I Vote for a Conservative Coalition

Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum just dropped me a line, asking me to tell him whether or not he should run for president. You might be interested in my response:

Dear Mr. Santorum,

Thank you for contacting me for my opinion. I must tell you that I voted “no.” You are a man of integrity and honor, and I respect you greatly. I was very glad you won the Iowa Caucus in 2012. However, we have too many candidates on the GOP side carving up the support and the campaign money. It is time to yield to new candidates like Dr. Carson and Sen. Cruz this time around. The best thing you and several others can do is to build a conservative coalition and do all in your power to see that one strong conservative candidate emerges to take on and defeat party elites like Jeb Bush. We need a strong candidate who will have the wisdom and courage to move a stagnant, declining nation ahead in the next eight years. The Democrats have badly damaged American and sent our trajectory spiraling downward. I hope you will sacrifice your own ambitions and emerge as one of the leaders of the conservative coalition on behalf of the nation that is so starved for a leader with integrity who will put America first. You can accomplish more as a non-candidate this year to help assure one strong leader emerges who is right for America at this time. Thank you for your consideration.

God bless you and your family. God bless America.

Your friends at The Arizona Conservative

Congress Passes Franks’ Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

028_29WASHINGTON, D.C. – Upon passage of H.R. 36 the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, with a vote of 242 to 184, the bill’s sponsor Congressman Franks issued the following statement:

“I want to express my deepest and sincerest gratitude to my colleagues who not only played a role in the creation and development of The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act but who also voted today to protect little pain-capable unborn babies. I especially want to thank the leadership of the House for bringing it to a vote on this unique day. Protecting those who cannot protect themselves is why we are really all here and today’s vote is a strong reminder of that.

“Exactly 2 years ago to the day, one Kermit Gosnell was convicted of killing a mother and murdering innocent, late term, pain capable babies in his grisly torture chamber abortion clinic. This bill and its passage express our deeply sincere desire to protect both mothers and their little pain capable unborn babies entering their sixth month of pregnancy from the unspeakable cruelty of evil monsters like Kermit Gosnell.

“The historic passage of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection act proves that those of us privileged to live and breathe in this the land of the free and the home of the brave finally came together with our minds and hearts open to the humanity of these little victims and the inhumanity of what is being done to them.”

Life News reported on the bill …

The vote for the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act broke down on mostly partisan lines with Republicans supporting the ban on late-term abortions and Democrats opposing it. The House approved the bill on a 242-184 vote with four Democrats (Reps. Cuellar, Langevin, Lipinski, and Peterson) voting for the bill and five Republicans voting against it (Reps. Dent, Dold, Hanna, Frelinghuysen) or voting present (Hice). (See very end of this article for how members voted).

Should the Senate approve the bill, President Barack Obama has issued a veto threat. But pro-life groups hope to use the measure as an election tool in 2016 in an attempt to wrest control of the White House and approve a pro-life president who will sign it into law.

During the debate today on a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks, Congressman Sean Duffy gave what may be one of the most passionate defenses of the pro-life position ever seen on the floor of Congress. Duffy took on the claim often made by Democrats who support abortion saying they stand for the defenseless and voiceless.

“I’ve listened to the floor debate day after day .. about how they fight for the forgotten, they fight for the defenseless, they fight for the voiceless. And they pound their chest and stomp their feet. You don’t have anyone in our society that’s more defenseless than these little babies,” he said. “And we are not taking — I believe in conception. I know my colleagues can’t agree with me on that. Can’t we come together and say we are going to stand with little babies that feel pain, that survive outside the womb? Ones that don’t have lobbyists and money? Don’t we stand with those little babies?”

“If you stand with the defenseless, with the voiceless, you have to stand with little babies. Don’t talk to me about cruelty in our bill — when you look at little babies being dismembered, feeling excruciating pain, if we can’t stand to defend these children, what do we stand for in this institution?” he added.

Once again, Obama is on the wrong side of history …

A national poll by The Polling Company found that, after being informed that there is scientific evidence that unborn children are capable of feeling pain at least by 20 weeks, 64 percent would support a law banning abortion after 20 weeks, unless the mother’s life was in danger.   Only 30 percent said they would oppose such a law.

Fascists Unveiled

State Department Declines to Pursue Influence Peddling Allegations

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

JohnSuspicion that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have been involved in questionable financial transactions between foreign governments and the Clinton Foundation was brushed aside as a “matter of no interest” by Department spokesman Jeff Rathke.

Secretary Clinton has assured us that there were no improprieties,” Rathke said. “We ‘d have to have some concrete proof before we ‘d undertake any moves that could impugn her integrity. Now that her private server has been erased it doesn’t look like there could ever be any concrete proof.”

Personally, I find it hard to believe that a woman who has dedicated here life to public service could be influenced by any amount of money to deviate from pursuing the public good,” Rathke added. “Besides, the Clintons are already quite wealthy. They’d have no need to engage in anything so sordid as taking bribes in exchange for favorable policies or actions by the State Department.”

Rathke’s views appeared to conflict with those of State Department Assistant Secretary Joyce Barr who characterized Clinton’s use of a private server for official business as “not acceptable” in testimony at a Senate Judiciary hearing. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) used a bit stronger language saying Clinton’s actions “amounted to a premeditated and deliberate violation of the law.”

Lawyers for Clinton rejected these allegations and contended that “the private server gave the nation an added layer of security. A government server would have been vulnerable to a ‘freedom of information’ disclosure of its contents, but her private server could be and was simply erased—protecting vital secrets from unwarranted prying.”

In related news, Hillary Clinton’s campaign declined to disclose who its major donors are. Campaign Manager Robbie Mook said “revelation of the names of key donors will remain confidential. The only reason why people demand to know names is so they can try to intimidate these donors and deny the candidate the resources she needs to fight for the rights of everyday Americans. Anonymity is an important protection with significant historical precedence. We will resist all efforts to breach this protection.”

Black Panther Leaders Say More White People Need to Get Hurt

Spokesmen for the New Black Panther Party called for actions designed to “put the hurt on white people” as a means for “addressing centuries of oppression of Black folks.”

Former national chairman of the New Black Panther Party and current national president of Black Lawyers for Justice, Malik Zulu Shabazz, urged Baltimore rioters to “strike back in self-defense against the police. The Mayor invited the victims of oppression to take revenge and reparations against the society that has harmed them. Those who stand in the way have no one to blame but themselves if they get hurt.”

New Black Panther Party, Chief of Staff Michelle Williams and King Samir Shabazz, upped the ante by calling on rioters “to firebomb nurseries so that they can kill as many white babies as possible.” Shabazz characterized this as “the most effective way to make our case. Pulling white people out of their homes, skinning them alive, and dragging them behind trucks is what they deserve, but it’s too risky. Some of these whites have guns, but none of the white babies can fight back and the deaths of these innocents will cause the most pain to our white oppressors.”

In related news, Islamic Imam Anjem Choudary claimed it is his “Constitutional right to publicly urge Muslims to murder Pamela Geller for hosting a blasphemous draw Mohammed contest. Under the US Constitution my right to practice my religion is guaranteed. My religion condemns all disrespect for the Prophet and prescribes death for anyone who violates this command. I cannot be prohibited from proclaiming this tenet of our doctrine. Neither can any Muslim be legally prohibited from slaughtering the blasphemer.”

White House Against GOP Attempts to Restrict How Iran Spends Released Funds

A component of the forthcoming agreement between the US and Iran on nuclear weapons development is the US release of Iranian funds that have been frozen in US banks. GOP critics of the agreement fear that these funds will be used to aid terrorist attacks in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Press Secretary Josh Earnest mocked these fears as “paranoid delusions. It would make no sense for the Iranians to besmirch the rapport our two countries have worked so hard to achieve by ‘stabbing us in the back’ with such a duplicitous response to our generosity.”

Earnest cited “the historic precedent set by President Franklin Roosevelt’s policy of giving Stalin everything he wanted while asking nothing in return as evidence that trusting Iran to do the right thing will work out over the long run. Stalin did everything we could have hoped for when FDR extended this trust in their intentions.”

Earnest brushed off Stalin’s initiation of the Iron Curtain and the Cold War as “a predictable reaction to Truman’s post-war anti-communist policies. It was Truman who sent aid to Europe under the Marshall Plan with the express purpose of helping these war-torn nations resist communist inroads. This direct challenge to the Soviet Union’s interests provoked Stalin’s hostility. Today’s GOP mistrust of Iran threatens to repeat Truman’s errors.”

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected the idea that any conditions could be attached to how his country spends the released funds. “We are a sovereign nation,” Khamenei said. “How we handle our funds is no one else’s business.”

Educational Standards Demanding Hard Work Called Discriminatory

California’s Pacific Educational Group (PEG) denounced educational standards that require students to study and work hard in order to graduate as “discrimination against Black students.”

PEG co-chair Kenneth K. Knowlton asserted that “Blacks are less likely to respond to fundamental ideas like working hard to achieve success, or being on time for school or work. The notion that such attitudes ought to be instilled in every student is a racist endeavor that seeks to submerge this vital subculture.”

What’s more, the contention that hard work is a key to success is belied by reality,” Knowlton maintained. “A significant segment of the Black subculture has learned to survive on government benefit programs that do not require hard work. Adapting to these programs is a viable low-energy route to reasonably comfortable subsistence in our society. In terms of return on investment or effort it is very efficient. A school’s attempt to divert students from this efficient path does them a disservice.”

A statistic bolstering Knowlton’s claims was obtained from a Department of Agriculture study indicating that 40% of the people on Food Stamps are obese—a finding that Knowlton contended “debunks the old-fashioned thinking that warns of the privation awaiting those who don’t put forth the effort to support themselves.”

In related news, British academic Adam Swift charged that “parents who read to their children are giving them an unfair advantage over children whose parents are unable or unwilling to read to their children. Evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t – the difference in their life chances – is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t. For the sake of equality of opportunity we ought to figure out a way to interdict this type of selfish behavior.”

Swift lamented the improbability for success “as long as children are entrusted to the care of their own parents. If all children could be separated from their parents at an early age and raised by childcare professionals, a more uniform experience would be more easily ensured. All or none could be read to as seems most conducive to the collective well-being of society.”

ACLU Calls Surveillance of Baltimore Riots an “Invasion of Privacy”

The American Civil Liberties Union demanded an end to the use of government drone aircraft to “spy” on those looting and burning buildings in Baltimore.

Persons walking the streets should not be faced with such an intrusive violation of their privacy,” declared ACLU spokesman Bertram Petty. “Officials need to present a ‘probable cause’ case to observe a specific individual suspected of a specific crime. They have no authority for a general surveillance of an entire city.”

Petty also questioned whether the looting and burning would even qualify as crimes, per se. “The title to the property being removed from the businesses is unclear,” Petty argued. “Some of the ancestors of the current white business owners were surely slaveholders. The wealth passed down to them was obtained by the exploitation of the ancestors of some of the current looters. On top of this, any pain they may have suffered from seeing their businesses burn can’t possibly exceed the pain suffered by slaves who were whipped or worse by their white masters.”

President Obama endorsed the ACLU move. “The unrest in places like Baltimore and Ferguson are the natural consequences of white indifference to the plight of Black men,” Obama asserted. “Shut out of lucrative employment by racial discrimination Black men have no alternative but to resort to crime just to make a living. Taking the initiative to sell drugs or steal property puts them at risk of being shot by police. This perpetuates the racial injustices that have stained America’s history.”

The president issued a call for “a nationwide mobilization to reverse inequalities and redistribute the nation’s wealth more fairly among all its people. If victims of injustice could have confidence that the government would redistribute wealth they would have no need to attempt an ad hoc redistribution through looting.”

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.

McCain Below 50 Percent … and Vulnerable!

A Breitbart report by Michelle Moons demonstrates that Senator John McCain’s approval rating is sharply declining. What she does not report is that when McCain is up for Senate re-election,  as he is in 2016, he will do everything he can to destroy his Republican primary opponents. Any and all opponents will best be wary of  nasty mud-slinging by McCain and his friends.

Five-term incumbentSen. John McCain (R-AZ) has good reason to fear a primary challenge. Newly released data from liberal-leaning Public Policy Polling shows half of Arizona’s Republican primary voters disapprove of McCain’s job performance, and more than half would prefer a more conservative Senate candidate in 2016.

After more than three decades in Washington, McCain earns merely 41 percent approval from Arizona Republicans and 36 percent from general Arizona voters, PPP finds. Just 37 percent reported a willingness to support the Senator in his 2016 re-election bid.

In the days leading up to his re-election declaration, McCain and wife Cindy each released letters asking for financial support.

Notably, 51 percent of those surveyed in the poll indicated a desire for someone more conservative than as the 2016 Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Arizona.

The result comes as little surprise, considering that members of McCain’s own party officially censured him on the basis that he has “amassed a long and terrible record of drafting, co-sponsoring and voting for legislation best associated with liberal Democrats, such as amnesty, funding for ObamaCare, the debt ceiling, assaults on the Constitution and 2nd amendment, and has continued to support liberal nominees.”

Since that censure, McCain has accordingly voiced expectation that he will face a primary challenger in 2016.

Large percentages of survey respondents took no position, favorable or unfavorable, on potential McCain challengers State Senator Kelli Ward or former gubernatorial candidate Christine Jones.

With the 2016 primary elections still a year away, McCain’s extensive tenure gives him a big advantage in name ID. Still, every potential McCain challenger measured against the incumbent fell short of overcoming him, though all came within striking distance.

According to poll results, “McCain leads Congressman David Scheikert 40-39 percent, Congressman Matt Salmon 42-40 percent, Kelli Ward 44-31 percent, and Christine Jones 48-27 percent.

State Senator Ward has come the closest to declaring. She opened an exploratory committee in April and has been weighing whether the financial and logistical path to victory is there. She has characterized a McCain challenge as a classic David versus Goliath battle.

Arizonans have a vested interest in border security as residents of a border state. McCain’s critics are unlikely to let the entrenched Washington legislator forget the 2010 “build the danged fence” campaign that McCain launched to shore up his [faux] conservative record. But as many continue to point out, there’s still no “danged fence.”

Each potential challenger is said to have time yet to make an official decision and it appears they are taking that time to weigh whether each can gather the necessary support to take on the political goliath.