Administration Brochure Touts Food Stamp Benefits for Foreigners
John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News
It was recently discovered that the Obama Administration has been working jointly with the Mexican government to inform that country’s illegal migrants to the United States of their “rights to government food assistance.”
The product of this cooperative undertaking is a Spanish-language flyer supplied to the Mexican Embassy by the US Department of Agriculture. The flyer asserts that “even those who enter America illegally are still entitled to certain benefits” and explains how these “undocumented persons” may secure these benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala) called the revelation “evidence of a dangerously misguided policy. We are $16 trillion in debt. Adding foreign nationals to our welfare rolls is fiscally irresponsible.”
U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack defended the outreach program saying “it clearly falls within the nation’s proud tradition of welcoming newcomers to our shores. Doesn’t our Statue of Liberty ask the world to give us their poor and hungry masses yearning to live free? How can we not feed them once they get here? Wouldn’t that be breach of promise?”
Vilsack hastened to point out that “our efforts aren’t confined to Mexicans. We’re very ecumenical in our outlook. One of the guys who bombed the Boston Marathon was a beneficiary of the SNAP food subsidies. We didn’t pry into his private life. We didn’t question his beliefs. To us he was a human being in need of help. That he may have been ungrateful for that help is something we can’t control. Should we let this unfortunate turn of events change who we are? Isn’t this when we’re supposed to turn the other cheek?”
Election Fraud Conviction Labeled “Irrelevant”
Former St. Joseph County Democratic party Chairman Butch Morgan, Jr. was found guilty of felony conspiracy counts to commit petition fraud and forgery, and former county Board of Elections worker Dustin Blythe was found guilty of felony forgery counts and falsely making a petition, after being accused of fabricating signatures on petitions that enabled Senator Barack Obama, to get on the presidential primary ballot in 2008. The finding means that Obama lacked sufficient valid signatures to qualify.
Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, David Plouffe, labeled the convictions “irrelevant and of no consequence. Look, we’re talking about a few hundred forged signatures in one Indiana county. In the end, 69 million votes were recorded for Barack Obama. He was clearly the choice of a majority of Americans. What’s the difference if there were a few minor irregularities in the process on his way to the presidency?”
Plouffe said hoped that “the punishment for these two longtime Democratic Party stalwarts wouldn’t be too harsh. I think we have to consider intent. Election rules can be complex and picayune. The time spent complying could be put to better use doing something else. These officials were only trying to enable the most qualified person to succeed. Since that intent was fulfilled we should forgive any missteps that occurred.”
Boston Bombing May Lead to Crackdown on Public Use of Cameras
One of the lessons the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is taking away from the Boston Marathon bombing is the “potential for phone cameras and video recorders being used to plan these kinds of attacks.”
Secretary Janet Napolitano says DHS is “looking into the inherent threat posed by unauthorized use of these devices, especially in heavily trafficked public places. Law enforcement personnel at every level need to be on alert for people deploying these devices.”
Napolitano professed to be “especially concerned that government officers in the midst of carrying out the directives of higher authorities might be intimidated by fears that their actions are being secretly recorded.”
In related news, those who want an iconic photo of President Obama observing a moment of silence in memory of the victims of the bombing should contact Democratic National Committee headquarters (ph. 202-863-8000). Chairwoman Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz urged everyone “to commemorate this tragic and historic moment by obtaining this portrait of our indomitable leader and simultaneously making a donation to help ensure that the Party has the funding needed to continue promoting its agenda.”
House Report Faults Administration for Benghazi Attack
An interim report for the US House of Representatives on last September’s slaying of the US Ambassador and three other Americans laid the blame squarely on Obama Administration officials. Specifically cited was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s approval of reduced security.
The report found “serious inconsistencies between the documentary record and Secretary Clinton’s testimony under oath to Congress” and suggested that “a prima facie case for a charge of perjury has been laid.”
Press Secretary Jay Carney scoffed at the report’s “so called evidence. The revelation of documents with Secretary Clinton’s signature on them authorizing reductions in security doesn’t mean anything. It certainly doesn’t prove that she knew what she was signing or that she even read those documents. Signing papers put in front of them is what the officers of government do. Insisting this means they bear responsibility is a stretch.”
To bolster his case, Carney recalled “Congress’ habit of passing legislation they haven’t read. It’s like the pot calling the kettle black. The US Government is such a huge operation that running it is beyond a normal person’s capability. Congress ought to be cutting us some slack instead of honing in on every little mistake we make.”
Carney gave long odds to the possibility that the perjury issue would go anywhere. “I seem to recall that there were ‘inconsistencies’ in some of former President Clinton’s statements under oath,” Carney remembered. “Was he prosecuted? No. No one had the guts to open that can of worms. Secretary Clinton will get a pass. She’s a private citizen now and should be allowed to enjoy her retirement without being dogged by accusations.”
DHS Explains Huge AMMO Needs
Congressional inquiry into the Department of Homeland Security’s huge ammunition acquisitions spurred agency officials to try to explain what is going on. At current inventory levels, DHS has four to five times as many bullets for its officers as the US Army has for our troops.
DHS training officer Humberto Medina pointed out that “the Army faces known enemies in numbers far smaller than we have to consider. I mean, Afghanistan’s population is tiny compared to that of the United States. And the Army can supplement with aerial and artillery bombardment. We don’t have that capacity at this time.”
Medina also suggested that “Army troops are better trained and more accurate shooters than the majority of those we’ve recruited for Homeland Security. So it stands to reason that we’d need to fire more rounds to hit any given target, whether it be in a training exercise or, heaven forbid, suppressing an insurrection. In a nation with over 300 million potential enemies an inventory of billions of bullets doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.”
Nick Nayak, DHS’ chief procurement officer, offered an alternative explanation for the recent surge in ammo purchases. “The notion that we are specifically targeting civilians is overwrought,” he said. “People don’t understand the way federal budgeting works. If we end the year with unspent funds that money is lost to us. Our surplus would then be used by the Administration’s enemies to argue for reduced spending in the next budget cycle. In that context, buying a billion bullets that we may never use seemed to be our best option.”
Mayor Downplays Indication that NYC Was Boston Bombers’ Next Target
A statement from captured bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and corroborated by the terrorists’ carjack victim that New York City’s Times Square was the next target was met with surprising calm by Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
“As horrific as the Boston Marathon bombing was or that a similar attack in Times Square might’ve been, the carnage entailed cannot match that wreaked on our citizens by sugar-laden soft drinks,” Bloomberg said. “The Boston bomb claimed the lives of three innocent victims and maimed dozens more. Sugary soft drinks kill and incapacitate far more on an annual basis.”
Bloomberg insisted that “we should not be diverted from the bigger threat to our health and well-being just because a bomb is a louder and messier way to kill people. The argument that sugary soft drinks are a voluntary choice is a smokescreen meant to obscure our social obligation to be our brothers’ keepers.”
The Mayor sought to assure that his concerns about people’s unhealthy habits “is not my sole focus. I think recent events in Boston and Newtown are clear warnings that our interpretation of the rights protected by the Constitution must undergo an evolution.”
“Take, for example, the Fourth Amendment’s bar to ‘unreasonable searches and seizures,’” Bloomberg added. “Given the speed with which criminals can carry out their crimes is it truly unreasonable for police to enter any place and seize weapons or dangerous materials before they can be used? As we saw from the successful manhunt that captured the Boston bomber, citizens don’t mind warrant-less searches of their homes. So, should we really let rigid adherence to an ancient document overrule contemporary common sense?”
A Satirical Look at Recent News
Please do us a favor. If you use material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit, and do not change the context. Thank you.
Maricopa County Residents Scammed by Supervisors
“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Benjamin Franklin
The American Post-Gazette reports …
When are the adults going to take over? Even the judges are figuring out the Supervisors’ little scam, and are refusing to allow more million dollar settlements to Conley Wolfswinkel and Mary Rose Wilcox. After it was clear that the judge was not going to approve convicted felon and Don Stapley business partner Conley Wolfswinkel’s lawsuit against the county over “stress” from Arpaio and Thomas prosecuting him, Wolfswinkel went to the county supervisors and demanded a payout. They awarded him $1.4 million this morning, the largest settlement yet. Next up for a generous settlement offer of YOUR money will be disgraced former Don Stapley, who was so corrupt he didn’t dare run for reelection last year.
Here are other settlements that have already been awarded, a waste of OUR taxpayer money, courtesy of the supervisors, who are always eager to give their pals and themselves handouts in the name of making Arpaio look bad -
* Supervisor Andrew Kunasek; $123,000.
* Retired Judge Barbara Rodriguez Mundell; $500,000
* Susan Schuerman, executive assistant for former Supervisor Don Stapley; $500,000
* Retired Judge Anna Baca; $100,000
* Retired Judge Kenneth Fields; $100,000
* Steve Wetzel, Maricopa Chief Information Officer; $75,000
Obama, Democrats would have Left Watertown Residents Unarmed, at Killer’s Mercy
Okay, so put yourself in the place of those Watertown, Mass., residents in the search area for Tsarnaev.
You’ve been told to stay indoors for your own safety. Don’t go to work. Don’t go shopping. It’s not safe out there.
The police, FBI and SWAT teams are canvassing your entire neighborhood.
You’re tense. Everyone’s tense. You just wish this would be over, justice would be served, they’d catch this cold-blooded, murdering creep.
For your own protection … you make sure you have your gun at the ready.
Oh … but wait.
President Obama and the Democrats don’t want you to be able to protect yourself.
Too bad for you. If Tsarnaev breaks into your home … you’re a sitting duck. Your gun has been confiscated. All you’ve got left is hope that the police can find your home in time to protect you. By the time they get to your house, you and your loved ones could be dead.
This is exactly the life-threatening bind Obama and the Democrats want to put you in.
They want to put good, honest, law-abiding citizens like you at risk. At the mercy of home invaders, criminals … who would face no resistance from you. They’d have the confidence to do anything they want against an unarmed populace.
Think about it. This is what they want.
Boston Bombing Inspires Array of Reactions
John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News
Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano denied that the Administration’s 45% cut in the budget for bomb prevention would have made any difference. “As I have said many times before, the greatest threat comes from right-wing extremists,” Napolitano maintained. “Even at the lower funding amounts we have successfully continued to suppress this most dangerous element. We, like everyone else, were taken completely by surprise by these Muslim extremists.”
Minority Whip Representative Steny Hoyer (D-Md) blamed the bombing on the “Republican sequester.” Hoyer was unmoved by the seeming illogic of casting the sequester’s 2% decrease in spending growth as decisive. Neither was he deterred by the fact that the sequester was President Obama’s idea. “Well, the President never thought it would stick,” Hoyer retorted. “Besides, everybody now thinks it was the GOP’s idea.”
Representative Peter King (R-NY) asked that “retailers be required to report persons who buy pressure cookers, pellets, ball bearings, or nails—anything that might be used to construct a bomb—to police. I’ve been working on legislation to require beefed up background checks for gun purchases, and that’s important, but as events in Boston have shown, we may need background checks for a wider range of potentially dangerous items.”
Former Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass) contended that “the bombing thoroughly rebuts the case for small government. I think that most people would eagerly exchange the freedom that right-wingers are saying is the American birthright for a government big enough to protect them from being blown away. A government with the manpower to search every bag and pat down every person entering any public transportation vehicle or any building that is open to the public would have the support of an overwhelming majority of voters.”
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel saw the incident as evidence for the superiority of police surveillance over an armed citizenry for defending the country. “I would say that even if everyone in the country were armed they’d still be vulnerable to terrorist bombs,” Emanuel argued. “I’d make the case that if all the money people spend on buying guns were instead invested in more extensive surveillance government would be better prepared to apprehend the perpetrators of heinous crimes and counter any threats to existing authority.”
Former GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney espied a “silver lining in this terrible tragedy. We saw President Obama give a superb speech at the memorial. It was much better than I could’ve done. In hindsight, I guess I’d have to say the voters made the right decision last November.”
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews called the indication that the bombing was undertaken by Islamic jihadis “truly disappointing. If it had been a Timothy McVeigh type of guy we could’ve used that to bolster the President’s campaign for gun control. Now every redneck in the country is going to think he needs a gun to fight off alien enemies. It’s a crucial lost opportunity.”
The revelation that the attack was carried out by two ex-patriots moved Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov to blame the crime on America’s “toxic values. The appalling depravity that is on display in every corner of the country drove these two deeply religious young men to strike a blow for decency.” Kadyrov rued the slaying of one of the bombers as a “true tragedy. America’s violent culture has claimed yet another innocent victim.”
President Endorses Rubio Immigration Legislation
President Obama heartily endorsed Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio’s proposed 800-page immigration reform bill. “This bill would speed the normalization of life for immigrants already living here while providing the Administration with much needed flexibility in enforcement,” Obama declared.
Under the bill, all those currently living here illegally would be granted amnesty if they come forward and identify themselves. At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be given five years to come up with a plan for improving border security.
“The trust Senator Rubio’s bill demonstrates for our efforts to manage the problem is impressive,” the President said. “I have been told that there are over 400 categories under which officers of the DHS would have the authority to exempt or excuse actions taken by those who have entered the country illegally. This latitude moves us from a position of rigid reliance upon written rules to one where human judgment can intervene. It makes me confident that real people rather than static words will govern the America of the future.”
Tension with North Korea Builds
Saying he was “fed up with the nutso actions of this goofball gook,” Secretary of State John Kerry threatened North Korea’s Kim Jong-un “if he continues to taunt us with his threats to launch his nuclear missile.”
The former decorated Vietnam veteran warned Kim “Don’t make me come over there. If I have to I will kill you and cut off your ears. Don’t think I won’t. I’ve done it before. In case you weren’t aware, I served in Vietnam. And if you ask those who served with me they’ll tell you I was a virtual Genghis Khan. So, don’t mess with me.”
Meanwhile, President Obama expressed his disbelief that North Korea even possesses a nuclear missile. “I don’t believe that have such a device,” Obama asserted. “I’m calling their bluff. I say go ahead and launch it.”
The words of the President and Secretary of State appeared to have little impact on Kim who vowed he would destroy the United States unless his demands are met. The demands are reported to include immediate withdrawal of all US armed forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, complete dismantling of all US intercontinental missiles, the payment of $3 trillion in reparations for the Korean War, and the appointment of former NBA basketball player Dennis Rodman as US Ambassador to Korea.
Kerry said he “would be willing to accept all of these demands except one as the basis for further discussions aimed at a peaceful resolution of our two nations’ differences. There’s no way the President can support the appointment of Dennis Rodman as ambassador to anywhere. He simply has not made a big enough donation to the Democratic Party.”
In related news, Kerry urged Congress to drop further investigation of last September’s attack on US Embassy personnel in Benghazi. “I think former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put this issue into its proper focus when she asked, ‘at this point what difference does it make?’ We can’t revive those who were killed. And now that the person who was in charge has left the government what’s the point of trying to allocate responsibility?”
Administration Pressures Washington DOT
A series of signs critical of President Obama may cost the State of Washington its share of federal aid for highway construction. The signs are on private property but can be seen by travelers on I-5 about 90 miles south of Seattle near the town of Chehalis.
“Interstate highways are 90% funded by the federal government,” said USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood. “It is improper that they be exploited for the communication of messages opposing the government.”
The Secretary added “we’d regret having to resort to withholding funds, but when people don’t show the appropriate respect for all the President is trying to do for the country we can’t just sit back and take it. State officials aren’t going to be allowed to hide behind a ‘freedom-of-speech’ argument in order to evade taking action. We think the prospect of losing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid will inspire them to find a way to eliminate these affronts.”
WSDOT CEO Lynn Peterson acknowledged “feeling frustrated by the difficult position we’re in. We can’t afford to lose this money. Our contention that there is no proof the signs are having any impact was rejected by the USDOT. They say that waiting for proof would set a bad precedent.”
“We can’t just tear down the signs,” Peterson complained. “We don’t own the property they’re on. Trying to screen them from view is impractical. Any obstruction we might erect on our right-of-way could simply be avoided by moving the offending signs a few dozen yards. Our best bet might be to try to induce the locals to take action.”
The “inducement” reportedly under consideration is a threat by WSDOT to close the Chehalis on-ramp to I-5. The idea is that if drivers from the local area lose their access to the highway they may prevail upon the town council to zone these signs out. It’s also felt that fear of possible retaliation from angry neighbors might cause the owners of these signs to take them down themselves.
Dem Admits Gun Bill Wouldn’t Have Prevented Newtown Massacre
Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), author of a just defeated gun control bill, acknowledged that “this bill wouldn’t have prevented the murder of those Sandy Hook school kids. In fact, it’s likely that nothing we could pass would impede any determined criminal from carrying out plans to kill innocent victims.”
“The point is to overcome a feeling of helplessness by giving the appearance of remedial action,” Manchin explained. “The only thing that might deter or decrease the body count in these shooting sprees would be if an armed victim or good Samaritan were to cut the spree short by returning fire. The problem with this, though, is that it would vindicate a world view that we Democrats find extraordinarily distasteful.”
A Satirical Look at Recent News
Please do us a favor. If you use material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit, and do not change the context. Thank you.
Mark Steyn on Boston Massacre, Obama’s Petulance, Lack of GOP Leadership
Transcript of Thursday’s interview of Mark Steyn on the Hugh Hewitt radio program:
HH: I begin this Thursday as I do those in which we are lucky with Columnist To the World, Mark Steyn. You can read all that Mark writes at http://www.steynonline.com. Mark, do you think it’s possible the ball cap bombers are stupid enough to still be in the country?
MS: Well, that’s an interesting question, Hugh. I mean, in theory, they’re, four hours after the explosions, they could have driven north and crossed a sleepy Canadian border crossing and been out of the country. On the other hand, if they are foreign visitors to the United States, since 9/11, there’s been the introduction of a vast range of facial recognition stuff. Everybody who’s not a U.S. citizen has to have his eyeballs photographed, fingerprinted, and photographs taken when they enter the United States. And if that stuff’s going to work, you’ve got to believe that they’ve cross-referenced these pictures with the photographs of people who entered the country recently and have tried to leave it recently. So I suspect the FBI already know the answer to that question.
HH: Now Andrew McCarthy said on this program yesterday, former federal prosecutor of the Blind Sheik, that if you have to go public with the photos, you’re in a pretty bad spot from an investigatory position. Do you agree with that?
MS: Yeah, I think that’s true. And just to go back to what I was saying earlier, I think that means that they’ve run them all through the immense number of new databases and new security checks that have been introduced since 9/11, and they’ve come up empty. And that’s why they’re standing in a room in Boston saying does this still ring any bells with anybody?
HH: Any reaction to the video, Mark, as it was played less than an hour ago?
MS: Yeah, I mean, I think this is an interesting question. I mean, I don’t want to prejudge anything here, and I find it rather weird the way people have been desperate that the killer should fit their particular biases. This guy who wrote this article at Salon saying I hope and pray that it is a white male American. Obviously, the guys in the baseball caps didn’t look like white male Americans. It doesn’t mean anything. They could be native-born Americans of one particular ethnicity or another. They could be a foreign student studying in Boston. But here’s the point. It would be, the idea that this would be a kind of official credentialed, card-carrying member of al Qaeda terrorist attack would mark a real change in strategy for al Qaeda. I remember shortly after 9/11 standing on my town common the Saturday after 9/11, and there was a little sort of town fair and people selling this and that and all the rest of it, and saying to a neighbor of mine, you know, that if I was these guys, I’d blow up somewhere like here next, in other words, to say that nothing is safe. We can not only take out the great iconic landmarks of New York, but you can go to some nowhere town in the middle of Nowheresville, and we’ll kill couple of people there, too. And they didn’t do that, al Qaeda. They’ve gone for big iconic targets, whether it’s in the U.S. or the London Tube bombings. And to do something like this in Boston, where they just, they kill a relatively small number of people, it would mark a change, a real change if this was to be any kind of official al Qaeda act.
HH: And more, we will follow in the weeks ahead. Now I want to switch over to leadership. I wrote a column at Townhall.com today, Mark, after the President’s rant in the Rose Garden yesterday. And I’m mad at the Republicans as well, and in the House, Dave Camp, who leads Ways And Means, is blocking tax reform in order to do a deal with Max Baucus. And I just look around Washington, D.C, and I see a complete collapse of leadership. But yesterday in the Rose Garden was the worst. What did you make of the President’s fit of pique yesterday?
MS: Yeah, it was interesting to me. It reminded me a bit of, in a less dramatic way, of Bill Clinton when he’d been grilled by the Grand Jury, and made the mistake of going on national television afterwards when he was still steamed about it. And he let loose on TV for about three minutes. And for just those three minutes, for the first time, America glimpsed the real Bill Clinton, petulant, whiny, unlikable. And that was exactly the mistake that Obama made yesterday, a glimpse of a side of him that he’s held very carefully under control now for the five years he’s been on the national stage. And so in that sense, I think it was a big mistake. The other thing is I think this just reveals what happens when you elect a guy as national leader who comes from a perfect left wing bubble. The voting precinct he lives in, in Chicago, voted, I think it was 97% Democrat. He’s not used to a world where you have to take the views of your political opponents seriously. And the idea that simply be demagoguing the issue, by virtue of the fact that he demagogued it so effectively, the opposition should have caved and let him have his way, I think he illustrated why in a sense, he’s at odds with the American Constitutional order, which has a big degree of bipartisanship and compromise and reach across the aisle type stuff built into it. This is not a guy who does that kind of thing.
HH: Now the American Constitutional order also calls, regular order is the catch phrase of the day, it calls for the House passing a tax bill, being sent to the Senate, the Senate does what it does, sends it back, you have a conference, they agree or they don’t, if they do agree, it goes to the President and he signs or he doesn’t, and they come back and they have a veto override. That’s regular order. And John Boehner, the Speaker, has said he’s pledged to it. But underway in the House right now, Mark, and I know you’re sitting in for Rush tomorrow, and I hope you hammer the House Republicans, and especially Michigan’s David Camp on this, they are sitting on tax repeal. They’re not doing it because Dave Camp wants to do a big deal with Max Baucus. Why in the world do the Republicans want to do anything with Max Baucus?
MS: No, I don’t get that, and I take what you say. I have a respect for the U.S. Constitution, and I have a respect for Congressional procedure. But there’s no doubt that basically we’re living in a world where Congress and the executive are winging it. That’s what they’ve been, they’ve been doing what they want. The President never offers a budget on time, the Senate never offers a budget at all, I mean, basically, the idea…and then every so often, they’ll dredge up some bit of cobwebbed parliamentary procedure and decide that they’re going to stick to it. But essentially, the Republicans who are the majority in the House have been unable in the last two years to make that majority mean anything. And the disenchantment on the right, the disenchantment on the right is real. I mean, what would be the point? I mean, there’s a fatalism on the right that a lot of people think they’ll lose the House in 2014, but that even if they win the House, big deal. What do they get? What do they have to show for it?
HH: Well that, this comes down to the leadership of House Republicans. I think Cantor and McCarthy and Paul Ryan are doing a fine job, but I think the Speaker is old school, and he lets these committee chairmen do or do nothing as they care, and I frankly have had it with them. I don’t know why anyone gets excited about House Republicans anymore. Do you know anyone, anyone at all in our world of broadcast and commentary who is excited about the House Republicans?
MS: No, but I don’t really know anybody who’s excited about them in the…you know, the people who have to go knock on doors, the people who have to make phone calls, the people who have to ensure that there’s turnout when you don’t have a glamorous celebrity at the top of the ticket like Obama. And I remember a few years ago, Newt Gingrich came and gave a speech in New Hampshire. And this was just before 2006. And he was asked, you know, why has the Republican House been such a disappointment? This was in the Denny Hastert days. And he said well, what you have to remember is the Republicans aren’t used to being in the leadership and running the House. Now at that point, they had been running the House for over a decade.
HH: Yup.
MS: It was the time of the new Iraq Constitution. The Iraqis are supposed to get the hang of free constitutional responsible government in 20 minutes, but the Republican Party can’t be expected to get the hang of it in a decade. And it sounds pathetic. The one thing one has to admire about the Democrats, they did it when they took over here in my own state in New Hampshire, is they don’t just think it’s about occupying the corner office and having a driver, and having a fancy title on your business card. They use it. From the word go, they’re passing this and they’re passing that. Obama was obvious, the country didn’t want Obamacare. He got out his mallet, and he hammered it down the American people’s throat regardless. The Republicans never show that determination.
HH: No, they don’t, and as a result, they’re going to give up that which they do not use. Mark Steyn, look forward to hearing you tomorrow on the national, the absolutely legal immigration show tomorrow as Mark sits in for Rush. Don’t miss that, America.
America Sees the Real Obama, Angry Agitator
“Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.”
Remember these words? They’re the president’s words, from his 2009 speech at Notre Dame University calling for opponents and proponents of abortion to just get along.
But that’s all out the window now. This week an angry president angrily denounced the National Rifle Association and Second Amendment protectors. He called them liars after an unconstitutional gun control bill suffered a stinging defeat in the U.S. Senate this week.
So it is apparent the president never was serious about staying above the fray and setting a tone of civil discourse. That was all just talk, just typical rhetoric.
We saw the real Obama, flaring anger, doing what comes natural to him: agitating. The pretense of civility is over.
And don’t bet the farm on the University of Arizona’s National Institute for Civil Discourse ever mentioning the president’s insolence and incivility. It’s never mentioned any of his uncivil remarks, not
even his labeling of opponents as “enemies.” Nor his racist remarks about his white grandmother.
It’s obvious Obama, Democrats in general, and their rage-aholic friends at MSNBC are insulated against any attention from the National Institute for Civil Discourse.
We visited the institute’s website this week to see what it’s up to. The most recent news there is the winning entries in the National Institute for Civil Discourse’s essay contests.
One of the two winners is author Stephen D. Konieczka, Ph.D., educator and researcher at the University of Colorado. Dr. Konieczka’s work focuses on socio-cultural talk and discourses of democratic governance, participatory politics, and community development. His winning essay is titled “The Armory as Argument: Cultural Communication Practices and the (Dangerous) Prospects for Civil Discourse about Gun Violence in the U.S.” Here’s an entry from that essay:
“Having defined communicative aggression and at least one alternative,27 the second task is to identify contexts where aggressive communication is the norm in everyday interaction. The list of situations where aggressive communication is valued in U.S. culture is perhaps endless; from “trash talk” on the field to slanders outside the women’s health clinic, words that devalue other people are all to common within institutions and systems in which individuals are organized and related. Perhaps the most important contexts in which aggressive communication is today celebrated is the olitical and/or governmental sphere (including reporting thereof). U.S. politics has never been a civil sport, but over the last 20 years or so, it appears to have increasingly little room for reasoned, responsible, and respectful argument. The media personality Tucker Carlson has best evidenced the perceived value of aggression in U.S. politics, declaring in 2007 that then Senator Obama “sound[ed] like a pothead” when the presidential candidate opined that “we have lost the capacity to recognize ourselves in each other . . . [producing] an empathy deficit.”
Notice there is no mention of the radical leftists who daily spew anger and hate at conservatives and Christians on MSNBC and other shrill left-stream media outlets.
There is no mention of tho radicals who shouted down opponents of the City of Phoenix’s bathroom bill trying to speak at a public hearing earlier this year.
Konieczka takes an accusatory swing at gun owners and de-legitimizes gun ownership as a means of self defense.
He unfairly attacks peaceful pro-life witnesses at abortion factories as “slanderers.”
He nitpicks on a conservative statement by Tucker Carlson while refusing to pick from any of the hundreds of hateful remarks by Ed Schultz and Chris Matthews, not to mention the countless hateful remarks from many on the Left.
Clearly the NICD is endorsing this biased writing — celebrating it with an uncritical eye.
The NICD is dominated by left-wingers like honorary co-chairman Bill Clinton and others. It is window dressing, serving no useful purpose. In its two years, it has refused to call out any real practitioners of uncivil discourse.
Bisbee Won’t Challenge Arizona Marriage Law
Bisbsee city officials will not attempt to do an end-run around Arizona marriage law by allowing the counterfeit civil unions it approved last week.
Arizona’s Attorney General Tom Horne had threatened to take the city to court for defying state marriage law, and the city backed down.
Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, said in an email alert tonight: “Today, the City of Bisbee acknowledged what we’ve said all along: Bisbee lacks the legal authority to enact a so-called “civil unions” ordinance that grants marital-type benefits to unmarried individuals. The city now plans to revise the recently adopted ordinance.”
Also, Herrod said the power to grants marital benefits is a power reserved to the state and the voters of Arizona. In 2008, Arizonans strongly voted in support of marriage being defined as the union of one man and one woman.
“While this debate is far from over, today’s announcement is a victory for the rule of law, and the will of voters,” Herrod said.
Obamacare Unworkable, GOP Blamed
John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News
The unforeseen difficulties of implementing the Affordable Health Care Act (aka Obamacare) have key proponents scrambling for answers.
Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), one of the leading writers of the Obamacare legislation, now calls the program “complex beyond comprehension. We had hoped that somehow, someone would’ve come up with sensible procedures for how the thing is supposed to work, but no such luck. The system’s as opaque as the day we passed it. Our high hopes are crashing down around us.”
US Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius blames Republicans for the mess. “Instead of rolling up their sleeves and helping us figure out how to implement this they’re just standing aside and letting us flounder,” she complained. “In a way they could be considered traitors to the common good.”
A few of the steps Republicans could be taking according to Sebelius include “appropriating additional funding to cover the unexpectedly higher costs of the program. While it had been our hope that comprehensive health care coverage would lead to lower costs, this sadly, has not turned out to be the case. “
Especially rankling to the Secretary has been the widespread refusal of states to establish the insurance exchanges called for in the law. “The law gives states the option to set up their own exchanges,” Sebelius pointed out. “Unfortunately, the majority of states controlled by the GOP have declined to take up this option. It’s like they’re saying ‘you made your bed, now lie in it.’ I say, we’ve already done our part. We came up with the idea. Now it’s their turn to do their share to make it happen.”
Majority of Democrats Have Favorable View of Income Tax
A recent Washington Post-ABC poll revealed that a majority (53%) of Democrats have a favorable impression of the federal income tax. Inasmuch as the cost of complying with this tax exceeds $400 billion per year and amounts to more than 20% of the revenues collected, this finding is a bit surprisng.
Even the liberal leaning Brookings Institution has characterized the federal income tax code as “a hopelessly complex mess, antithetical to growth, and crammed with conflicting incentives.” Though simplifying the code would save millions of man-hours of labor and billions of dollars expended on needless paperwork each year, it would also blunt the ability of politicians to trade tax breaks for campaign donations.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), enforcers of the tax code, are notorious for their robust approach to squeezing every dime they can out of those they deem worthy of paying larger amounts. The IRS has asserted that they have the authority to intercept emails, tweets, and other online communications without having to obtain a warrant. The IRS contends that the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches makes no mention of electronic media.
As obnoxious as the IRS is to individual rights to privacy and liberty, the IRS is also perceived favorably by a majority (56%) of Democrats. As one Democratic poll respondent explained, “they only go after rich people who don’t want to share their money. What’s not to like about that?” “Every year they send me a refund check,” said another. “They’re okay in my book.”
In contrast, the poll showed only a minority of Republicans (30%) and Independents (33%) have a favorable view of the federal income tax.
President Proposes Mandatory IRAs, 401(k)s
As part of his budget proposal, President Obama is asking Congress to compel all working Americans to establish tax-deferred retirement accounts—either Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) or 401(k) “defined contribution plans.”
US Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew explained that “the President is trying to inject a modicum of personal responsibility into the whole retirement planning scenario. The amounts that can be provided by Social Security are limited and may not even be available to the next generation. Yet, fewer than 10% of those eligible for these special tax-deferred retirement accounts take advantage of their opportunity. By forcing them to participate we would be priming them for the idea that they should take more care for their own post-employment years.”
At the same time that workers will be required to establish these accounts they will be barred from accumulating more than $3 million in them. “No one needs more than that amount to secure a comfortable retirement,” Lew declared. “Should a taxpayer be so lucky as to see his investment grow to exceed the $3 million threshold he shouldn’t mind if the government siphons off the excess to fund other pressing needs.”
Senator’s Pitch for Liberty Fails to Move Minority Audience
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s efforts to sell liberty to a mostly minority audience at Howard University collided with the enticements of the entitlement mentality. His vision of “getting the government off your back” failed to resonate with students who expect the government to provide for them.
“You say you’re working to get the government to leave us alone,” said one student during the question and answer phase of Paul’s talk. “I don’t want to be left alone. I want the
government to take care of me. In your ideal world I’d be on my own. I’d have to work for everything I want. I don’t see why I should prefer that to the world President Obama is creating where the good things of life are free for the taking.”
The Senator did receive some modest applause for his suggestion that America reduce its foreign military commitments, but his hope that this would lead to lower government expenditures did not go over well. “I like the idea of cutting back on bullets and bombs,” said one student. “This is money the government could be spending on people like me. They could buy me a house and a car with the kind of cash they’re wasting trying to conquer other countries.”
Obama Calls for Federally-Funded Pre-School for Four Year Olds
Saying that too many of our children are ill-prepared for the world of the future, President Obama urged Congress to enact federal funding for pre-schools.
“We need to replace the idiosyncratic influences of our ‘do-it-yourself’ methods of child rearing with a more cohesive approach,” the President said. “Leaving so much of the responsibility on each individual family is a formula for chaos. Different parents seek to instill different value systems. The result is that clashes of these value systems impede coordinated progress toward the collective well-being of all.”
“In addition to providing an environment for the inculcation of better values, a federally-funded pre-school program would alleviate a significant amount of parental suffering,” Obama added. “Having a place to ship your four-year-old off to each day for a few hours gives the parents extra free time they can spend on more satisfying pursuits while their child is under the capable care and instruction of trained education professionals.”
Future Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) endorsed the President’s proposal pointing out that “as Melissa Harris-Perry said on TV the other day, we’ve got to get past the notion that children belong to their parents. Children belong to the community. China understands this and has been pursuing an even more aggressive intervention with its children in order to ensure that a more uniform system of rearing the young contributes to a stronger and more unified nation. We need to get moving if we are to keep pace.”
EPA Blames Sequester for Release of Personal Info on Farmers
Under criticism for handing over personal data on farmers and ranchers to environmental groups, the Environmental Protection Agency defended its actions as “cost-effective under current budget constraints.”
“Normally, we’d harry these despoilers of the environment ourselves,” said Bob Perciasepe, Acting EPA Administrator. “But with the budget being hemmed in by the sequester we have to seek other ways of achieving our objectives. We saw arming these environmental groups with potentially useful information as a way of multiplying or leveraging our forces. We thought we’d get more bang for the buck, so to speak.”
Man Faces Charges for Shooting Bear
A 76-year-old Massachusetts man is facing weapons charges for shooting a bear in his backyard. Richard Ahlstrand of Auburn Massachusetts shot the bear when the 400 lb. animal attacked him as he was tending the bird-feeders he keeps on his property.
According to Massachusetts authorities, Ahlstrand should have called animal control officers to handle the wayward bear. “The State employs professionals trained in safe animal removal,” Rufus Bustard, spokesman for Massachusetts Attorney General. “A phone call would have brought these professionals to the scene within a matter of hours.”
Bustartd dismissed Ahlstrand’s assertion that he had only seconds to defend himself as “self-serving. Even if true, the value to society of the life of a 76 year-old vs. that of the bear is by no means certain. Maybe a jury will let him off, but it is our job to represent the interests of the wildlife that may be endangered by people like him.”
A Satirical Look at Recent News
Please do us a favor. If you use material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit, and do not change the context. Thank you.
