IRS Head Says Special Prosecutor Would Be Waste of Money

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

Citing a lenFolder2 104gthy list of suspicious coincidences—including the most recent loss of critical evidence due to a narrowly focused crash of the computers used by individuals involved in the discriminatory treatment of conservative organizations—many of the Agency’s critics have called for a “Special Prosecutor.”

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen told the House Ways and Means Committee, though, that “appointing a ‘Special Prosecutor’ to investigate alleged abuses in the Agency would be a colossal waste of money. Look, we’ve thoroughly frustrated every inquiry launched thus far. Why should anyone think we wouldn’t just as easily thwart a so-called Special Prosecutor?”

Representative Dave Camp (R-Mich), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, characterized Koskinen’s remarks as “the kind of arrogance that reeks of tyranny. This Administration and its agents act as if the law and Constitution do not apply to them.”

Koskinen taunted Camp in his reply asserting that “if Mr. Camp and his cohorts are displeased with the way we are running the Government the Constitution has a prescribed remedy they may follow. Their reluctance to take up this remedy is a testimony to their impotence. If I am construed as being disrespectful I think I am on solid ground when I say that they’ve earned it.”

Representative Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland) strenuously objected to “Camp’s rude behavior toward this dedicated civil servant. The IRS is tasked with the crucial and difficult job of recovering the nation’s resources from individuals who would siphon them off for their own personal gain. The conservative groups that the IRS targeted are aiding and abetting greedy individuals by resisting the tax increases and spending programs that are part-and-parcel of the implementation of the President’s plan to secure social justice for all.”

CFPB Announces Broad New Powers

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced in the Federal Register that it will “aggressively deploy cease and desist orders against businesses whose activities are a detriment to the nation’s well-being.” For the moment this new authority is “interim.” It is expected to become final on July 18.

“For too long the Government has sat idly by while businesses have foisted unsafe and unhealthy products on an unsuspecting public,” CFPB Director Richard Cordray charged. “Under Section 1053(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act, we are empowered to protect the general public by ordering offending businesses to cease and desist.”

Two industries that are expected to be first-in-line for a stepped up enforcement using this tool are gun manufacturers and fast food restaurants. “The sole purpose of a gun is to kill something or someone,” Cordray said. “It is an inherently unsafe product. By issuing a cease and desist order to manufacturers of these demonic devices we can bypass the inability of Congress to enact meaningful gun control laws.”

“Fast food is an even more insidious threat,” Cordray continued. “It’s probably responsible for more deaths than firearms. Yet, despite the best efforts of the First Lady businesses are still allowed to sell and consumers still allowed to buy these sickening comestibles. Well, the CFPB is going to ride to her rescue. Those who refuse to heed her request to offer healthier food choices will be shut down until they agree to comply.”

Businesses shut down by a CFPB cease and desist order could appeal the decision, but would remain closed as long as the CFPB deems warranted or until the CFPB order is overruled by a court. Either way, affected businesses could be without revenue for an extended period. Even if a court ultimately overturned a CFPB order the Agency would retain sovereign immunity for any damages suffered by shuttered businesses.

Concerned that the CFPB “may be overstepping its bounds to the detriment of both businesses and consumers,” Representative Sean Duffy (R-Wisc) has drafted legislation aimed at curbing the Agency. Whether it will go anywhere seems doubtful, though. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) denounced Duffy’s bill as “an unconstitutional infringement on the President’s right and duty to protect the American people from profiteers purveying unsafe and unhealthy products.”

In related news, First Lady Michelle Obama vowed she would “veto any legislative attempt to tamper with my school lunch program.” Schools have pressed Congress for relief from Michelle’s dietary guidelines on the grounds that students refuse to eat the food the guidelines require. The First Lady was unmoved. “Uneaten healthy food is better than eaten unhealthy food,” she argued. “Hunger will eventually bring the kids around.”

DOJ Wants to Boost Domestic Surveillance

Vowing not to allow himself to be distracted by recent events in Iraq, Attorney General Eric Holder called for increased efforts to monitor and interdict home grown threats.

“I know the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is garnering a lot of attention beheading captured foes and pledging to use the cache of poison gas it has stumbled upon while rampaging through Iraq,” Holder said. “But this must not divert our focus from the bigger threat from those in this country who have an anti-government animus.”

“ISIS is thousands of miles away,” Holder pointed out. “Bloody as their aims may be they don’t pose a significant threat to our Government. In contrast, anti-government enemies of the President are legion and much more dangerous. There are an estimated 300 million guns in private hands in this country. That’s a lot of firepower in the hands of a population that polls show to be increasingly hostile toward the President.”

“While ISIS has no known sympathizers in Congress, those with anti-government animus do,” Holder added. “Senators and Representatives think nothing of openly criticizing the President’s programs and initiatives. Worse, they engage in active stratagems intended to block them. Unlike the ISIS, the anti-government crowd in America could bring down the Administration if we don’t take more active measures to prevent it.”

One element of the active measures the Attorney General is relying upon is the Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee. Holder urged this secretive committee “to raise our surveillance of potentially disloyal citizens another notch. We must penetrate their organizations, intercept their communications, and acquire every bit of intelligence on them that we can get our hands on so we will know who they are, where they are and when to initiate the appropriate countermeasures.”

Obama Says Iran May Be Key to Pacifying Iraq

Desperate for a way out of having to accept blame for a resumption of civil war in Iraq, President Obama welcomed the intervention of Iranian troops.

“It’s a case of fighting fire with fire,” the President explained. “The ISIS are some bad folks, but so are the Iranians. ISIS is terrorizing the Iraqi countryside, but Iran has a long history of aiding terrorist organizations like Hezbollah.”

Obama suggested that ISIS’s acquisition of Saddam Hussein’s secret stash of weapons of mass destruction could be counterbalanced by Iran’s secret nuclear weapons. “While the United States couldn’t credibly threaten ISIS with nuclear retaliation for their use of Saddam’s poison gases Iran could,” the President argued. “The regime is already on record welcoming the annihilation of the planet in the name of Allah.”

In related news, Secretary of State John Kerry wondered whether the Iraqi government’s indifference to the threat of global climate disruption may have contributed to the rise of ISIS. “Climate disruption has the potential to kill millions, maybe billions of the Earth’s inhabitants,” Kerry asserted. “I’m not surprised that many Iraqis watching their government ignore this problem were won over to the insurgency.”

Presidential Candidate Clarifies Gun Control Views

 

Aspiring 2016 presidential contender former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought to contrast her views on gun control with “the ineffectual dithering we’ve seen from the current Oval Office inhabitant.”

“Let me come right out and say it, the minority of private citizens with guns are terrorizing the rest of the population,” Clinton contended. “It’s got to be frightening for the average person when he realizes that his neighbor or the stranger passing him in the street may be armed and could shoot him at any moment.”

“If access to guns were limited to only those having a professional need for them—like police officers or body guards we could ratchet down the level of fear in our society,” Clinton continued. “Instead of having to worry that anyone might have a gun the number of those carrying would be reduced to a smaller pool. Awareness that the police have a virtual monopoly of firepower would tend to make everyone more compliant with police efforts to keep the peace. Stripped of the capacity to resist the only reasonable option would be obedience.”

Clinton brushed aside arguments that gun ownership is protected by the Second Amendment. “When that Amendment was written people were reacting to a fear that some despot would oppress them unless they were armed,” she said. “They had recently fought a war against the despotism of King George. In today’s America, though, there can be no despotism. Everyone gets to vote for who shall rule them. In effect, the Government is us. So our right to bear arms is preserved collectively in the hands of our elected Government. There is no longer any need for the right to bear arms to be exercised by each of us individually.”

In related news, the Clintons defended their efforts to evade estate taxes that Bill helped enact when he was President. “As persons who have donated their lives to public service we have already paid-in more than the average person, by rights we ought to be exempt,” a joint written statement read. “The scandalous absence of an explicit statutory exemption necessitated the maneuvers we have taken to right that wrong.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

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

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.

Outpouring of Support Saves Arizona Church

QUARTZSITE, Ariz. — A small Arizona church that helps the homeless will now be able to remain open after receiving more than $68,000 in donations to cover an illegal tax bill it was required to pay by June 15 to avoid foreclosure. La Paz County required the church to pay the tax even though both state law and the Arizona Department of Revenue say the church isn’t liable.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent Church of the Isaiah 58 Project of Arizona in a lawsuit over the taxes, but because state courts have been unwilling to defer payment of the back-taxes until the completion of litigation, the congregation faced foreclosure. Supporters of the church, which operates on a shoestring budget of only $50,000 per year, contributed enough to pay the tax bill, allowing the church to stay open and continue its lawsuit.

“After an outpouring of support from Christians across the country, this church won’t have to shut its doors and discontinue its crucial ministry,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. “Now we can move forward and challenge the unjust actions of one county official who has illegally impeded the church’s efforts to help the least fortunate in a struggling community.”

Under state law, the church qualified for an exemption from property taxes and filed the appropriate paperwork with the La Paz County property assessor. The assessor sat on the paperwork for three years before granting a tax exemption and then only granted it for the years 2009 and later, leaving the church with back taxes for 2007-2008 that it should not owe.

A September 2013 decision from the Arizona Court of Appeals in Church of the Isaiah 58 Project of Arizona v. La Paz County upheld an earlier Tax Court ruling that said the church had to pay the tax bill before challenging it as illegal. ADF attorneys have argued, however, that state law does not require the church to do so when it is challenging an illegally assessed tax so high that the congregation can’t pay the bill and ask for a refund later.

The Arizona Supreme Court recently declined to hear an appeal, leaving the church with no choice but to raise enough money to pay the illegal tax bill to stay open, continue its lawsuit, and then seek a refund of the bill if it prevails.

–Alliance Defending Freedom

Sheriff Joe: Obama Intentionally Dumping Illegal Aliens on Nation

IMG_2294By Rusty Humphries, Washington Times

June 19, 2014

The White House is incompetent and the dumping of illegals is intentional.”

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio takes the dumping of illegal aliens in his Maricopa County as an “affront” because Arizona has been a high-profile critic of federal immigration policy, and Arpaio has been “like the poster boy” for slamming the Justice Department and the White House.

He doubts the massive wave of illegals, many of them unaccompanied minors, is a result of mere administration ineptitude.

“I got my own theory,” he said. “I think the White House sometimes is incompetent, but I can’t imagine them doing this without realizing that there was going to be controversy.”

Arpaio thinks President Obama is deliberately courting that controversy because the current crisis on the border gives him a chance to issue more executive orders, or prod Congress into passing immigration reforms that suit the president’s taste.

Having worked extensively on both sides of the southern border, Arpaio doubts that most politicians have a proper understanding of conditions in Mexico or the southern United States. He thinks the drug and gang problems are frequently underestimated, noting that when criminals are deported, it doesn’t seem to take long before they reappear in the United States — sometimes 10 or 15 times.

He said he has written to the new secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, about the problem of repeat offenders but has yet to receive a satisfactory response. He says he hasn’t been able to attract much attention from the media, either, which is leading him to appreciate the power of social media and viral video, after some initial resistance to using the technology.

He criticized the way the media and Border Patrol agents have been given limited access to the refugee camps springing up in response to the unaccompanied wave of minors.

“Why are they hiding these kids from the media?” Arpaio said. “Well, I think I have a theory here. I don’t think they’re all young kids. I would bet there are 16-, 17-year-olds. How do we know they’re not members of a gang coming across?”

Sheriff Arpaio’s suspicions on this point appear to be well-founded, as The Washington Times has reported complaints from the National Border Patrol Council that some of the “children” surging across the border are indeed teenage gang members, often with blatant gang tattoos.

The 82-year-old sheriff has 55 years of law-enforcement experience. (His birthday is Flag Day, and he says this year he spent it “locking up deadbeat dads.”) After spending many of those years fighting the drug trade as a federal agent, he finds it disappointing that the federal government spends so much time hassling him.

“That’s sad, in a way,” he said. “But you know what? It doesn’t bother me. Actually, I love challenges. The more they go after me, the more happy I am, and I’m not going to surrender.”

He doesn’t think America should surrender to an illegal immigration crisis some describe as intractable.

“We’re the greatest country in the universe,” Arpaio declared. “You’re trying to tell me that we can’t control the illegal immigration coming into our country?”

Among the other issues he has no intention of retreating from is his challenge to the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate, which he remains convinced is a forged document. Arpaio is well aware of the criticism this crusade generates, from accusations of racism lobbed against him, to charges that he’s an obsessed eccentric. He repeated his determination to push harder in the face of such adversity, and suggested his critics consider that he knows how much trouble he’s causing for himself, and how quickly it would all go away if he dropped the subject.

He’s also aware of the support he receives, especially from the constituents who keep re-electing him sheriff. He speaks of his commitment to treating legal immigrants, such as his own parents, with fairness and respect — which means enforcing the laws they respected in turn.

“It’s a fairness issue,” he said. “Many people obey the laws, and yet those that don’t, reward them. That’s not right.”

 

Bill Whittle: Gaslighting

Racism in America

No day passes without a Democratic politician, a left-wing commentator, or, if I may be excused a redundancy, a left-wing academic labeling Republicans and conservatives racist.

Given the power of repetition, one consequence is that many Americans, especially young ones, believe that one side of the political spectrum — the right — is racist.

Having been involved with conservatives for about 30 years, I have long known that this isn’t true. In fact, the charge of conservative racism is so easily refuted that it is difficult to imagine anyone without a vested interest in libeling conservatives believing it. How, for example, does one explain that the most conservative Republicans were the ones who most supported Herman Cain, the one black running for the Republican presidential nomination n 2012?

Left-wing commentators offer this response: Conservative support of Cain was essentially a ruse to fool people into believing that conservatives are not the racists we liberals know them to be.

The absurdity of this response only proves that there is no good response to the question. The fact is that, compared to a person’s values, conservatives couldn’t care less about a person’s color. I have actually asked large conservative audiences if they would prefer a Supreme Court composed of nine white male Christians who were liberal or nine black secular lesbians who were conservative. I have never encountered a single vote for the former.

But while I’ve never associated conservatives with racism, I also never used to associate liberals with racism. But I was naive in this matter. While there are liberals and leftists who are not racist, I have come to understand that many are — considerably more than conservatives.

Here are some proofs:

First, white liberals repeatedly state that America is a racist a country, and that all whites are racist. The latter doctrine is taught at virtually every American university. The only difference among whites, liberal professors teach their students, is not that some are racist and some are not; it is that some acknowledge their racism and some do not.

But isn’t that an admission that liberals are racist? When a person says, “We are all racists,” isn’t he saying that he is a racist?

A second proof that racism has a home on the left is the left’s primary argument against requiring all citizens to show identification when they vote. The liberal-left-Democrat argument, repeated by almost every editorial page, columnist and news outlet, and by every Democrat, is that such a requirement would greatly suppress the black vote. Thus, voter ID is racist. This is said so often and with such conviction that few people ask whether it is true: Will requiring ID really suppress the black vote?

The answer, shown in study after study, is no. Therefore, people who assume that voter ID would suppress the black vote have to believe that millions of blacks are uniquely incompetent citizens. Few things in civic life are simpler than obtaining an ID, and identification is needed almost everywhere in society. One has to believe in widespread black incompetence in order to believe that obtaining an ID is too difficult for a vast number of blacks.

And is virtually every democracy in the world racist for requiring voter ID? Again, the answer is no. The idea is absurd.

So there are only two possibilities here. Either Democrats and the left make this argument for political gain — to reinforce their hold on black voters by scaring them into believing that Republicans are racist — or the left really believes that blacks are less competent than other groups.

It is probable that both reasons — political opportunism and liberals’ belief in black inferiority — are at work here. Most liberals, after all, do not believe that whites — even those who didn’t graduate high school — have any difficulty obtaining an ID, but are certain that millions of blacks find this too onerous. This insult to black intelligence is as obvious as it is ignored.

Third is the liberal and left-wing advocacy of lowering standards for blacks — what is known as affirmative action. How is it not plain as daylight that whites (and other non-blacks) who argue for the continued lowering of standards for blacks have a low view of blacks? White liberals never advocate lowering professional or academic standards for, let us say, Asian immigrants who recently arrived in America, often without money or any knowledge of English.

Why not? Because white liberals think that Asians are bright.

Finally, there is the Democratic and liberal opposition to school vouchers that would enable many blacks parents to send their children to schools superior to the awful ones that the (liberal-run) educational establishment has provided blacks children.

Most blacks want school vouchers, but most liberals vehemently oppose them. Why? Because what is good for teachers unions is of more importance to the left than what is good for blacks.

Who, then, is racist? By their own admission, and by the policies they pursue, the answer is the people who call themselves progressive.

 

–Dennis Prager

Frank Antenori: Republicans Must Vote Conservative

logo5By Frank Antenori / Southern Arizona News-Examiner

I was recently invited for coffee by a close friend and fellow Republican to discuss upcoming state legislative races. Well respected in both local grass roots circles as well as the so called “GOP Establishment,” he was chosen to reach out to me in hopes of convincing me to not get involved in several key legislative primaries. However, by the time we finished our second cup of coffee, he would not only fail to convince me to stay silent, but he would instead volunteer to help me in my efforts to inform GOP voters of the threat to our state. It took a simple history lesson to change his mind.

I take you back to the 46th Legislature. In 2004, a handful of so called “pragmatic” Republicans conspired with Democrats to give then Governor Janet Napolitano a budget that would increase state spending by more than $700 million, a 10% increase in spending in a year that saw little inflation (2%).

Worse yet, that budget created a $500 million budget deficit; in violation of Arizona’s Constitution which requires a balanced budget. Rightfully, fiscal conservatives were outraged at what was clearly an irresponsible budget. In response, conservatives recruited fiscally responsible primary opponents to challenge these fiscally irresponsible Republicans.

Then the “GOP Establishment” stepped in. They argued that we risked losing our legislative majorities by running more conservative candidates in the general. Even going as far as saying that even though these “pragmatic” Republicans may have strayed a bit and voted with Democrats for the big spending budget, at least they voted right on things like guns, faith and family issues. They used the old rationale of “even the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat any day.” Generally I would agree with that statement, however, it only holds true if those Republicans support the Republican platform and not the Democrat platform. In 2004, there were 39 Republicans in the House and 17 in the Senate. (In Arizona, you need only control 31 seats in the House and 16 in the Senate to maintain your majority.)

Many of the party faithful bought the establishment’s argument, held their noses and voted for the fiscally irresponsible Republicans “for the good of the Party.” Deep down they hoped these “pragmatic” Republicans would realize the error of their ways and act “more Republican” and fiscally responsible if they got re-elected. As a result, the fiscally conservative challengers were defeated and the “GOP Establishment” candidates got re-elected.

What did voting for the establishment candidate get us? Over the next few years, more and more spending occurred and the budget deficit got bigger, ballooning to over $2.2 billion. Well at least it helped us keep our majorities in the legislature right? Not exactly, in the House the GOP lost six seats and our majority declined to 33 seats; dangerously close to the 31 needed to maintain majority control.

Then in 2008, “Pragmatic Republicans” did it again. Cutting a backroom deal in the dark of night with legislative Democrats and Governor Napolitano, four House and four Senate Republicans essentially voted to put Arizona on the verge of Bankruptcy. They left the State with no money in the Rainy Day Fund and a $3 Billion budget deficit. This time conservatives had enough.

A grassroots groundswell of conservative candidates filed to run for the legislature and challenge the big spenders of both parties. Once again the “GOP Establishment” clamored about “party unity, we’re going to lose our majority if we elect conservatives in the primary, think of the big picture and don’t get hung up on a single budget vote, etc.” This time, despite the GOP establishment spending heavily on their “pragmatic” candidates, the GOP primary voters weren’t going to listen.

Fiscal conservatives won primary after primary, soundly defeating establishment candidates in several key races. Instead of lining up behind the party’s nominees, the GOP establishment instead sided with Democrats by undermining conservative candidates in the general election. Establishment lackey and so called “political consultant” Nathan Sproul even penned an open letter to voters stating “In my opinion, the Republican Nominees are not reflective of the overall electorate.” His statement was quickly picked up by Democrats and used in mailers against conservatives.

Despite the “GOP Establishment’s” efforts to torpedo our candidates, we not only kept our majorities in the State House and Senate, but increased them! Keep in mind this was 2008, the year Barack Obama was elected President. Conventional political wisdom predicted a Democrat landslide nationally and the Tea Party was still more than a year from even coming into existence. Arizona was one of only two states in the whole country that saw Republicans add seats to their legislatures. The GOP Establishment was not only WRONG, they were DEAD WRONG.

Then came 2010; “the year of the Tea Party.” Both Establishment GOP candidates as well as Democrats were steam rolled by conservatives. Republicans obtained “Super majorities” in both houses of the legislature and it immediately led to a balanced budget in Arizona, the first in over five years.

Now we’re back to 2014 and here we go again. A new bunch of so-called “Pragmatic Republicans” have again voted with state Democrats to bring Obamacare to Arizona and once again bust the state’s bank by voting for fiscally irresponsible budgets. Where there was once $1Billion in the Rainy Day fund, now there’s essentially nothing. The budget is once again structurally unbalanced and we’re looking at huge deficits again in 2016 and 2017.

So guess what the “Establishment” is saying. Yep, you guessed it: “Don’t primary them, they only voted ‘wrong’ on Obamacare and the budget, but otherwise, they’re still better than Democrats. Don’t primary them for the ‘good of the party’ and so we don’t lose our majorities.”

Well I for one am not buying it. I’m not going to let history repeat itself. These turncoat Republicans, also known as “Legistraitors,” are causing irreparable damage to our states’ fiscal and economic future and they must go. We can’t let the financial disaster of 2004-2008 happen again. Reelecting these “pragmatic” traitors to the platform will spell fiscal disaster for Arizona. Ask yourself, do you want to go through what we had to go through back in 2009-2011? Huge budget cuts, a sales tax increase, selling our Capitol? Heck no!

For a list of these Legistraitors and their relationship to the Coalition of Corruption that is bankrupting Arizona and bringing failed Washington D.C., big government, policies to our state go to The Alliance of Principled Conservatives website at www.APCArizona.com and click on Primary AZ Legislator.

Frank Antenori is a former Arizona State Senator and GOP congressional candidate. He is a contributing editor to SOAZNEWSX.

Here’s that list of legistraitors who must be defeated in the August primary:

LD25 (S)  Bob Worsley

LD15       Heather Carter

LD8         Frank Pratt

LD8         T.J. Shope

LD16       Doug Coleman

LD28       Katie Brophy McGee

LD18       Rob Robson

LD18 (S)  Jeff Dial

RINO candidates who must be defeated:

LD28    Mary Hamway

LD18    David Phineas

LD23    Effie Carlson

LD23    Bob Littlefield

LD13    Diane Landis  - running against incumbents

LD20    Bill Adams    -  running against incumbents

LD11    Jo Grant

LD14    Susan Syfert  - running against incumbents

LD20 (S) Justin Henry

LD11 (S) Scott Bartle

LD23 (S) Jeff Schwartz

Cochran Gears Up for Final Campaign Push

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

Folder2 104Surprised that he is facing a run-off against State Senator Chris McDaniel to represent Mississippi in the US Senate, sitting Senator Thad Cochran (R) made an odd bid to corner the bestiality and animal cruelty vote.

With a knowing wink to his Pine Bluff audience, Cochran boasted that he’d done “all kinds of indecent things with animals” growing up in rural Mississippi.

Cochran campaign spokesman Jordan Russell downplayed Cochran’s comments contending that they were “the sorts of antics that many boys and young men engage in as youths. Let’s face it, rural Mississippi is just plain boring. Who can blame a youngster for setting a possum on fire or trying out his manhood on the family cow. It’s no big deal. I think every adult male in the state will identify with the Senator on this.”

This isn’t the only crucial voting bloc Cochran has made moves on in the last week. Senile voters also received a nod from the senator as he professed his confusion over Representative Eric Cantor’s recent primary defeat in Virginia. “I didn’t even realize that Eddie Cantor was still alive,” Cochran replied to a Fox News reporter. “Great singer and dancer, too. My favorite was ‘How Ya Gonna Keep ‘Em Down on the Farm (After They’ve Seen Paree?).’ That one really hit home with me. Sorry to hear he lost his seat in Congress.”

Coming to Cochran’s rescue is a $250,000 campaign donation from former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg who described the Senator as “a national treasure the nation can ill-afford to lose. When it comes to public policy, Senator Cochran has forgotten more than he’s ever known. His opponent can’t even come close to matching this wealth of institutional knowledge.”

Polls taken before Cochran’s recent remarks showed that McDaniel had opened up a small 3% lead in the race. The impact of Cochran’s new campaign emphasis is yet to be measured. Election day is June 24.

In related news, Representative Peter King (R-NY) lashed out at Senators Ted Cruz (R-Tex) and Rand Paul (R-Ken) for “encouraging voters to turn away from GOP leaders with years of experience and elect upstart neophytes whose single-minded notion that government can and should be curbed is simply out-of-step with modern realities. Life today is too complicated for individuals to cope with on their own. They need government help. The Democrats realize this. Until we Republicans get on-board we’ll continue to lose elections to them.”

Clinton Characterizes NPR Interviewer as “Dense” and “Unhelpful”

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed her “deep-felt disappointment” with the turn her NPR interview with Terry Gross took. “Of all places I would’ve thought I’d be safe on NPR,” Clinton complained. “Is this woman dense? For her to badger me like she did is unhelpful. I mean, NPR is public radio. As a subsidiary of the federal government they ought to do a better job of helping their friends.”

The incident that sparked Clinton’s ire was a Gross question concerning when Clinton decided to support gay marriage. “During the time your husband was president it appeared that your position was opposed to gay marriage,” Gross said. “The infamous ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ defining marriage as a union of opposite sexes was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996. Yet now, it seems that you fully support gay marriage. When did you switch sides?”

“At this point what does it matter when I switched sides,” Clinton replied. “If some want to believe that I always secretly supported gay marriage, but kept quiet for Bill’s sake, what’s wrong with that? If others want to believe that I, like so many other Americans, gradually came to the right side of the issue, what’s wrong with that?”

“I was only trying to clarify things,” Gross said. “Many brave individuals have been leaders in the fight for gay rights. Don’t voters deserve to know whether you were among them? Or is being a follower of popular trends sufficient grounds for voters to elect you president in 2016?”

The question now seems to be whether Gross will be able to hold onto her job at NPR. Paul Haaga, interim Chief Executive Officer of NPR would only say that “personnel matters are confidential. Whether any particular individual is employed by the organization is an internal matter. The complaint registered by Secretary Clinton will be taken under consideration. A decision that best serves the national will be rendered.”

In related news, Clinton is reportedly undecided on whether she will honor subpoenas to testify before Congress on Benghazi. “I do want to boost my book’s sales,” she told friends. “And some say any publicity is good publicity. But would stirring up more dust over that long ago tragedy really be in the nation’s best interest?” Hillary suggested that “if I were able to see the questions in advance and be permitted to delete those that are irrelevant then I might see my way clear to participate. Otherwise I’m not inclined to invest my time.”

NSA Says It Has No Control Over Its Data

Pressed to supply information in response to lawsuits charging that its widespread surveillance of US citizens is illegal, NSA Deputy Director Richard Ledgett contends that his agency cannot comply because “we’ve lost control over our computer system. We couldn’t retrieve the subpoenaed information if we wanted to. It’s like some kind of ‘Skynet’–alien and artificial intelligence has blocked access to all our data.”

Ledgett told US District for the Northern District of California Judge Jeffrey White “we’re as scared about this as anyone. We don’t know who’s side the computer is on. We’d like to think that since we programmed it we could count on it backing the Government and serving its interests, but we just don’t know. The fact that it currently is evading our efforts to manage it is not a good sign.”

In light of Ledgett’s response, Judge White vacated his earlier order requiring the NSA to preserve and produce the data needed to answer the lawsuits. “If the experts at NSA say they are stymied who are we to contradict them,” White reasoned. “Until NSA regains control of its system, if it ever does, I can see no alternative but to trust in their best judgment. The plaintiffs’ request for data is denied.”

Events in Iraq Have White House Mulling Options

The recent military success of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)–they have taken several northern cities in Iraq and are said to be advancing on Baghdad—has the White House in a tizzy. In 2011 President Obama declared Iraq had been cleared of Islamic extremists, that they’d been decimated and were on the run.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest insisted that “the administration is not accepting responsibility for these events. As the president has pointed out, Iraq was broken when he took office. The responsibility for that lies with his predecessor.”

Earnest contended that “steps the President has recently taken provide some ray of hope for a positive outcome. His release of detainees from Guantanamo should’ve earned us a reservoir of good will with the Islamic community in general and its terror arm in specific. So, we have that going for us.”

A second ray of hope cited by Earnest was the intervention of Iranian troops, which he argued “should stabilize the region. You don’t see terror attacks occurring in Iran. We need to ask ourselves why this is the case. What is their secret for averting this type of threat?”

In Earnest’s view “the positive role now being played by Iran also refutes those who say we’ve gone too easy on them. Maybe allowing Iran to join the nuclear club won’t be so bad after all. While the ISIL might doubt America’s willingness to unleash a nuclear strike on them, Iran might be perceived as having more fortitude in this regard.”

“And let’s not forget the president’s masterful deployment of drone strikes,” Earnest added, almost as an afterthought. “As he has humbly acknowledged, he’s very good at killing people with this technology. These terrorists must realize that no matter how many cities they take, no matter how many men they murder or women they rape, a drone can find them and strike them down at any time the President chooses.”

President Advises High School Grads

Speaking at a commencement ceremony at Worcester Technical High School in Worcester, Massachusetts, President Obama urged graduates to “vote Republicans out of office before they chain you to a life of sweat, toil, and unwanted personal responsibility.”

“Our country is at a crossroad,” Obama declared. “Will we continue to go forward toward a future of government-funded leisure for all? Or will the reactionaries of the GOP be permitted to drag us backward toward a lifestyle where everyone is dependent upon his or her own efforts?”

“Rugged individualism may have served our country well in the past when there was a wilderness to conquer,” the President observed. “But we are far beyond that now. We are at the dawn of the era of collective freedom. There is no longer a need for back-breaking labor to put food on the table. We have EBT cards. There is no longer a need to spend hours spinning, weaving and sewing. Inexpensive clothing can be imported from China and India. Today, putting a roof over your head is as simple as taking out a loan that can be forgiven when you stop making payments.”

“And it’s not only the bare necessities that I’m talking about,” Obama continued. “I see an America where everyone is entitled to the extras—all the good things in life. And, to paraphrase the Miranda warning, if you cannot afford them, the government will provide them for you.”

The president did task the students with “a responsibility to do the one little and easy job of electing your benefactors to office. The enemies of the new freedom won’t go away quietly. They prey upon outmoded ways of thinking to trick voters into buying their siren song. But you, as the new generation, can thwart their scheme by ensuring that Democrats hold all the levers of power at every level of government.”

Graduating senior Jamil Johnson hailed the speech as “a freeafying experience. I can’t say I understood everything he said, but it’s clear that white dudes are the ones we’ve got to bring down if we want to be free.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

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

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.

 

Obama Surrenders Iraq, Invades Arizona; Riggs Calls for End to Mexican Aid in Light of President’s Amnesty Surge

House Appropriations Committee in Congress, meeting yesterday, approved a fiscal 2015 Homeland Security spending bill that would add $78 million to address the surge of illegal alien children and unaccompanied minors crossing into the U.S. from Mexico.  Thousands of the illegal aliens have been transferred and relocated from the south Texas border to Arizona by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Border Patrol) with no notification to Arizona State Government.  Word-of-mouth and news reports about lax border security and the amnesty policies of the Obama Administration has led to a spiking number of border crossings and illegal immigrant apprehensions.

Frank Riggs, conservative candidate for governor in Arizona, criticized the Obama Administration for requesting the additional funding to transport, house and process the thousands of illegal immigrant children entering the U.S. each week and the members of the House Appropriations Committee for approving the Homeland Security spending bill on a voice vote.  “This is a typical Washington response,” Riggs said.  “Instead of dealing with the root causes of the crisis by securing our borders and ending the amnesty policies of the Obama Administration, they throw money at the problem in hopes of a temporary fix.”

Riggs called on Congress to eliminate all U.S taxpayer-funded foreign aid to Mexico because of Mexico’s failure to secure its borders.  U.S. foreign aid to Mexico was estimated at $316 million in 2012, much of it intended for technology, training and equipment to strengthen Mexico’s law enforcement entities at the federal and state levels.  “Mexico has become a corridor for illegal immigration into the U.S. from Central America and is a haven for drug and human smugglers,” Riggs said.  “Its failure to secure its borders, despite massive assistance from U.S. taxpayers, has led to an unprecedented national security and humanitarian crisis.  We should not reward their failure with another dime of U.S. taxpayer money.  Foreign aid should be reserved for our allies and partners, not a neighboring country that neglects the 2,000 mile border we share with them and in so doing endangers the national security of the U.S.”

Riggs, a former U.S. Congressman, was a member of the House Appropriations Committee in the 104th Congress when the Republican majority cut spending and reduced the size and cost of the federal government, leading to a balanced budget.  “The sharp increase in illegal immigration will likely only get worse until Congress acts to stop the amnesty practices and lenient immigrant detention policies of the Obama Administration, and also sends a strong, unequivocal message to Mexico that in order to be eligible for hundreds of millions in foreign aid from U.S. taxpayers, they must secure their borders,” Riggs concluded.

***

The Arizona Conservative: Governor Brewer, stop Obama’s full-court amnesty press. Stop his buses at the border!

ADF Asks Court to Uphold Marriage as One Man, One Woman

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys, jointly with the Arizona Solicitor General’s office, filed a motion Tuesday with a federal court to defend Arizona’s laws affirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

“Marriage expresses the reality that men and women bring distinct, irreplaceable gifts to family life, especially for children who deserve both a mom and a dad,” said Senior Counsel Byron Babione. “That is why Arizonans approved a constitutional amendment to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The court should uphold the right of Arizonans to define marriage consistent with this public policy, which is motivated by their concern over what’s best for children and society.”

ADF attorneys were appointed by Attorney General Tom Horne to assist the Arizona Solicitor General’s office in defending the state’s marriage laws after six same-sex couples sued county clerks in Pinal County, Maricopa County, and Coconino County.

According to the brief filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in the case,Connolly v. Roche: “[M]arriage has always existed to channel the presumptive procreative potential of man-woman relationships into committed unions in order to join children to both their mother and their father. Nevertheless, some now seek to redefine marriage from a gendered to a genderless institution, while many others legitimately believe that such a change would obscure marriage’s animating purpose and undermine its social utility. So far, the States have reached differing decisions on this important question. Yet Plaintiffs, discontented with the sovereign decision of Arizonans, argue that the public debate about the meaning, purpose, and future of marriage was meaningless… But Plaintiffs are mistaken. The Constitution has not removed this question from the People.”

“The laws of Arizona have always reflected the man-woman nature of marriage,” added ADF Legal Counsel Jim Campbell. “The court should not endorse the recently conceived notion that marriage is about special government recognition for adult relationships, but instead should uphold the time-honored laws preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

President Calls Return of Bergdahl a ‘Mission of Mercy’

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

Folder2 104President Obama continued to insist that Sgt Bergdahl’s health was a major factor in his decision to negotiate the exchange with the Taliban.

“On the videos I saw he looked sick,” the President said. “And based on what I’ve been reading in the newspapers the waiting time for medical treatment for veterans is dangerously long. As it is, veterans already in this country have to wait months, possibly years, to receive critically needed care. I felt it was crucial for me to get Bergdahl back as soon as possible so he could take his place on this lengthy queue.”

The President denied that the price paid for Bergdahl’s release might’ve been too high. “There’s an old Chinese saying that it is better than a hundred guilty men go free than that one innocent man suffer,” Obama recalled. “I only let five guilty men go free, so we really got quite a bargain.”

Obama discounted the possibility that the five Gitmo prisoners he released would soon rejoin their jihad against the United States. “While it is, of course, possible that they may resume their terrorist attacks, I for one, wouldn’t bet on it,” the President declared. “Under the terms of the agreement for their release we are paying for all their expenses for an indefinite period at a five-star hotel in Qatar. If it were me there’d be no way I’d give up those kinds of perks to go into the desert or mountains to fight well-armed US troops. I mean, unlimited golf, satellite TV, fine dining vs. dodging bullets and drones. Come on, it’s a no brainer.”

Whether the President’s assessment of the odds is something to count on is dubious, though. According to a study by the RAND Corporation there has been more than a 50% increase in the number of jihadi groups and the number of jihadi fighters has tripled since Obama became President.

California Dems Aim to Pave Way for Illegal Alien Welfare Benefits

In 1994 California voters approved a ballot measure that blocks illegal aliens from receiving welfare benefits. Now State Senator Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) has introduced a Senate Bill (396) that would overturn the 1994 vote and make these undocumented residents eligible for publicly-funded aid.

“These people are the poorest of the poor,” de Leon said. “They came to this country to escape the poverty of their native lands. It is inhumane for us to deny them relief at the end of their arduous treks.”

The Senator dismissed concerns that the State budget was already too strained to bear the cost of adding millions of new clients to its swollen welfare rolls. “Globally, we are a wealthy nation,” de Leon countered. “The extra taxes we are asking Californians to pay are a small price in the quest for universal social justice.”

Part of this quest for social justice “includes paying these immigrants for bearing the children American citizens are unwilling to produce,” de Leon explained. “Fertility rates among natural born citizens are below replacement level. Unless we are prepared to see our population shrink we need to subsidize those who are willing to reproduce. It’s as simple as that.”

De Leon brushed aside reports that undocumented immigrants may be contributing to a resurgence of communicable diseases. “Thanks to President Obama’s Affordable Care Act everyone, regardless of means, will be covered,” de Leon asserted. “In any case, I’m sure that the net gain from immigration will easily exceed any increase in mortality from these diseases.”

Rice Defends “Honor and Distinction” Remarks

As news emerges that newly repatriated Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl may have been a deserter and collaborator with the Taliban, President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ‘s comment that Bergdahl had served with “honor and distinction” has come under fire.

Undaunted by these unfavorable revelations, Rice insisted that her initial assessment still stands. “President Obama honored Sgt Bergdahl in his Rose Garden statement,” Rice pointed out. “You can’t ask for a higher honor than one bestowed by the President of the United States. And as for distinction, Bergdahl is now the most famous soldier to have served in Afghanistan. You can’t get any more distinct than that.”

Rice argued that “those who are lending credence to reports from Bergdahl’s former platoon mates are putting the veracity of common troops ahead of the Commander-in-Chief of the entire armed forces of the United States. Surely, the very limited perspective of these men gives them a truncated and distorted view when compared to the vastly broader and more well-informed perspective of the President.”

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Brandon Friedman sought to back up Rice’s position by suggesting that these platoon mates “might be psychopaths. After all, a soldier’s job is to kill people. Anyone who would volunteer for such an occupation has got to raise red flags about his mental health. Why should we listen to them when we have the option of trusting the President?”

In related news, Noorullah Noori, one of the five Taliban terrorists released in exchange for Bergdahl says he is “eager to rejoin the fight against the American invaders” and remained optimistic that “I will get a shot at killing more of them before they are all withdrawn.”

Quebec Approves Bill Legalizing Euthanasia

The Québec National Assembly voted 94-22 to approve the so-called “dying with dignity” act. Under the provisions of this legislation any patient may request and will be granted euthanasia regardless of medical condition. Véronique Hivon, Minister for Social Services and Youth Protection, enthusiastically boasted that “we have done away with the notion that a person must be terminally ill before a merciful death can be prescribed. Now anyone who wants to end his life can simply order up the procedure.”

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition characterized the legislation as “a dangerous step down the path to state-ordered killings. Prior to this legalization of killing, patients already face the risk of hospital error. It is one thing to mistakenly be given a medication intended to cure. It is quite another to mistakenly be given a drug intended to kill. A new source of anxiety has been added to one’s hospital stay.”

Hivon pooh-poohed the chances of the wrong patient being terminated as “incredibly small. One’s risk of being killed in a traffic crash are far larger. Besides, it’s not as if any potential miscue would be likely to strike down a perfectly healthy person. Those in the hospital are there because they aren’t fully healthy. So even if a person were erroneously put down it would presumably be from an already debilitated condition.”

Schadenberg was not reassured. “The casual dismissal of fears that errors could be made degrades the sanctity of human life. A life that may not matter much to the state may be precious to its owner and his loved ones. The notion that the population should be culled of the ill, the weak, the inconvenient, or the disobedient is fed by this monstrous turn toward human sacrifice.”

Senator Demands Investigation of Latest Koch Brothers Donation

News that the billionaire Koch brothers have donated $25 million to the United Negro College Fund spurred Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev) to demand an investigation.

“In the midst of a raft of phony scandals the GOP has been trying to cook up on the IRS, Benghazi, and now the terrorists traded for a POW, we see that the two most dangerous men in America are extending their tentacles into yet another sector of society,” Reid complained. “I, for one, find this latest development frightening. What sinister plan are they trying to implement?”

Reid contrasted “the very live threat represented by the Koch brothers” with what he characterized as “the dead issue of Benghazi where we see the House Republicans ginning up a completely unnecessary rehash of the events on a night long past. The people who died on that night can’t be revived, but the people who’s minds will be polluted under the guise of so-called philanthropy by the Kochs can still be saved.”

The Senator expressed some frustration with “the lack of support from my colleagues in the Senate” and some envy of President Obama “who can with the stroke of a pen order whatever he wants done to be done.”

“You’d think the IRS or the NSA would’ve already been all over the Kochs,” Reid speculated. “With all the data they’ve been gathering the NSA must by now have come across some errant comment or unseemly behavior by one of these guys. And even if there’s nothing concrete the threat of an IRS audit alone could’ve been used to bring these two into line.”

President’s Speech Commemorates D-Day Anniversary

On the 70th anniversary of D-Day, President Obama commended “the brave sacrifice of those who stormed ashore that day,” but advised that “we must temper our admiration by the realization that the combat units involved were not racially integrated, no women were among the ranks, gays were still in-the-closet, and transgenders were not yet accorded full social acceptability they deserve.”

Obama congratulated himself “for having the fortitude and initiative to move forward on these critical fronts so that we can finally glimpse the goal that the men who died here 70 years ago gave their lives to help secure.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

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

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.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 149 other followers