Obama Says Trump’s Perception of America Skewed

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

JohnPresident Obama took issue with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s portrayal of a country in crisis, calling it “dangerously skewed from reality.”

By highlighting a few incidents of terrorist attacks Mr. Trump overlooks the fact that only a small minority of people die at the hands of these misguided individuals,” Obama asserted. “The reality is that the vast majority of people in this country still die of old age. A more sensible approach was voiced by French Prime Minister Manuel Valls who calmly advised that we learn to live with these attacks.”

Trump’s call for ‘law and order’ undermines my Administration’s efforts to seek a more equitable balance in our penal system,” the President complained. “His narrow focus on apprehending and punishing perpetrators of crimes would have a racially disparate impact on minorities. It completely ignores the crimes committed against Blacks during slavery that went unpunished and lets the descendants of those criminals escape retribution. Ideally, this retribution should come from the government, but can we really blame those tired of waiting for the government to take action?”

Then there’s all his harping about the suffering of the middle class,” Obama added. “The middle class doesn’t appreciate how good they have it. Most of the people around the world have far worse lives. They live in ramshackle buildings, often have too little to eat, and live under corrupt dictators. Opening our borders to them is an act of compassion and social justice. Sharing in the wealth that our country has been blessed with is their human right. Those who vote for Trump will be voting to deny them this right.”

Fortunately, voters will have an opportunity to continue the progress I have made during my time in office by electing Secretary Hillary Clinton this November,” the President urged. “Not only has she pledged to stay the course, there is also the very real possibility that she will enable me to carry on the revolution by appointing me to a seat on the Supreme Court. The journey doesn’t have to end. It can live beyond January if voters make the right choice this Fall.”

In related news, a release of 20,000 hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee by Wikileaks detailed how supposedly impartial Party officials worked to stifle Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign against insider-favorite Hillary Clinton. DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz defended the biased process, arguing that “the fate of the nation is too important to leave to chance. We could not sit by idly and permit a nobody like Sanders to derail the most qualified person in our history from her destiny to rule America.”

Nearly Half of TSA Employees Cited for Misconduct

According to a report from the House Homeland Security Commission, nearly half of the TSA’s 60,000 employees have been cited for misconduct in recent years. The trend is not encouraging either. Citations have increased by 28% over the last two years. The top five offenses include unaccounted for absences, failure to follow instructions, improper screening & security, neglect of duty, and disruptive behavior.

TSA Administrator Peter Neffenger sought to downplay the issue by pointing out that “despite unmanned posts, inappropriate groping petty theft, and abusive behavior by our employees no flights have been hijacked on my watch.. To me, these glitches seem a tolerable price to pay for improved safety.”

Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency, wasn’t totally reassured by Neffenger’s perspective. “Maybe we’ve just been lucky,” Perry suggested. “I recall a recent test showing a success rate of 95% for weapons escaping the TSA’s detection. There is little evidence to support the notion that the TSA is effective or necessary.”

LA Times Op Ed Says Hillary Win Only Way to Avert Coup

Fear that Trump might be elected president prompted hysteria from leftist loon James Kirchick in an op ed he wrote in this week’s LA Times. “If voters don’t put Hillary in the White House our only option may be a military coup against a President Trump,” Kirchick warns.

Kirchick contends that such a first ever violent overthrow of an election outcome in this country “would be defensive in nature. Trump is outside the mainstream of the governing coalition that has run this country for the last 25 years. Even if he wins a majority of votes his ascension to office could be construed as a coup itself. Undoing his coup would restore the country to normalcy.”

The foresight of President Obama in purging the military of disloyal elements over the last seven years has laid the groundwork for this fail-safe option should voters make the disastrous decision to hand power over to a madman like Trump,” Kirchick gloated. “Polls may show that the majority of the rank-and-file troops lean toward Trump, but the men who command them have been thoroughly vetted and can be counted on to rise to the occasion if events warrant it.”

Naturally, such an overt deviation from precedent would have to be a last resort,” Kirchick wrote. “Barring a sufficient number of legitimate votes to ensure her election, a more discreet covert manipulation of the ballots would be preferred. Nevertheless, the outcome is too crucial for us to shy away from any remedy.”

In related news, GQ writer Bethlehem Shoals tweeted that he “would like to beat Patricia Smith to death” after this mother of one of the Americans murdered in Benghazi spoke to the Republican convention. Shoals was incensed that Mrs. Smith blamed then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for irresponsibly neglecting consulate security, callously obstructing rescue efforts, and lying to cover it up.

Miami Police Explain Shooting Unarmed Man

Charles Kinsey, a behavioral therapist trying to aid an autistic patient was shot by Miami police this week. In the incident, Kinsey was lying on the ground with is hands up. Nevertheless, he was still shot in the leg by one of the responding officers.

John Rivera, the President of the Dade County Police Benevolent Association attempted to explain this egregious example of unnecessary and excessive force, calling it “an unfortunate accident. First of all, the police received an anonymous tip that there was a suicidal man with a gun in that area. Right away, the responding officers are thinking ‘we have to shoot this guy before he kills himself or someone else.’ The situation was obviously tense.”

Then they saw Mr. Kinsey lying on the street with his hands up yelling something about a truck and ‘don’t shoot,’” Rivera said. “Fearing that Mr. Kinsey’s life was in danger, one of the officers shot at the other man and hit Mr. Kinsey. Bad as his aim was, the discharge of his weapon brought the confrontation to an end without loss of life.”

The fact that the “gun” held by the autistic man turned out to be a toy truck did not faze Rivera, who pointed out that “just last week a terrorist in France killed 80 people with a truck. So, I think we can all sympathize with the officer’s reactions here when he heard Mr. Kinsey say the word ‘truck.’ Luckily, his poor marksmanship probably prevented a worse outcome. Surely, dopey and inept are preferable to deadly.”

Federal Courts Dictate State Election Rules

In the past week the federal courts intervened in tthree cases to overrule state election laws. In Michigan U.S. District Judge Gershwin Drain voided a state law banning straight ticket voting. In Wisconsin, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman ordered state officials to accept voters’ signed affidavits in lieu of photo IDs. In Texas, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voided a state law requiring voters to show any one of seven different photo IDs before being given a ballot at the polls.

In his ruling, Drain called the Michigan law “an unconscionable burden on voters. Jettisoning the convenience of making a single decision and requiring voters to enter a vote for each office imposes unwarranted toil and inconvenience on voters. It also has a disproportionate impact on less informed and less intelligent voters. Our democracy guarantees everyone the right to vote regardless of whether they understand what they’re doing.”

In her ruling, Adelman asserted that “showing up on election day is all that a state may require of someone seeking to exercise his right to vote. The claim that obtaining a photo ID is easy doesn’t mean that effort isn’t needed to get one. Mere laziness should not disqualify a person from casting a ballot.”

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the Texas Democratic Party’s contention that requiring voters to identify themselves could discourage some from voting. “It’s supposed to be a secret ballot,” said Democratic Party lawyer Gerry Herbert. “Photo IDs pierce this guarantee and subject voters to unwelcome scrutiny. In a perfect world anyone who shows up at the polls should be given a ballot, no questions asked. This court ruling gets us one step closer to that goal.”

Herbert called the risk that some might fraudulently vote more than once “overblown. First, the individual payback for going to the effort to vote multiple times is vanishingly small. Second, are we sure that a person willing to make this effort is a bad thing? Enthusiasm and initiative ought to count for something. Major league baseball and American Idol allow multiple votes. Has the country been harmed by that?”

In related news, the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations vowed “to register a million new Muslim voters to combat the candidacy of Donald Trump. Muslim rights to spread Islam to every corner of the Earth are at stake.” Spokesman Osama Abu Irshaid characterized voting as “the peaceful alternative to bombing unbelievers into submission.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

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

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

Hillary Calls Trump ‘Divisive’ and ‘Unfit’

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

JohnAmidst polls showing her lead over GOP rival Donald Trump dwindling, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned voters against “the most divisive and unfit candidate in our nation’s history.”

A key consideration from Clinton’s perspective is the fact that “Republican voters passed over 16 worthy representatives of the GOP brand and latched onto a man outside the mainstream of government. Trump hasn’t been a participant in any of the processes for governing a city, state, or nation. He has no record to run on.”

Hillary contrasted Trump’s lack of governing experience with her own “30-year career at the center of events at the state and national level. How can we trust a man who has never taken one step in the shoes of those of us who have governed to know what to do with the awesome power to rule?”

On top of his lack of the appropriate experience we have his naive approach to the issues of the day,” she continued. “At every turn he would divide us from each other. He demands we close our borders to those who desperately want to come to America. He would single out and oppress the religious beliefs and practices of those striving to fulfill the prescriptions of Islam. He would force ‘law and order’ on those who see themselves as victims of a moral code with which they disagree.”

The candidate also touted her recent “exoneration” by the FBI as another point of distinction from her opponent. “I have undergone the most thorough examination by our nation’s premier law enforcement agency and been found not-guilty,” she boasted. “The worst they could say about me was that I was extraordinarily careless with my emails. Millions of Americans have had difficulties with emails. Many have had their bank accounts drained and their identities stolen. I avoided these consequences. So, I think I’m doing better than average.”

In related news, Clinton reminded voters that “the president can use the IRS to punish political enemies. Do we really want to put this weapon in the hands of a person like Donald Trump?”

Congressman Calls “Law and Order” Unfair to Minorities

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) lambasted Trump’s claim to be the “law and order” candidate, calling it “a cruel and insensitive attempt to place the values of white Americans over those of us who are black. It is racism that forces blacks to commit crimes to support themselves and their families. The kind of enforcement that Trump would impose threatens the livelihoods of a significant segment of the minority community.”

Clyburn may have a point. According to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, blacks are responsible for the majority of robberies and murders in the 75 most populated U.S. counties. Clearly, heightened law enforcement would have a disparate effect on this segment of the population.

Ironically, minority police officers are more likely than white officers to use firearms in confrontations with suspects—a phenomenon that Clyburn asserts “shows that even brothers in uniform have been brainwashed to kill their own kind in obedience to the ‘law and order’ mantra. That it is this bad with a black man as president casts an ominous light over a potential Trump administration.”

Whether Clyburn’s charge that blacks are ill-served by law enforcement is dubious. Black criminals are a minority in the black population. The vast majority of their victims are other blacks. The number of blacks slain by police is a small fraction of the number of blacks murdered by black criminals. In an overwhelming majority of instances blacks who are shot by police were criminals engaged in attacks on the police.

Justice Inadvertently Boosts Trump Candidacy

This week Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg waded into the political domain and unintentionally bolstered the chances for Donald Trump to win the presidency. Calling him a “faker with a big ego,” the 83-year-old Justice threatened to move to New Zealand if Trump wins in November.

Alarmed that Ginsburg’s outburst could work in Trump’s favor, the Washington Post’s editors criticized “her abandonment of the veneer of judicial impartiality. The acceptance of the Court’s authority to strike down legislation enacted by the people’s representatives relies on a perception of unbiased application of basic legal and constitutional rules. Taking sides in an electoral contest undermines this perception.”

The editors of the New York Times concurred with those at the Post and expressed a fear that “Justice Ginsburg might have to recuse herself from any future cases in which Trump is a party. This would nullify a reliably liberal vote on the Court from deciding cases in a way that advances the progressive transformation underway since the Roosevelt Administration.”

Stung by this criticism from papers she considered “allies in the struggle for social justice,” Ginsburg says she regretted her remarks. “The only saving grace is that my ill-advised ‘burp’ will be lost in the cacophony of rhetoric and news going forward and will be forgotten before the next Court session convenes in October.”

Not all on the left were critical of Ginsburg’s efforts to sway the election outcome. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) praised “Justice Ginsburg’s great courage. The idea that the courts ought to stay out of politics is an artifact of the Founders’ maniacal insistence on separation of powers. President Obama has managed to sidestep this antiquated notion by using Executive Orders to bypass congressional obstruction. The courts have done a wonderful job of neutralizing errant legislation by looking to a higher law than a 200-year-old piece of paper. It is essential that this momentum be continued. Electing Hillary is the best way to ensure that.”

AG Says Lying Under Oath “Could Be Okay”

During testimony before the House Judiciary Committee this week, Attorney General Loretta Lynch refused to make “a blanket condemnation of lying under oath.” The issue was raised by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “continuously changing and inconsistent testimony on a number of issues before this Committee over several years.”

Lynch contended that “each case has to be examined on its individual merits. It depends on who is testifying and whether a more important objective than mere truth is at hand. There is an old saying that ‘a diplomat is a patriot sent abroad to lie for his country.’ Our Secretary of State is this nation’s head diplomat. I believe that a certain leeway needs to be granted to that person for the good of the country.”

I can see some leeway for lies told to foreign governments in order to protect America’s strategic interests,” Chaffetz acknowledged. “But is lying to Congress included? Is lying to cover up ‘extraordinary carelessness’ with classified information acceptable? Is lying about security deficiencies at Benghazi that led to the death of our ambassador okay with you?”

I’m not going to get into a debate about hypothetical scenarios,” Lynch replied. “As the nation’s chief law enforcement officer I use my judgment on whether to bring charges against anyone. It’s called prosecutorial discretion. Congress must use its own judgment and discretion to deploy the powers granted to it by the Constitution if and when it deems warranted by the circumstances of each case.”

Obama, Gingrich Grapple with Islamic Terror Issue

The Bastille Day attack that killed 80 and injured 200 in Nice, France sparked a passionate plea from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for better security against Islamic terrorism.

Gingrich said he has “no problems with Muslims who respect the rights of others becoming American citizens and moving in next door, but followers of sharia who believe they have a right or duty to wage war on unbelievers have no place in our country. They ought to be deported.”

He also called for “greater scrutiny of what’s going on in Mosques in America. Many of them seem to serve as recruiting centers for would-be terrorists. Hateful doctrines are preached to incite attacks on innocent civilians like we have seen in France and in this country in Orlando and San Bernardino. On top of this, caches of weapons are frequently concealed on their premises.”

President Obama characterized Gingrich’s comments as “repugnant. There is no place in our country for such hostility toward the religious beliefs of others. No Muslim should have to fear that his beliefs will expose him to any greater scrutiny than any other religion. The right to practice one’s religion free from interference by government is guaranteed by the First Amendment.”

Gingrich remained uncowed by the president’s criticism. “I’ll tell you what’s repugnant,” he replied, “the president’s repeated refusal to defend the people of this nation from attacks carried out by fanatical Islamists. Despite the evidence from their own mouths, Obama professes himself mystified as to the motives of these killers. This is willful blindness or worse.”

No one in this country, not me, not Donald Trump, not the Republican Party, is making a case for preventing Muslims from praying or promulgating their beliefs in a peaceful manner,” Gingrich pointed out. “The president’s efforts to stigmatize opposition to murder as anti-Muslim prejudice is reprehensible. The right of every American to believe or not believe any religion is trampled by the violence carried out by Islamic terrorists. That is the First Amendment right that the government and the president have an obligation to defend. Thus far, Obama has fallen far short of fulfilling this duty.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

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

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

A Freefall by Trump Leads to Brokered Convention

Donald Trump is falling like a rock in the polls. If it’s a freefall, you can bet your bottom dollar there will be a wide open, free-wheeling, brokered convention. Rather than a coronation.

One poll already has Trump falling 12 points behind Mrs. Bill Clinton. Is this just temporary slippage? Or something far worse? Could it be the end for Trump’s candidacy?

One thing is for certain. Trump can’t sustain another descent this precipitous in the next couple weeks. He’d better rally and rally quick, or the Democrats will be the least of his worries. He may be unceremoniously dumped at the convention.

Republicans would be well within reason to pull the plug on a flagging, faltering nominee who shows no hope of winning in November.

If that is the case, Republicans will have another chance to get it right — seeing the light on the most qualified candidate since 1984: Sen. Ted Cruz.

Trump’s fundraising is also cause for serious concern, as reported by these headlines in the past few days:

Media freakout over Trump’s poor fundraising: How bad is the problem?

Donald Trump Apparently Has A Serious Fundraising Problem

Donald Trump’s Fundraising Problem — NYMag

 

Hillary Unfazed by Mounting Evidence of Email Crimes

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

JohnFormer Secretary of State Hillary Clinton brushed off new revelations that the 30,000 “personal” emails she deleted may have included official Department business as “nothing to concern the American people.”

A deleted email of particular note was a memo from her Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin to Clinton’s State Department subordinates regarding problems caused by Clinton’s use of a private unsecured email server. The former secretary claimed to have “no knowledge of either the original email or its illegal deletion,” but offered a hypothesis suggesting that the IT specialist who set up the server “may be the guilty party.”

Earlier this week Bryan Pagliano, the man who set up my off-site email system ‘took the 5th‘ over 125 times during a 90-minute, closed-door deposition,” Clinton pointed out. “While not admissible in court, this is practically a confession. Rather than harassing me, wouldn’t it make more sense to pursue this ‘smoking gun?’”

Missing emails aren’t the only problem. Comparison of what Clinton attempted to pass off as undeleted official records with planning schedules assembled by the secretary’s aides show major discrepancies. Specifically, the names of more than 100 outsiders who were scheduled to meet with Clinton were scrubbed from her version of what she was doing. Most of the missing names turned out to be executives of firms that were seeking government favors and had donated to the Clinton Foundation.

Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill maintains that “these discrepancies are no big deal. People need to understand that a secretary of state could have valid reasons for keeping selected meetings and communications secret. Instead of casting suspicions on a great American who has devoted her entire adult life to the difficult job of governing this country, the media and the voters ought to be showing more trust.”

In related news, Clinton warned Americans “not to get any ideas from the Brexit vote. I will not abide presiding over a ‘rump republic.’ Any state or states that imagine they might vote their way out of our North American Union should remember they won’t be dealing with a weakling like Cameron at the helm. I had no qualms about taking down Gaddafi and, like Lincoln, I will not hesitate to use every weapon at my disposal to preserve this Union.”

Illinois to Create Advisory Council of Muslims

A bill approved by the state Legislature creates a 21-member Illinois Muslim-American Advisory Council. Co-sponsor of the legislation Sen. Jacqueline Collins (D) hailed the measure as “a sensible way to ensure that the activities of state government have a chance to get Muslim buy-in at an early stage. A lot of what we do without thinking is offensive to the followers of Islam. Clearing policies and programs ahead of time will prevent Muslims from having to resort to violence after-the-fact as a means of expressing their displeasure.”

Republican Rep. Barbara Wheeler voted against the bill, calling it “a wrong turn down a dangerous road. We don’t have a Catholic Advisory Council or a Jewish Advisory Council. Making a special effort to set up a council for one particular religion strikes me as an inappropriate mingling of church and state.”

Collins labeled Wheeler’s views “short-sighted. If we mess up and pass policies that offend Catholics or Jews they’ll just take us to court or vote us out of office. If we mess up with Muslims we could end up getting killed. Muslim’s dedication to their faith is passionate. Many have no hesitation in martyring themselves to defend their beliefs. Unfortunately, this martyrdom usually entails suicidal attacks on unbelievers. Rather than let things get out of hand it is better to establish a mechanism to assuage their sensibilities before blood is shed.”

In related news, the US Department of Homeland Security announced plans to ban the use of the words “jihad” and “sharia” in its anti-terror campaign. Secretary Jeh Johnson said “the use of these foreign words conveys the wrong message and diverts our attention from the much larger threat from home-grown enemies. As nasty as the few attacks carried out by persons with some connection to Islam may be, there are millions of armed non-Muslims with anti-government views. Even worse, these right-wing zealots are the tip of an ice berg of tens of millions who oppose what we are trying to do for this country and who may overthrow us at the ballot box.”

Dems Stage Sit-in Against Guns

Democratic members of the House of Representatives staged a sit-in to publicize their quest for stricter gun controls. Distressed that the murder of 50 night club patrons by an Islamic terrorist in Florida has not sufficiently weakened GOP support for the Second Amendment, more than two dozen Democrats seized the House floor for more than a day, vowing to block House business until their demands are met.

Sit-in participant Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa) used the event to call for “a major revision of the Second Amendment, because Americans don’t agree with it and we’ve had it. The Amendment may have made sense when the average person needed a firearm to shoot dinner or resist the oppression of King George, but it’s clearly outdated today. We get our food from the supermarket and no one needs guns as protection against a government elected by the voters.”

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga) brushed aside charges of hypocrisy among the well-guarded members of the government. “The average person is at low risk compared to us,” Lewis contended. “Poll after poll shows the members of Congress are held in very low esteem by the general population. If that population is armed we are all in grave danger. The people are many and we are few. We need the protection of armed bodyguards and a general disarmament of the rest of the population just to even things up.”

The claimed “reasonable” proposal to bar those on the government’s “no fly” list from obtaining firearms has some significant flaws. For one, the list is secret. Only the government knows who’s on it. Placing a person on the list is solely at the discretion of the government. Errors appear to be frequent. Awareness that one is on this list often comes unexpectedly as a person tries to board an airline. Getting off the list involves lengthy and expensive court proceedings. Chris Anders, senior legislative counsel at the ACLU, characterized the proposal as “unreasonable and unfair. It is akin to a ‘secret enemies list’ that can be used by the government to selectively deny the Constitutional rights of individuals it doesn’t like.”

Ironically, the trend in gun ownership is inversely related to the murder rate. In the 20-year period from 1993 to 2013 gun ownership rose by 54% while homicides committed with guns fell by 49% and the non-fatal injuries inflicted by armed criminals fell by 76%. However, according to sit-in protester, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif), “these nonsensical numbers will never persuade me to accept private gun ownership as a normal or useful behavior in our modern society.”

Samaritan Billed for Aiding Injured Family

When Derrick DeAnda helped a family escape from their rolled-over car he was just trying to be a good Samaritan. He didn’t expect to be billed $143 by the late-arriving EMTs for “medical care.” “I didn’t need any ‘medical care,’” DeAnda said. “I had one small cut on one of my hands. The EMT gave me a band aid. I can’t see how that could possibly cost so much.”

The bill from Cosumnes Community Services District was described as “standard practice” by Cosumnes Deputy Chief Mike McLaughlin. “If you’re at the scene of an accident that we attend you’re going to be billed. The $143 assessed to Mr. DeAnda was the minimum charge. Whether he got a band-aid or not is irrelevant. As a verified participant at the site we have to extract a fair share of our costs from him.”

McLaughlin dismissed concerns that his agency’s billing policy might deter others from stopping to help. “First of all, no one knows in advance that they will be charged a share of the cost if they get involved,” he said. “Second, even if they did, most people are not mercenary enough to put such a possibility ahead of aiding an injured party. Finally, even if people were to refrain from assisting due to fear of the financial consequences it would further serve to bolster the case for a bigger allocation for us in next year’s budget.”

Senators Demand to Know Where Companies Keep Their Cash

Concerned that some of the nation’s resources may be out of their reach, Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn) and Chris Coons (D-Del) are demanding that “all businesses fully disclose where all their money is.”

As President Obama said when he was nominated for his second term, government is the only entity we all belong to,” Franken recalled. “It is every business’ and every individual’s duty to do the utmost to ensure the survival of this single unifying entity. At a minimum, this means making all of their financial resources known to the government so they may be appropriated if the need to do so arises.”

Franken professed to understand the need for privacy, but maintained that “it is one thing to insist on privacy from the prying eyes of business rivals. It is quite another to keep secrets from the government. Should we sit by and allow the government to default when we could save it by seizing the money businesses and individuals are hoarding? How could we justify letting the selfish interests of the private sector impede the collective obligation of all of us to support the government?”

In related news, President Obama averred that “entitlements are necessities of a 21st century economy” and that “we need to retool our laws to ensure that this vital cog in the machine is well-oiled. Knowing where all the money can be found is a crucial component of making this happen.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

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

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

Declaring Sage Grouse Endangered Species Raises Concerns in Arizona

Big Government calling again. Now it wants to list sage grouse as an endangered species, restricting access to 167 million acres of land. Arizonans are rightly concerned because it could have a huge, detrimental impact on our state. Some of them visited our congressional delegation in Washington, D.C. Here’s the story in the Mogollon Rim News, by Cindy Sietz-Krug; it’s a worthy read.

 

And if the Republican Nominee Can’t Win Arizona …

A polling firm known as OH Predictive Insights has Mrs. Bill Clinton leading Donald Trump in Arizona, 46.6 percent to 42.2 percent. The poll was taken June 20.

It’s still early, yes, but Democrats usually never lead in Arizona presidential polls.

And if the Republican doesn’t win Arizona, he has absolutely no chance to win the November election.

The poll surveyed 1,060 likely voters based on a projection of the November turnout.

Breaking down this poll,  Trump is leading by six points in rural Arizona — which is not a good indicator.

Mrs. Bill Clinton, an ardent socialist advocating for over-control of the American individual, family and private business, has a whopping 17-point lead in Pima County, and that’s no surprise because it’s dominated politically by leftists.

Another bad indicator for Trump is a tie in Maricopa County, the county where Republican candidates can usually count on running up the score and overcoming deficits elsewhere in the state.

Women in Arizona gave Mrs. Bill Clinton a 12-point edge, despite her history of looking the other way while her husband used and abused women and her state department underpaying women.

OH Predictive Insights is a subsidiary of Owens Harkey Advertising. It’s located in Phoenix.

 

 

Mrs. Bill Clinton: ‘We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good’

Now that Mrs. Bill Clinton has wrapped up the Democrat Party nomination for the presidential election, it’s time to examine her past and who she really is:

As U.S. Senator from New York, Mrs. Bill Clinton’s chief accomplishment was winning a debate against her Republican election opponent.

As secretary of state, she intentionally lied when she insisted America’s consulate in Benghazi was attacked because of a Youtube video that was critical of Islam.

Mrs. Clinton is currently under investigation for using a private server to store classified government documents.

Also, Clinton is a member of the “National Organization for Women Who Approve of Elected Male Officials Who Have Abused Women but Support Abortion Rights.”

Clinton supports Planned Parenthood, which is on defense in several courts for refusing to protect under-age girls from rapists, under investigation for defrauding the government of millions of dollars and under investigation for illegally selling baby body parts. She says abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

She said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in favor of Hobby Lobby’s religious freedom is a slippery slope for women – even though the nation has no history of forcing employers to violate their consciences and provide abortion drugs.

Fought in 1993 for the U.S. to fast-track government approval of RU-486, a dangerous drug which has killed several women and girls and caused complications for many more.

She supported the grisly, barbaric practice of partial-birth infanticide.

She supposedly supports women’s rights, but paid her women staffers at the Department of State less than men.

She is a big fan of the late Saul Alinsky and practices his Rules for Radicals – the book he dedicated to Lucifer — in all of her political activities. He invited her to work for him as a community agitator. Clinton says she believes in tactics over principles.

As First Lady, Mrs. Clinton attempted – in secret meetings — to force socialism and government medical insurance on the nation, but failed.

She made up lies to try to justify the firing of White House Travel Bureau employees, allegations which were proven false.

She said the unborn have no rights.

Mrs. Clinton enabled her husband’s rampant womanizing by trashing the women who were used and abused by himd – rather than sympathizing with them and acknowledging  a very serious problem.

Clinton wanted the U.S. to apologize for slavery.

She supported the Defense of Marriage Act, then said she “evolved” on same-sex marriage.

Also, she supports “hate” crimes laws. Even though all crimes are commited with contempt for the victim.

She wrote an op-ed claiming Common Core was recycled Clinton policy from the 1980s and 1990s. She opposes school vouchers.

Clinton believes in so-called manmade “global warming” and supports the Kyoto Treaty and cap and trade policy.

Plagiarized the title of the book “It Takes a Village.” Author Jonah Goldberg said of the book: “No more thorough explication of the liberal fascist agenda can be found than in Hillary Clinton’s best-selling book, “It Takes a Village.” All the hallmarks of the fascist enterprise reside within its pages.” Clinton learned from Marian Wright Edelman how to use children as propaganda tools for her ideological agenda: childhood is a crisis, and the government must come to the rescue. “I cannot say enough in support of home visits,” Clinton said.

Big government advocate.

Clinton said Wall Street donates to me because I rebuilt them after 9/11.

She voted against voter ID, though the Democrats require photo ID to attend their national conventions.

Clinton wants tough gun control and says gun manufacturers should be subject to lawsuits (for individuals’ behavior).

She says that because she is a woman she is a political outsider.

If elected president, Mrs. Clinton says Bill Clinton will advise her and represent the U.S. abroad.

She considers herself a member of the “Christian Left.” It’s a religion whose “god” is government.

She voted against the confirmation of John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Clinton is proud of the controversial nuclear agreement with Iran in which the U.S. got taken for a ride.

As a U.S. Senator, Mrs. Clinton delivered a half-billion dollars in earmarks to 59 corporations. Then 64 percent of those corporations donated to her campaign.

She said she flew into Bosnia in 1996 and ran through sniper fire on the ground. Video showed a calm, peaceful deplaning, and Clinton later called the lie a “minor blip.”

The Clinton Foundation has accepted millions of dollars in exchange for political favors by Hillary and Bill Clinton, and it is still happening today. The Clintons have accepted illegal campaign cash from convicted criminals like Mauricio Celis, of Mexico, and Norman Hsu, of Hong Kong. They pardoned Mark Rich after his wife gave them a huge donation

In his book, “Liberal Fascism,” Jonah Goldberg wrote: Clinton “is a representative figure, the leading member of a generational cohort of elite liberals who brought fascist themes into mainstream liberalism. … What follows, then, is a group portrait of Hillary and her friends – the leading proponents and exemplars of liberal fascism in our time.”

She was offered an internship in the Berkeley office of attorney Robert Truehaft, a communist who fought for the Stalinist faction the California labor movement.

As an attorney in Arkansas, Mrs. Clinton wrote articles in favor of children’s “rights” to divorce their parents. Goldberg wrote: “Hillary Clinton’s writings on children show a clear, unapologetic, and principled desire to insert the state deep into family life – a goal that is in perfect accord with similar efforts by totalitarians of the past. … She condones the state’s assumption of parental responsibilities … because she is opposed to the principle of parental authority in any form.” She believes families hold children back and the state sets them free. “Hillary Clinton’s ideas are, in general, fascist.”

Hillary’s guru was Rabbi Michael Lerner, who authored The New Socialist Revolution. He wrote of the coming socialist take-over.

One of Hillary Clinton’s most outrageous statements: “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

 

Former Senator Questions Need for So Many Armed Federal Agents

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

JohnFormer Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) wrote an op ed for the Wall Street Journal in which he raised the question of why so many federal agents are authorized to carry weapons. In the op ed, Coburn wondered why the IRS needs assault rifles, why the Department of Veterans Affairs is arming 3,700 employees, and why the number of non-Defense Department federal officers authorized to make arrests and carry firearms (200,000) exceeds the number of U.S. Marines (182,000).

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen responded that “it should be readily apparent why my agency needs to be armed. Taxes are very unpopular. Taxpayers who aren’t sufficiently intimidated by liens and confiscations of their property are especially dangerous elements. We can’t afford to let ourselves be out-gunned by them.”

Secretary of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs Robert McDonald said “it should be obvious that considering our client base is comprised of former military—people trained in lethal skills—that we must be prepared to use deadly force if circumstances arise warranting it.”

Presidential Press Secretary Josh Earnest labeled the former Senator’s concerns “paranoid and short-sighted. He tries to make too much of the fact that armed federal agents now out-number armed Marines. Well, armed Marines don’t face as large a threat. There are over 300 million Americans who could potentially pose a threat to the government. There are over 100 million firearms in the hands of this population. As the President sees it, we are substantially out-gunned by domestic enemies. Clearly, we need more armed agents.”

In related news, a recent Department of Homeland Security report calls for “refocusing anti-terror efforts away from possible jihadis and toward millennials.” Secretary Jeh Johnson pointed out that “there are an estimated 75 million millennials. This number dwarfs the one million persons on the terror watch list. It’s only logical that we should devote more of our energy toward confronting this bigger threat.”

ISIS Group Praises Orlando Massacre

Despite President Obama’s uncertainty concerning the motives of the man who murdered 49 patrons of the Pulse night club in Orlando Florida, both the assailant and ISIS had no doubts. Shooter Omar Mateen pledged his allegiance to ISIS both before and during his killing spree. Similarly, the Al-Battar Media Foundation, reportedly an operation of the elite ISIS Libyan unit Kalibat al-Battar al-Libi, hailed the “slaughter of infidels” and urged “all true Muslims to emulate this lion of the Caliphate.”

Presidential Press Secretary Josh Earnest emphasized that “the president’s focus on America’s gun culture has the numbers behind him. There are 100 million guns in private hands in this country. In contrast, there are only a handful of proven fanatics that have been involved in recent shootings. Many more people have been killed by guns wielded by non-Muslim attackers than by attackers sharing the Muslim faith.”

In Chicago alone, more than a thousand people have been shot to death this year,” Earnest pointed out. “This is 30 times the death toll of the Orlando massacre. Rather than get swept up in the anti-Muslim hysteria propagated by Donald Trump and the NRA, the president is keeping his eye on the main threat—widespread firearms ownership in this country. If only government officials and agents were armed all shootings by non-government individuals would be illegal and could be more easily suppressed. That is the key lesson to be learned from this tragedy.”

In related news, the Obama Administration announced the appointment of Laila Alawa to the Department of Homeland Security. In 2014 Alawa insisted that “9/11 changed the world for good.” While many might think that such an endorsement of the murder of 3,000 innocents ought to disqualify the speaker from a job supposedly oriented toward protecting against terror attacks, Earnest maintained that “keeping a diverse roster of persons with differing viewpoints within the halls of government is the best way of combating the kind of disaffection that could lead to hostile attitudes towards America.”

Administration Expands Student Loan Default Options

The Department of Education expanded the grounds under which students may be freed from their obligation to repay college loans. Under the new rules, students may be absolved from the obligation to repay loans if the education they received was inadequate.

Secretary John King, Jr. explained that “much of what passes as education in our major universities is just crap. Universities know that majoring in ‘women’s studies,’ ‘gender studies,’ philosophy, and the like, won’t prepare graduates for high-paying jobs. Why should naive and ignorant young people have to bear the consequences that could have been avoided if they had received better advisement from the university they attended?”

The cost of the loan defaults is estimated to amount to $43 billion over the next decade. This cost will be borne by taxpayers—a shift of liability that King insists is “the fairest way to distribute the burden. Making the universities eat these losses would endanger their financial survival. By spreading the cost over the broader base of taxpayers the incremental burden on each person would be tolerably smaller. As someone once said, ‘it takes a village to raise a child.’ This is a case where the ‘village’ needs to step up and shoulder its responsibility.”

Democrat Wants Taxpayers to Pass Drug Test to Qualify for Deductions

Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) has introduced legislation that would require taxpayers to pass a drug test before being allowed to itemize deductions on their 1040 tax forms. The bill is in retaliation for state laws that require welfare recipients to pass drug tests in order to receive benefits.

I am sick and tired of Republicans forcing poor people to jump through hoops to receive the money they are entitled to under the law,” Moore complained. “We enacted these programs to help the unfortunate. Few members of society are as unfortunate as drug addicts. They are slaves to chemicals that their bodies crave. Compelling them to choose between a welfare check and their substance abuse is unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.”

If the GOP is going to cut the money going to this deprived set of society’s victims then we should also cut the money going to taxpayers via the deductions allowed on their income taxes,” the Congresswoman asserted. “As the President has pointed out on numerous occasions, people with incomes, businesses, and jobs didn’t earn it. Somebody else made that happen. Letting them keep this money is a privilege that the government can revoke. Let’s see how they like it when government cuts the money they get to keep because they can’t pass a drug test.”

Wisconsin is one of 15 states that require welfare recipients to submit to drug testing in order to receive benefits. Gov. Scott Walker defended the requirement calling it “an additional incentive designed to help people escape a cycle of dependency. Consuming illegal drugs is an incapacitating behavior. Not only does it sap an individual’s motivation for becoming self-reliant it also undermines competency. Either of these effects will deter an employer from hiring the substance abuser.”

Rep. Moore’s notion that income earned by working is the equivalent of income received from the government for not working is as wrong as it can be,” Walker added. “Getting oneself off the sofa and into the workforce makes a positive contribution to society. It is contributions like this that make it possible to provide benefits for those truly unable to support themselves. If we make it a practice to reward those who disable themselves from the possibility of working to continue to be supported by the government the resources to aid those who really need it will be needlessly depleted.”

President’s Economic Adviser Says Income Comparison Misleading

Data showing that the average man with a full time job makes less today than he did in 1973 was discounted as “an fair and misleading statistic” by the Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers Jason Furman this week.

First of all, the premise that a full time job is desirable is debatable,” Furman maintained. “In 1973 many were forced to work because of the inadequacy of the social safety net. Today, many in a similar situation have been liberated from this tiresome fate by a more generous package of government benefits that enables them to work part time or to completely drop out of the workforce.”

Second, the statistic doesn’t account for the fact that many goods and services that had to be purchased with private money in 1973 are now provided free of charge by the government,” Furman added. “One example would be telephone service. Then, an individual would have to pay for a land line. Now, an individual can get a free mobile phone from the government. I call this an upgrade that comes at no cost to the beneficiary.”

I think we need to get away from these longitudinal measures,” Furman said. “They are inapt attempts to compare fundamentally incomparable eras. Times have changed. The transformation President Obama promised the American people is underway. It would be fallacious to try to judge it using such a discredited yardstick.”

Congressman Says “Ruling Class” Not Paid Enough

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) complains that his $174,000 annual salary plus perks is “not enough to keep a man honest. We deal with an annual budget of over $3 trillion. Our piece of that action is a paltry .005 percent. High-ranking heads of departments don’t fare much better. Is it surprising that some are tempted to augment in ways that many find distasteful?”

Take former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill,” the Congressman said. “After decades of public service they left the White House nearly broke in 2001. What choice did they have but to try to reimburse themselves through soliciting donations from foreign governments? I’ve heard that Saudi Arabia has had to foot 20 percent of Hillary’s presidential campaign expenses. We shouldn’t be forcing our country’s leaders to have to stoop to such extreme measures to collect their due.”

Hastings suggested that “a one-percent set-aside to compensate those of us who have taken on the huge responsibilities of governing strikes me as appropriate.” Under his proposal, a one-percent set-aside would amount to about $37 billion. This would be equally split between the three branches, making each member of congress’ share $23 million per year, each Supreme Court Justice’s share $1.3 billion per year, and each cabinet member’s share $725 million per year.

Truthfully, there is probably no amount of monetary compensation that would adequately reimburse us for the sacrifices we all have to make when we serve,” Hastings contended. “But I think we owe it to the people who serve to make a better effort at evening things up.”

 

State Department Warns Israel Not to Inconvenience Palestinians

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

JohnMark Toner, spokesman for the US State Department, issued a statement condemning the terrorist attack on a shopping mall that killed four Israelis, but simultaneously warned Israel to “not overreact.”

In an effort to beef up security in response to the attack, the Israeli government rescinded 83,000 permits for Palestinians to visit relatives in Israel during Ramadan and sent an additional 600 troops to the West Bank where they will man border checkpoints and conduct raids against suspected terrorists.

That four innocent shoppers were murdered is tragic, but we want to caution the Israeli government against taking measures that might inconvenience a far greater number of Palestinians,” Toner said. “The total time lost due to more stringent security checks on Palestinians who want to visit Israel could very easily dwarf the number of life-years lost by those slain in the attack. This would be a disproportionate response.”

The region has been an area of tensions since Jews appropriated formerly Muslim territory in 1948,” Toner contended. “That ended 1200 years of relative peace under Islamic rule. We cannot begrudge Muslim efforts to reestablish what might be considered a ‘golden age.’ We wish their methods were less violent, but we must not allow our prejudices against their methods to blind us to the merits of their cause.”

The murders were followed by widespread celebrations—including chanting, fireworks, and the waving of Palestinian flags in the West Bank. Hamas spokesman Hussam Badran praised the attack as “the fulfillment of first prophecy of Ramadan” and “evidence of the failure of Jewish occupation of Palestinian land.” Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas issued a confusing statement “rejecting attacks on civilians no matter how justified they may be in retaliation for continued Zionist incursions on what has historically been Muslim territory.”

In other State Department news, Toner defended the agency’s estimate that it would take 75 years to process and release all of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails. “Look, everyone knows how unmotivated government workers are,” Toner reminded. “Getting a decent day’s work out of the slugs who clog the bureaucracy is next to impossible. So, I’d call 75 years an optimistic estimate. Obviously, the purposes to which access to these emails might serve would be a moot issue by the time the job is done. So why start?”

Bill Would Stop DOJ Funding Liberal Groups with Federal Money

Four Republican senators—James Lankford (Okla), Ted Cruz (Texas), and Utah’s Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee—have introduced legislation aimed at barring the Department of Justice from using settlement money to fund liberal interest groups.

Settlements obtained from banks found guilty for their role in inflating the mortgage bubble in 2008 ought to be used to compensate those damaged by these egregious practices,” Sen. Lankford said. “Instead, the Department of Justice has been funneling this money to favored liberal activists. This is a perversion of justice and an end run around the appropriations process.”

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) belittled the proposed legislation, calling it “an exercise in futility. No Democrat will vote for this bill. The idea that money liberated from one element of the private sector ought to be paid back to another runs counter to our Party’s agenda. The so-called victims of the mortgage bubble made unwise decisions. How can we justify returning money to such feckless dupes? Using these settlements to endow organizations active in progressive causes makes more sense. Congress should not intervene.”

Sen. Hatch found Reid’s argument to be “outrageous. In effect, the DOJ is muscling in on the loot stolen by the banks and using it to finance cronies of the Administration. This is not justice. It compounds the initial crime and leaves the wrongs unremedied. Such flagrant lawlessness undermines the legitimacy of the federal government.”

Clinton Demands Trump Delete His Twitter Account

Democratic presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton demanded that Republican rival Donald Trump discontinue his twitter account. The demand followed Trump’s tweet mocking President Obama’s endorsement of Clinton’s candidacy. In the tweet, Trump wrote “Obama just endorsed Crooked Hillary. He wants four more years of Obama-but nobody else does!”

Trump’s tweet was disrespectful to President Obama and to me,” Hillary complained. “This is further proof that he lacks the temperament to be president. Those of us with experience in government know that there are certain things you just don’t say in public. One of those things is that you don’t call your opponent a crook without concrete proof. President Obama has reassured me that there will be no proof of any criminal wrongdoing against me released by the Department of Justice. So Trump calling me a crook is slander.”

On top of his vicious slander, Trump also uttered an unspeakable lie,” Hillary continued. “My selection as the Democratic candidate for president shows that millions of voters want four more years of President Obama’s policies. Clearly, Trump’s tweet is untrue and is hurtful toward a man who has done great things in office.”

As a candidate, I don’t expect Trump to voluntarily obey my request for him to delete his twitter account,” Hillary added. “However, once I am president one of the issues we will look into is better regulation against the type of abuse of free speech engaged in by people like Trump. Just because a person can tweet doesn’t mean he should be allowed to without facing a consequence for making unacceptable use of this technology.”

In related news, Press Secretary Josh Earnest insisted that the president’s endorsement of Clinton “will not sway the FBI investigation. The president doesn’t have to ‘sway‘ anything. He is in charge of the entire government. It will carry out whatever orders he gives. So, no, the president won’t be ‘swaying‘ the investigation.”

Ninth Circuit Court Repeals Second Amendment

This week the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that government has a right to decide who will and won’t be permitted to carry a concealed firearm. The ruling came in the case of Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego. The County denied Peruta and his fellow plaintiffs concealed carry permits on the grounds that they did not prove a need for them.

Writing for the majority, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain asserted that “under California law, police authorities are empowered to determine who shall be allowed to bear arms and for what reasons. The plaintiffs’ contention that personal self-defense was a sufficient reason for them to be armed was rejected by county law enforcement officials. Their argument that police cannot provide adequate protection emanates from an elevation of selfish individual concerns over the society’s welfare. The collective body of California citizens has seen fit to elect a government that made the decision to grant authority to local governments to allow or deny firearm privileges as they see fit.”

The very fact that these plaintiffs contested local authorities lends support to the decision not to issue permits,” O’Scannlain continued. “One of the main duties of government is to protect itself from those who it construes as potentially dangerous to this objective. The plaintiffs’ assertion that police cannot be relied upon to provide sufficient protection raises a measure of doubt as to whether these individuals are reliable citizens.”

Dissenting Judge Barry Silverman contended that “the California law clearly violates the Constitution’s Second Amendment which affirms that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ Having to ask permission of a government functionary to exercise this right eviscerates it. A state where the government has absolute control over who may or may not be armed is the very tyranny the Second Amendment was devised to prevent.”

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton hailed the Court’s decision as “an encouraging step toward the attainment of a ‘gun-free’ society. We can make allowances for those who want to hunt to check guns out of a government armory much like a person can check out a book from a public library. There is no need for anyone to own his own gun. Once I’m president we’re going to make that happen.”

Gingrich Makes Self Available for VP Spot

Saying he “is putting the country ahead of partisanship,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich announced his availability as a vice-presidential running mate “for either candidate.” Speculation about such a possibility heated up this week when Gingrich called Hillary Clinton’s speech after she clinched enough delegates for the Democratic presidential nomination “spectacular.” Earlier he had spoken favorably about GOP nominee Donald Trump.

Listening to Hillary the other night I realized what a strong candidate she is,” Gingrich said. “She’s got the experience and the gravitas that this country needs. That’s not to say that Donald Trump wouldn’t also be a good choice. He’s got a freshness and drive about him that offers people a sense of confidence in the future.”

Basically, I’m torn,” Gingrich lamented. “I’ve always been a Republican and would like to stay loyal to the Party. I could fill in the experience gap that Donald faces vs. Hillary if he puts me on the ticket with him. I think we’d make a great team. On the other hand, bipartisan tickets have had their place in American history. Lincoln, for example, chose a former Democrat as his first VP and another Democrat for his second term. If Hillary were to choose me it’d be one of the great pairings in our nation’s history.”

The former House Speaker admitted that “the decision, of course, is out of my hands. All I can do is offer my services on a ‘first-come, first-serve’ basis. It will come down to whoever is quicker on the draw. I’ll be standing by ready to answer whichever call comes first.”

Feds to Crackdown on Temporary Health Insurance

A clause in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) allows individuals who are between jobs to purchase temporary health insurance policies. The Department of Health and Human Services has announced it will change the rules to limit these policies to three months duration and ban renewals.

The problem with these policies according to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell is “they fall short of the President’s vision for how Americans ought to be insured. These temporary plans don’t cover everything we think should be covered. Notably absent from most temporary coverage policies are items like gender reassignment surgery, mental health, and drugs. The President has been adamant that these items are crucial components of comprehensive health insurance.”

A possible additional incentive for people to purchase these temporary plans is that they are cheaper than Obamacare. For example, an ObamaCare Bronze plan with a $6,000 deductible costs $184 a month while a short-term plan with a $5,000 deductible costs only $58 a month.

Burwell called the cost comparison unfair. “This temporary insurance is focused solely on the individual’s needs as he or she perceives them. Obamacare is focused on society’s needs. A self-centered individual may not appreciate the benefits to others from a plan that overcharges him in order to cover the needs of others. Changing this mindset is one of the key objectives of the ACA. The rule changes we are implementing will help correct this mistaken way of thinking by forcing everyone to comply with the ACA’s mandated coverage.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

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

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