Presidential Library Won’t Include Obama Documents

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

JohnThe Obama Presidential Library revealed that it won’t be providing any original documents written by Obama. Instead of having the former president’s manuscripts, documents and letters from his tenure in office—items presidential centers around the country all have—the Obama Library will have space for outdoor functions and picnics, a basketball court, recording studio, sledding hill, children’s play garden, and more. The decision has scholars puzzled and disappointed.

University of Chicago Professor of Black Studies Richard Buttkiss could hardly contain his dismay that “the written words of the greatest man to ever walk the Earth will not be available for historians to directly access. It’s as if the apostles had been barred from hearing Jesus speak. It seems like the world will be denied the opportunity to advance to a higher state of consciousness.”

Obama Foundation CEO David Simas explained that “President Obama did not want his legacy to be defined by a sterile preservation of his actual words, but to be a living record that evolves to meet the changing needs of an America on the move. What he wrote or said is not as important as what he meant or intended. By sloughing off the detritus of the past this President’s library will remain eternally relevant.”

Simas advised those who want to keep up with this evolving legacy “to buy his forthcoming books. The genius of this approach is that rather than rely on fallible outsiders to sift through an archive of old documents to craft a history of his era, President Obama will be cornering the market by blocking access to obsolete artifacts. A not insignificant byproduct will, of course, be the higher profits he will garner from book sales and speaking engagements as the sole source of insight for his term in office.”

Trump Revises Obamacare Rules

This week President Trump made some administrative revisions to the Affordable Care Act health insurance program. Using latitude granted to the president in the original legislation, Trump issued an executive action that allows individuals more choices in how to insure themselves. This expansion of choice was denounced by key Democrats.
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) called Trump’s move “a stab in the back. Allowing people more choices is the exact opposite of what is needed if the changes made by Obamacare are to be made permanent. People will choose selfishly. They will only buy coverage they think they need. They won’t opt to pay for the coverage that government experts say others need. Under the President’s executive action a person who opposes abortion won’t have to pay to cover it for others. This extreme individualism undermines the collective welfare of society.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) called Trump’s move “sabotage. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a very delicately balanced system of cross-subsidization. If individuals who don’t need certain medical procedures are allowed to opt out of paying for them others who do need these procedures will be hurt. For example, under Trump’s rules a person who doesn’t want a sex change won’t have to pay for insurance to cover it for others. How is this fair? The notion that each person should be free to choose what he wants to buy is not the kind of America I want to live in.”

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) issued a press release seconding the “sabotage” accusation, saying “the Republicans already had their chance to repeal the ACA, but failed. Taking executive action to get around that failure is not the kind of bipartisanship Mr. Trump implied just a few weeks ago. For him to say he is merely exercising the same executive latitude that President Obama did is not an adequate justification. Since when do two wrongs make a right?”

Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards complained that “ending the requirement for everyone to purchase abortion coverage allows Christians to impose their views on others. Women have an inalienable right to terminate unwanted offspring. It is everyone else’s obligation to provide the financial means necessary to implement this right. The ACA regulations proclaimed by President Obama’s executive action are the crucial legal mechanism by which these rights were realized. By allowing individuals to buy insurance that doesn’t pay for abortions this country has taken a major leap backward.”

Clintons Should Run Puerto Rico Relief Effort

Former presidential candidate and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean criticized the Trump Administration’s handling of post-hurricane relief efforts for the island of Puerto Rico. While the federal government has delivered massive amounts of supplies to the island it has not been uniformly successful in getting them distributed to those in need. Part of the hang-up has been local politicians laying claim to supplies. Another part has been unions seeking higher pay for transporting the supplies locally.

Dean’s proposed solution: “let the Clinton Foundation take over from here. They have the know how and a demonstrated history of success. When Haiti was struck by an earthquake in 2010 the Foundation sprang into action and assisted this nation’s recovery.”

Whether Dean’s confidence in the Clinton Foundation is warranted seems dubious. The record in Haiti is not as glorious as Dean remembers. Funds raised in the name of “relief” were doled out to companies that made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. Very little was accomplished on behalf of people living in the 100,000 homes that were destroyed in the quake.

Dean insists that critics of the Clinton’s performance in Haiti “aren’t seeing the complete picture. Haiti is a third world Hell-hole run by crooked politicians. The expectation that the relief funds would trickle down to the little people is unrealistic. That a substantial portion of the donated money was channeled to major Democratic donors is an overlooked success. What I’m saying is that a similar level of success is possible in Puerto Rico if the right people are put in charge of the operation.”

In related news, now that the sexual crimes of one of her presidential campaign’s donors have burst into a national scandal, Hillary Clinton has promised to re-donate his contribution to charity. “Luckily, the Clinton Foundation is both a handy and reputable institution to which these ill-gotten gains can be redeployed,” she observed.

Carter Offers Self as “Human Shield”

This week, former US President Jimmy Carter offered himself to North Korea’s communist government to “act as a human shield against an attack by the Trump Administration” contending that “even a madman like Trump would surely pull back if he knew an innocent American’s life was at stake.”

Fortunately for the ex-president, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un rebuffed the offer. “Our might is supreme,” Kim boasted. “We have no need for shields—human or otherwise. Mr. Carter, like all of my enemies, will die at a time and place of my choosing. Even those who to attempt to hide like my brother did will be found and killed by my unstoppable assassins.”

Twitter Blocks Candidate’s Mention of “Aborted Baby Parts”

A tweet from Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) that mentioned Planned Parenthood’s sales of aborted baby parts led to Twitter blocking a campaign ad in her bid for a US Senate seat in her state.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey labeled Blackburn’s tweet “inflammatory and likely to evoke a strong negative reaction. On the one hand, there’s the woman who already has to deal with the emotionally difficult decision to terminate her pregnancy. Awareness that her baby might be cannibalized and sold for parts like a junked car would add unnecessary trauma to that decision.”

“On the other hand, there is potential financial damage to Planned Parenthood,” Dorsey continued. “If the notion spreads that babies aborted in their facilities could be chopped up and sold instead of being incinerated as hazardous waste, women might stop seeking the procedure from Planned Parenthood’s doctors. We cannot in good conscience allow our network to be used to inflict this kind of damage on this vital organization.”

In related news, Apple’s Vice President of Diversity Denise Young Smith apologized for publicly suggesting that diversity of thought is important. The apology followed a storm of left-wing criticism of her earlier remarks asserting that skin color wasn’t the sole criteria for achieving diversity. “Last week I made some comments as part of a conversation on the many factors that contribute to diversity and inclusion,” she said.

“My comments were not representative of how I think about diversity or how Apple sees it. I’m sorry.”

Housing a “Necessary Right” Says Congresswoman

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif) declared “it is everyone’s human right to have a suitable house to live in. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness mean nothing if you don’t have a decent place to live.”

Waters demanded that Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson “implement a program that provides a house to everyone that needs it. For too long access to a decent home has depended on the ability of individuals to afford to pay for it and maintain it. This is an injustice when we have the means to solve this problem.”

Part of the Congresswoman’s reasoning cited “the fact that many rich people have more than one house or a bigger one than they need shows we have a housing surplus that could be redistributed or shared. We could take a big bite out of homelessness without having to spend any government money. If there are any homeless after the redistribution and sharing is put into effect then the government can build more and better than the crappy public project apartments that we foist on the poor. Why should they have to live in these crime infested slums?”

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.

Advertisements

Serial Sexual Harasser Sees Right-Wing Conspiracy

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

JohnHollywood big shot Harvey Weinstein took a hint from his good friend Hillary Clinton and blamed a vast right-wing conspiracy for a recent New York Times article detailing his long history as a serial sexual harasser. Hurt that his generous donations to Democratic politicians and payoffs to his victims weren’t sufficient to suppress this information, the bloated movie mogul lamented that his reputation may have been “irretrievably damaged.”

“The unfairness of it all just boggles my mind,” Weinstein admitted. “Others have done far worse and come away smelling like a rose. Bill Clinton raped a woman and committed perjury, but is still admired enough to land half-million dollar speaking gigs. I never raped anyone. Why am I being singled out?”

A clue to Mr. Weinstein’s anomalous fate may have been Hillary’s offhand disparagement of his “measly $600,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation. Others have given much more. Harvey certainly had the means to give more. If he had I might not have suffered the injustice of being denied the presidency. Ironically, if I had won I could’ve pardoned Harvey and put this whole ugly episode behind us.”

In a bid to placate the women he has offended and curry favor with the courts, Weinstein vowed to “channel my anger by driving the NRA out of business” and reminded everyone that he is “making a movie about Trump that is so damning that he will resign in disgrace.” Whether either of these actions will deter lawyers in pursuit of monetary compensation for the aggrieved women Weinstein degraded seems doubtful.

In related news, Chelsea Clinton demanded that a court dismiss author Christopher Kimberley’s plagiarism lawsuit against her. Kimberley alleges that a significant portion of her children’s book She Persisted was based on content he shared with her publisher when he was attempting to sell his book idea. Clinton’s lawyers asserted that “first, Kimberley’s idea wasn’t copyrighted. Second, our client’s mother was the candidate that coined the phrase ‘she persisted’ during her recent unsuccessful run for the presidency. Third, the Clinton’s are one of this country’s foremost families. Their stature must supersede this little known writer’s claim that his 2013 bid for a book deal entitles him to compensation. Fourth, even if his idea was stolen, the statute of limitations for this alleged crime ought to rule out any legal action at this late date.”

Massacre in Vegas Spurs Gun Control Effort

Like clockwork, the murderous rampage in which a sniper shot more than 500 people, killing 58 of them, from a Las Vegas high-rise hotel last Sunday has inspired renewed calls for gun control legislation. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) called for “Republicans to join Democrats in order to pass legislation that will once-and-for-all disarm those who have no need for guns.”

From what we know about the alleged shooter it seems unlikely that any gun legislation would be effective in deterring this type of crime. After all, murder is already illegal and carries the most severe penalties under existing laws. A person willing to violate the law against murder does not seem likely to be deterred by adding a weapons violation, especially when mass killers usually are killed in shootouts with law enforcement officers or commit suicide. Another inconvenient fact is that some of the places in the US with the strictest gun control laws and very low rates of National Rifle Association (NRA) membership have disproportionately high rates of gun violence.

Facts and logic did not dissuade Schumer from accusing the NRA with complicity in gun-related deaths. “The NRA has bought the votes of congressmen who oppose reining-in this evil organization,” he argued. The Senator rebuffed “the right to bear arms” as “an obsolete concept. When the Second Amendment was adopted ordinary citizens needed firearms to hunt for food or to defend themselves when help was hours or days away. Well, everyone I know buys their food at a grocery store or restaurant. And with 911, help is only minutes away. The need for individuals to have personal arms just isn’t there anymore.”

Schumer hailed late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel as an example of how civilized people should behave. “He didn’t go out and buy himself a bunch of guns,” the Senator pointed out. “He just beefed up his armed security detail. Not only are the guns protecting Mr. Kimmel in the hands of trained professionals, he is also providing jobs for ex-military and retired police. I call that a win-win solution for America.”

While Schumer expressed outrage that the NRA would provide campaign contributions to legislators who oppose gun control he seemed unperturbed by Planned Parenthood donating to legislators who oppose abortion. Since 1973—the year the US Supreme Court created a universal right to abortion—there have been 1.5 million gun-related deaths vs. 55 million abortion-related deaths. Some of the gun-related deaths were accidental. Some were suicide. But all of the children killed by abortion were intentional homicide. Statistically, the votes “bought” to oppose abortion have taken a far greater toll on human lives than any votes “bought” by the NRA.

IRS Gives Contract to Equifax

Despite a hack of its database that exposed the personal information of 145 million of its customers, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) granted a no-bid $7.5 million contract to Equifax. Under the terms of the contract the company will handle the personal information of millions of taxpayers.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) called the contract “bad on so many levels. What kind of fool trusts a firm that has just experienced a huge data breach to handle more of the same kind of data? On top of this, the ‘no-bid’ process evades procurement guidelines calling for competitive bids from multiple firms. This is designed to ensure fairness and value for the taxpayers’ dollars. The no-bid option is only there for instances where there is only one possible source for providing the services requested. That clearly isn’t the case here.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) concurred with Grassley’s concerns, “the IRS lacks the cybersecurity needed to safeguard taxpayer information that most private corporations have. I would think that the demonstrated breach suffered by Equifax would make them, at least for the time being, an unqualified bidder. This deal smells.”

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen characterized the Senators’ fears as “overwrought. Our mission at the IRS is to maximize the revenue extracted from taxpayers. While we’d naturally prefer that personal data be secured from hackers it is not essential to our mission to achieve that level of security. We may have ‘bent’ the rules a bit with the no-bid contract, but I’d like to point out that this saved the IRS the trouble of having to scrutinize a bevy of competing firms and freed up internal resources to make them available for scrutinizing right-wing political groups seeking nonprofit status.”

Lawyer Says Dems Ordered Falsification of Records

Democratic National Committee IT aide Imran Awan has been indicted for bank fraud and is suspected of pilfering computer equipment and selling classified materials to the highest bidders. Aaron Page, one of his lawyers says that his Democratic congressional employers told him to falsify records in order to conceal how they were spending public funds.

The alleged falsification scheme entailed bogus invoices showing a expensive equipment incorrectly inventoried at under $500 in value, but with an attached “service plan” to compensate the vendor for the full cost of the item. Later these items frequently disappeared because items listed as under $500 in value are not as closely watched.
One of Awan’s employers, Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), discovered that $120,000 worth of equipment went missing from her office. Rather then report a theft, her chief of staff quietly filed papers erasing any record of the equipment from the office inventory.

Clarke dismissed the controversy as “a minor matter. The government is a trillion dollars in the red every year. The total debt is twenty trillion. In that context, the fate of a piddling 120 thou is inconsequential. What we should be focusing on is the racism that is denying Colin Kaepernick his rightful place in the National Football League.”

Judge Bars Cooperation with Commission on Election Integrity

Judge Tim Sulak, a Democrat who serves on the 353rd District Court located in Travis County, Texas filed a restraining order blocking the Secretary of State from turning over voter registration information to President Donald Trump’s Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Texas law requires the Secretary of State to release the information to any person or organization that fills out the form, pays the fee and signs an affidavit certifying that the information will not be used for commercial purposes.

In his ruling Sulak maintained that “the entire Trump Administration is nothing more that a gigantic marketing campaign to sell the deranged rantings of a megalomaniac as the legitimate policies of a duly elected government. This is obviously a commercial purpose. As such, I judge the affidavit as false and forbid the Secretary of State from cooperating in anyway with the Trump criminal conspiracy.”

Interestingly, the State of Texas has 12 counties in which there are more registered voters than there are adults. The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) notes that Texas is not unique in this regard. Their research found 248 counties in 24 states with similarly odd disparities.

Sulak insisted that “odd disparities don’t prove election fraud. Until fraud is proven I can see no legitimate grounds for permitting our state to participate in Trump’s witch hunt.”

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.

Rush Limbaugh: Donald Trump Defeated the NFL Because the Country Isn’t What the Media Portrays It to Be

RUSH: The Democrats are trying to connect Trump to the ongoing so-called failure of getting aid and relief to Puerto Rico. And that’s gonna bomb. You know, it’s starting to happen. Actually, I think it’s been happening for a while. The left does not innovate. The Democrat Party, let me specify it. The Democrat Party does not innovate. They don’t have any innovators, and they don’t have any forward thinkers. If the Democrat Party produced a smartphone, it would still be 30 years old. And the only thing that would change in it is the numbers of people that you can call.
They really don’t innovate. The way they’re going after Trump on Puerto Rico is a replay of how they went after Bush on Katrina, which is a replay on how they went after George H. W. Bush on Kuwait, which is a replay on how they’ve gone after Reagan for not caring about — it’s just a replay. They just go to their playbook and repeat things that, in their minds, have worked very well, and they try to adapt them to the modern era, but it doesn’t work, and it’s all falling apart.
The same thing with the NFL. That is falling apart on them. Trump is being proven a winner on this. They don’t want to admit it. The NFL doesn’t want to admit it, of course. But if you look at any number of indicators and any number of teams now announcing in advance, “Hey, we’re standing on Sunday.” The Steelers. “We’re standing on Sunday.”
Drew Brees, New Orleans Saints, came out and said, “We’re gonna do both. We’re gonna kneel and then we’re gonna stand.” That I predict is not — like I said last night, the NFL is making a tactical error here and maybe even strategic. And I think corporate America has been doing the same thing. Corporate America — the NFL’s in that world — gets caught up in media and they see everything through the lens of media, as the most people do. But the picture of America that the media paints or broadcasts or portrays isn’t accurate. And let me give you an example.
I hearken back to this all the time, because, to me, it’s one of the best. Mike Pence was governor of Indiana. And they passed a religious freedom restoration bill because in Indiana people were being prevented, they were being protested, they were having trouble expressing religious freedom, which is granted in the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.
So what Governor Pence and the Indiana legislature did was pass a state law that basically reaffirmed it. They found it necessary to do so because not enough people knew that religious freedom was guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution. It cannot be abridged.
But there were ongoing protests and other hassles that were being visited upon Christians in Indiana. So they come up with a religious restoration bill. Well, immediately the media tried to portray the state of Indiana as homophobic and racist and bigoted. And you remember, the media went all over the state knocking on doors of businesses. They were trying to find a business that would admit that it would not cater a gay wedding, if it was a pizzeria, if it was a bakery, if it was a photography studio.
It took them two weeks, and they found a little pizzeria in a small town in Indiana, and the daughter of the owner was 21 or 22, and they run into her shop with their cameras and microphones and ask her, “If a gay wedding asked you to cater their reception, would you do it?” And she said, “No. It’s a violation of my religious beliefs,” and they were off and running. So they found one example.
The coverage of the whole incident in Indiana was made to look like Indiana was an outlier, that the rest of America sees Indiana the way the media was portraying Indiana — as backwards, as Christian, as restrictionist, as exclusionary, as racist, as bigoted, as homophobic. So now if you happen to be a corporate CEO — a titan of industry living in Montana, living in Arizona, living in Texas — you watch this, and you might be forgiven if you believe that the media portrayal, the narrative here is right.
In other words, I think that a number of people and institutions — corporate leaders — have mistakenly bought the media narrative of where American culture is, and they believe that American culture is moving left — and it is in certain spots. I’m not denying that. They believe that American culture all is united against Christian conservatives. In other words, the people the media portray as enemies is made to look like everybody in America thinks so.
And you can see when you look at corporate marketing how they choose to advertise and sell their products. You can tell who they think their audiences are, and I believe in many cases they’re missing the mark. And I think the NFL is one of these corporate entities that’s missing its mark. I think there are people there who really believe that sideline protests of the flag and disrespect for the flag and the honoring of Colin Kaepernick was going to improve their image. Why would they do it otherwise?
Why would the NFL purposely engage in activity if they knew it was going to be harmful? Now, wait. There are institutions that are doing that. ESPN is continuing to lose subscribers, and yet they are continuing to take action and implement policies that will guarantee the continued erosion of subscribers. While saying they’re not a political organization, they’ve gone all left, all the time. Do they know that they are offending a great majority of their audience? Do they not see the cancellations of subscriptions to cable TV and online?
What if they do? What explains why they continue to do this? Well, what explains CNN continuing to do what they do when they stay in tenth place? Why? Why doesn’t CNN adapt? Why does CNN…? Well, part of it is niche advertising and pursuing a niche audience and trying to own all of it, but another aspect of it is — I guarantee you — that CNN believes it’s hip. CNN believes it is where the majority of thinking is; it’s just taking a while for people to admit it, and CNN’s gonna be loyal to the cause no matter what.
They’ll go down with the ship. They’ll go down with the flag. If liberalism kills CNN, if CNN dies as a network, they’ll go down on the ship with it, because they’re loyal to the cause. Is that the NFL? Is the NFL so devoted to a political ideology that they willingly allow the product to suffer just to stay loyal to the political ideology? I don’t think so. We’re already seeing the league try to backtrack. They had a big meeting yesterday, and do you know the thing that came out of that meeting?
There were owners in the meeting. There were players in the meeting and NFL execs, the commissioner. You know what the big thing to come out of the meeting was? Have you heard? The big thing to come out of the meeting was they all agreed that this approach — that it’s the players and the NFL versus President Trump — has got to stop. Why? Because they’re losing it. They didn’t think they were gonna lose this. When owners and management promote — and that’s what they were doing.
That’s why I was sad. That’s why I was despondent on Sunday and Monday. When the owners, when the league officials — the commissioner, his executive team — tout this public display of anti-American symbolism — which they did. They all lined up with the players, and they all touted what the players were doing, and they all said it was about “unity,” when it’s not. It’s about division. They lined up against their customers and with their employees, and I contend to you they did so for a number of reasons.
A, they rolled the dice. They’d much rather lose the fans (what they think is temporary) than have the players walk out. So the owners, they were scared. They had to side with the players on this. The league did, too. But in the process, they went the wrong way. They went down the wrong path, and all the polling data shows it. You can see now by the league trying to backtrack and all these teams announce there will be no sitting; we’re gonna stand.
Not all of them, but those who are are making a big deal of it. Now, the point in all of this is that I think a vastly incorrect picture of America is portrayed and painted by the media each and every day, and unwitting people (who otherwise are smart and intelligent in their own right) believe it, and it makes them make incorrect decisions. Climate change is another example of this. Climate change is not happening.
But if corporate America thinks that a significant percentage of America believes it’s happening, they’ll market to it. They’ll do whatever they can to separate people from their dollars. But it isn’t working. A majority of Americans do not believe America is destroying the planet, because in every one of these left-wing issues, guess who the culprit is? America. America’s racist. America’s unjust. America’s destroying the planet.
America is creating havoc around the world. America is this and that. America’s wrong. America’s evil. America’s mistaken. People have had it; they’re fed up with it. Because a majority of Americans don’t believe that, will not believe that, and don’t want to be made to believe it. And so they’re reacting now in numbers that look like they’re a surprise, because the media has made people believe that that is a very small percentage of our country, when what we’re learning is that it is a majority.
So it’s all good in this sense, but I’m still amazed at how easy it has been for people to make these powerful entities misjudge. Now, folks, look, it could well be, too, in some of these examples that the CEOs and the boards of directors are full-fledged libs, and they’re gonna be loyal to that no matter what and they’re gonna take it as far as they can until economics dictates they back off of it. I mean, there’s also that possibility too. Bottom line: The country is not what the media portrays it to be.
The country and its cultural values have not yet been erased and destroyed. The founding ideals — the founding principles, the traditions and institutions — are not yet the minority of thinking in this country. And yet so many entities seem to think that progressivism has become the majority of thinking and acting and behavior in the country, when it isn’t, largely because the media makes it look as though that’s hip and that’s cool and traditional American values are uncool and unhip and nerdy and what have you.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Morning Consult with polling data on the National Football League. This is a major drop, by the way, in seven days. On September 21st, 25% of Trump supporters said they had a very favorable view of the NFL; 11% had a very unfavorable view. So September 21st, basically eight days ago, 25% Trump supporters favorable NFL, 11% unfavorable. Yesterday, the numbers have dramatically changed. Thirty-three percent of Trump supporters now say unfavorable view of the NFL, 16% favorable.
So the favorable has fallen nine points, and the unfavorable has gone from 11 to 33% in just a week. What’s happened in that week? The NFL has appeared on television and in the media to be defiant of the concerns of their fan base. They’ve been very vocal. They have been very defiant. They have continued to talk about their unity, which isn’t unity; it’s division.
And I think they probably would be shocked, maybe not now, because I think the NFL is starting to exhibit signs that they understand it. But in their view they’ve got a real balancing act because these players are off now on this. I mean, they’re into it. And the league is between a rock and a hard place. They can’t just replace. I mean, in some cases players are a dime a dozen, but star power isn’t. So we’ll see how this manifests itself.
Here’s a story that dovetails precisely with my observation that the Democrat Party and the left really are having trouble innovating. Don’t misunderstand me, by the way, folks. I’m not saying that they’re wilting away, fading away. They are still a powerful force led by the media, and they still have the ability to entirely misrepresent anything they want and have a lot of people believe it. Don’t misunderstand. I’m talking about opportunity here. You know me; I’m always looking at opportunity.
I’m always looking at things optimistically. Like I do hope that this NFL stuff can be erased. It may be the first time in any issue that we’ll be able to totally erase — if the NFL hopes to become what it was — and who knows, maybe they don’t. Maybe they’re run by a bunch of people that themselves are social justice warriors. I don’t know. Frankly, I have been stunned at how the NFL has chosen to respond to this concussion business. I have been shocked at how they’ve chosen to respond to that.
I mean, we’re watching a concerted effort to destroy this game take place, and the people running it seem to be strategically thinking they have to cooperate with it, and by virtue of that, they acknowledge some of the allegations and then claim they want to work with those attacking them. It never works out that way. You give an inch to the people that want a pound of flesh, they’re gonna keep asking, taking, demanding. I’m stunned at this. I really am.
I used to think that these people in these leadership positions were brighter than everybody else. I admittedly was younger and more naive. I used to think these people were really smart, that they were there because they were smarter than average and they were in these positions of power because they knew how to protect and grow their enterprises. But as more and more people have come under the — I call it the spell — the education of liberalism and the corrupting effect and impact that it has, I sometimes wonder, are there any adults left?
Are there any mature adults with the confidence to reject that which seeks to destroy who they are? Big Oil as gone through it. Big Pharma has gone through it. Every big corporate concern is under constant attack and has been. And watching them navigate it has been fascinating. Some of them have failed big time. And the NFL is one of these things that I hope gets its act together at some point.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Luke in Charlotte, North Carolina. Luke, great to have you on the EIB Network. How are you?
CALLER: Hey, Rush, dittos. The reason I called you is last night was a terrible night. I sat there and I did not turn on — for the first time in 60 years of my fandom — the Bears-Packers game, and I used to play for the Little Bears in Chicago. I actually played at halftime during the Bears game at Wrigley Field. That’s how old I am. I got to shake Papa Halas’ hand, and I’ve been a die-hard Bears fan. If they’re losing people like me that are so upset, so angry, so frustrated, then I can’t imagine how many people are tuning out.
RUSH: Why…? Look, the answer may be obvious; I just want to hear you say it. Why’d you not watch?
CALLER: It just… You know, I’m a veteran, okay? That’s one thing. I’ve devoted my life to service in one way or the other, and to the country — and to see that disrespect. And this holding-arms thing? I was telling Bo, this holding-arms thing is not a compromise. That’s an act of defiance.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: It says in the protocol for the American national anthem —
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: — you stand at attention, you place your hand over your heart and you show respect.
RUSH: The problem is —
CALLER: Locking arms as an act of defiance.
RUSH: That is exactly right. This linking arms thing, it did not work in Green Bay. The fans were shouting, “U! S! A! U! S! A!” They did not link arms. Their star quarterback, Aaron Rodgers, asks the players, asks the fans to join the players and link arms. That’s not how you honor the national anthem and the flag. That’s not how you do it. The league… (sigh) Folks, the NFL is 75% African-American. The players in the NFL, by any objective comparison, are wealthy.
They are stars, they are celebrities, and many of them are hero-worshiped. Many of these players are popular beyond their wildest dreams, respected beyond their wildest dreams. There is no oppression in the NFL. There is no racism in the NFL. It’s quite the opposite. So overt, in-your-face America bashing in front of America-loving, big-spending customers isn’t sustainable. The league simply cannot sustain itself if its players are going to engage in this kind of behavior.
Because they… I don’t care what they say. By doing all of this on the stage… The playing field is a stage. It is owned by the owners. In some cases, there’s public financing of stadiums, but you get my drift. If they’re gonna take the stage and engage in activity that makes it look like they have grievances, what are people gonna think their grievances are? They’re gonna think the grievances are the league. Why are they doing this? Why are they doing this to the NFL?
Why are they messing with this stuff on the sideline at NFL games? People don’t know Kaepernick. I mean, they do, but they’re not gonna sit there and put it together the players are in solidarity with Kaepernick. And, by the way, the players are now all backing off. “It’s not about the flag. We’re not protesting the flag. We’re not.” Well, then what are you protesting? It doesn’t matter what you say; we know that you align with Kaepernick, and we know what Kaepernick said. Kaepernick specifically said he was protesting the flag.
He cannot honor a country and its flag that treats people of color this way. There’s all so much revisionist history going on here. But just the picture of these players acting as aggrieved victims or malcontents, it doesn’t fly, because nobody has ever said the NFL discriminates against them. Nobody has ever said the NFL is a racist organization that needs to be changed. Nobody has ever said this, and yet that’s where these protests are taking place.
So the protests are actually harming the NFL, and it is my contention that that is the objective. People on the left — nameless, faceless people — have a desire to inflict great harm on the NFL for reasons I’ve detailed before. The players, I believe, are unwittingly… Some of them know what they’re doing, of course; there are exceptions to everything.
But the players are unwittingly being duped into this thinking that they’re engaged in activity promoting solidarity and unity and diversity. And that’s not how people are seeing this at all, and it’s patently obvious now. This isn’t sustainable. Overt, in-your-face bashing of America in front of big-spending customers? It isn’t gonna work. You can’t sustain this.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Colin Kaepernick said he was protesting the flag and the anthem. He specifically cited them. Now a bunch of people are saying, “We’re not about the flag. We’re not protesting the flag!” Then what are you protesting? ‘Cause I’m telling you guys, it looks like you’re protesting the NFL and it looks like you’re protesting America, and people don’t understand it, and they’re reacting unfavorably to it.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: So CNN’s running a poll that they say says that most people think Trump is wrong to criticize NFL players. Then why are NFL ratings down? They’re down again last night. Now, they had a rain delay last, thunderstorm delay in Green Bay. The numbers are down like 11%. That may be the wrong number. I just glanced at ’em. But the Thursday night numbers are down a year ago, same game a year ago. If CNN thinks that most Americans think Trump is wrong to criticize players, then why is any of this happening?
Why are advertisers backing out and why are people not watching, and why is attendance down?
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here is Joanne is Deposit, New York. Welcome. Great to have you here. Open Line Friday.
CALLER: Great job last night.
RUSH: Well, thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.
CALLER: You’re welcome. I enjoy watching you on TV. Love it.
RUSH: You know what somebody said to me today, Joanne?
CALLER: What?
RUSH: Not to talk about me. You’ve done that plenty. (laughing)
CALLER: I like talking about you. I like listening to what you have to say, even if it’s about yourself.
RUSH: It was the chef today. It was the chef. “You know what’s great, is watching you think out loud. People don’t get to watch you think on radio, but you’re obviously –” and then somebody else said, “You don’t even pause for a second to think about what you’re gonna say. You already know. You just launch with it.” And of course these are things I don’t even think about.
CALLER: It’s that great mind of yours. That’s what it is.
RUSH: Yeah, I guess so.
CALLER: I wish I had half your brain. Well, I have a question about the NFL.
RUSH: Okay.
CALLER: I know nothing about football. I probably know less than nothing, but from a business point of view, I’m looking at this, and I’m saying, “Aren’t these owners being bullied by their employees?” Because at my work, there’s no way I’m gonna tell my boss what I’m gonna do and what not to do. I’m expected to do a job, and if I have to sign a contract, I know ahead of time what’s expected of me. These are adult men that have watched football since they were little boys.
RUSH: Many of them have an eighth grade education, though.
CALLER: I’m sitting here going, “How come these owners aren’t banding together and saying, ‘Wait a minute, we work as a team.’”
RUSH: Let me explain this to you. This is actually, Joanne, a great, great question. You know, this is a great perspective. Somebody that doesn’t know the game, doesn’t watch the game, admits that she knows less than nothing about it, and so her question is pure. Her question is, “Why are the bosses letting the employees do this to the product?” Exactly! I addressed it, Joanne. The answer is the owners are scared to death.
They have two choices: Side with the employees who are doing what they’re doing and then maybe even look like they support it. Or side with the customers, the fans. If they side with the players as they’re doing, what’s happening? Fans are watching less, attendance is down, the image of the game is taking a huge hit. The owners make a calculation. If they side with the fans then that is going to infuriate the players as a sign of lack of support. They’re gonna say this confirms what we’re saying that we do not have equality and that we’re not treated fairly.
And if the players decide not to show up, then there’s no game. If the fans don’t show up, the game’s still played, and it’s still on TV, but if the players don’t show, and if they keep on not showing. So the owners make this calculation. They’re in, to a certain extent, a no-win situation. I think in most of these owners’ cases, they can’t afford not to express solidarity. That’s why more owners than you’ve ever seen are on the field during the pregame kneeling, linking. I have often believed — no, I should not say this. It’s perfectly totally true, but it’s so distracting, it might get me into trouble.
But let’s put it this way. When 75% of your employees are of a particular race, and that particular race is expressing grievances all over our country with things that are unjust and unfair. If 75% of your employees are joining that way of thinking and you want to keep your team together — and you want the players to think that management has their players’ backs — you have to join them. That’s their thinking. You have to join ’em, whether they agree with it or not.
Now, not all owners did. Not all owners issued a statement. Not all owners reacted to Trump. There’s a whole five or six of ’em who didn’t. And the media jumped right on ’em and asked why and started speculating, “They must be Trump supporters!” They were in the crosshairs. The media tried to do ’em great damage for not joining their players in this display of whatever it is. But the bottom line here is that the league is being harmed, and it is my contention that there are those who seek that very thing.
I’ve chronicled it since the first time I noticed, two or three years ago, when I detected the media was spending more time pointing out the flaws and the problems with the league than they were reporting on the actual games and the exploits of the athletes who play it. I issued a warning at that time that the very media covering this game — i.e., promoting it, creating interest about it — is helping harm it.
That has only continued with the making of movies. How about the news that a hundred out of 111 players in a random survey have irreversible brain damage because they played football? What you gonna…? I mean, they’ve created an aura, even among people watching the game, of nervousness and anxiety and it’s just not same. It just isn’t. This has all been manufactured and created because liberalism has found its way into the game. The tentacles are deep and they’re tangled, and its web is now interwoven deeply into the NFL.
When the left does this, they corrupt whatever they touch by politicizing it. And that’s what we are seeing. So now the damage is obvious that the owners and the management of the league, they sided as they had to, but it’s harming them. So now everybody’s trying to backtrack and now teams are announcing in advance, “We’re standing this Sunday! Notice us. We’re standing. We’re not gonna kneel. See us? See us? We’re gonna stand!” Other players are saying, “It’s not the flag. We’re not protesting the flag. We’re not protesting America.”
Yes, you are.
Whether you know it or not, that’s what you’re doing. If you’re supporting Kaepernick, that’s what he was doing. It’s a sad, sad situation. But this is not unique, Joanne. It is rare in professional sports that owners actually punish players for things like this. They side with players. The owners can’t do without them. Even though they’re a dime a dozen, it’s a unique situation here. If the players sit down, it doesn’t matter whether people show up or not. And if the players sit down, even more fans are not gonna show when they come back, especially about this. I appreciate the call.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Let’s try Ed in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Ed, I’m glad you called. How you doing?
CALLER: I’m doing fantastic, Rush. How are you?
RUSH: Fine, dandy. Thank you, sir.
CALLER: You know, I find it very interesting that our unbiased media is so focused this week on something the president said about some football players, and yet we hear virtually nothing about a mass shooting at a church. You think it’s because the facts of this particular shooting — including the hero — don’t fit their narrative?
RUSH: Very likely. I think it’s much the same as the president talks about players in the NFL, and the media says, “How dare you! How dare you!” Meanwhile, thousands — over the course of a year — are dying in Chicago, and the media won’t talk a syllable about it because it’s race-on-race crime, and they won’t talk about it. It doesn’t further their agenda.
CALLER: Wouldn’t it be a good opportunity to them to talk about this so-called gun control they’re worried about?
RUSH: Well, they have to weigh everything here, and they’ve decided there’s no future in using any aspect of that issue. Let me ask you this, folks. Let me try something else on this. I promise we’re getting near the end of this. I don’t want to end up frustrating people that the NFL’s a big topic here, but I do love it, and I’m devastated by what is happening here. Let me ask this.
What if everything’s the same except instead of Colin it is a white player who refuses to support the anthem because he disagrees with American foreign policy? What do you think would happen to that player? Would the league and would other players join that player and would a cause have been created, and would the owners act afraid of it, and would the commissioner tolerate it?
If during player introductions — this is my favorite one — they introduced the players and they run on the field… Many teams now don’t like individual units introductions, the offense running on as they’re named within the whole teams comes out. What if a player came out waving the Confederate flag? Oh, it’s freedom of speech. Diversity, fairness, equality! What do you think would happen? Hmm?

Dems Assail Trump’s NFL Comments

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

JohnPresident Trump’s objection to NFL players refusing to stand for the playing of the National Anthem prior to the start of their football games spurred outrage among assorted Democrats.

Democratic Coalition chairman Jon Cooper maintained that Trump’s statement that “the sons of bitches who won’t stand for the Anthem ought to be fired” violates federal law. “It’s pretty clear that the president saying someone ought to be fired is a crime,” Cooper said. “This crime carries a penalty of 15 years in prison.”

Despite the lack of any mention of race in Trump’s remarks, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif) insisted that his statement was “racist. We all know that the NFL is a plantation where black men are forced to risk grievous bodily harm to entertain and enrich white folks. Calling the players who protested their enslavement ‘sons of bitches’ is a ‘dog whistle’ telling their white overseers to fire them. This is the clearest evidence yet that Mr. Trump is unfit to rule and deserves to be impeached.” (Note: the minimum annual salary for “enslaved” NFL players is over $400,000. Many stars earn far more. Detroit Lions Quarterback Matthew Stafford, for example, has a five-year $135 million contract.)

Former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton echoed Waters’ take on the issue and wondered whether Trump “might be sending a coded message to his rich team-owning friends to have a few players killed as an example to others not to challenge his power. That would be a very persuasive message and likely to silence most opposition.”

Left-wing columnist Jonathan Alter cleverly characterized Trump’s words as “the fumble that will end his presidency. Football players are the most revered heroes of our culture. By pissing them off, Trump has ensured they will unite against him. Given the choice between whether to stick with their gridiron favorites or Trump’s lame demand that respecting the anthem and the flag ought to rein-in their right to protest, I think we all know how that will turn out.” Alter hailed reports “that NFL viewership was only down 20 percent seals the deal. Eighty percent will follow the players and vote to oust Trump in 2018.”

In related news, the United Nations Human Rights Council demanded that Canada “apologize and pay reparations to blacks living in their country.” Though Canada never had slavery, and in fact, offered refuge to slaves escaping north from the United States, UN spokesman Adam Blackman pointed out that “the power structure in Canada is white. It’s always been white. What more proof do we need that reparations are warranted?”

Operation “Safe City” Nets Nearly 500 Illegals

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) teams made 498 arrests in “sanctuary cities” this past week as part of an enforcement action dubbed “safe city.” Those arrested included 317 people with criminal convictions, 68 immigration fugitives, 104 people who had previously been deported and 18 known gang members.

Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney (D) denounced the ICE raids as “an infringement on our city’s sovereignty. We gave our word to these undocumented immigrants that they would be safe from arrest in our jurisdiction. Now we look like fools.”

The Mayor vowed legal action “to reverse this egregious miscarriage of justice. We’re confident that we can find a judge who will rescind the ICE arrests and order the release of these victims of the Trump Administration’s racist xenophobia. And we’re not ruling out asking for punitive damages to discourage further atrocities of this sort.”

ICE acting Director Tom Homan called the Mayor’s declaration “a sick and twisted version of reality. Our action targeted the worst offenders. His efforts to shield these individuals from law enforcement endanger public safety. If anyone should be held liable it’s those sanctuary cities who give a haven to wanted criminals that prey upon the citizens government is obligated to protect.”

Governor Approves Medicaid for Abortions

This week, Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner (R) signed legislation authorizing tax money to be used to fund abortions for poor people. This reversed a position he announced last April against such funding, but honors his 2014 campaign pledge “to ensure that poor mothers have the same ability to terminate unwanted children that their richer sisters have.”

Rauner brushed aside Republican arguments that individuals morally opposed to the murder of unborn children shouldn’t be forced to finance it through taxes, saying that “individual matters of conscience cannot be permitted to impede the collective will of the people. I was elected on a promise to extend abortion rights to those who can’t afford to pay for it. The Democratic legislators who passed the bill were elected on the promise to expand the scope of abortion. Democracy must prevail over idiosyncratic moral or religious prejudices.”

The Governor also argued that “in the long run increasing the frequency of abortions for the poor will work to the GOP’s political advantage. The children of poor people usually grow up to be Democratic voters. Be enabling interdiction before birth we will be decreasing the number of future Democratic voters. So, as I see it, Republicans who oppose public funding for abortion aren’t thinking strategically.”

In related news, Doug Jones, the Democratic nominee for Alabama’s US Senate seat, called the Illinois legislation “a good omen. The days when extremists like Roy Moore can prevent women from exterminating their unwanted offspring are surely numbered.” Jones is confident that his firm support of abortion “up until the day of birth” will be a winning issue over his GOP opponent Moore in this December’s special election.

China Cracks Down on Toilet Paper Abuses

Concerned that its citizens might be using too much toilet paper, the government of China is installing facial recognition technology in its public restrooms. If the same person tries to obtain more than his or her allotted four squares of toilet tissue per visit the computer will recognize the face and withhold any additional paper.

Chinese Minister of Public Facilities Hu Du Dung explained that “four squares is an adequate amount for any socially responsible person. It is four times the amount the Japanese allowed to their POWs during World War II. Any attempt to use more is theft from the collective.”

Dung adamantly rejected the possibility that digestive distress might warrant a larger allotment. “Unlike backward countries such as the United States, China has universal, single-payer health care,” he pointed out. “Those who suffer bowel irregularities have only themselves to blame. They have no right to appropriate more than their designated share of toilet tissue. Our new technology will ensure that this doesn’t happen.”

Meanwhile, in America’s cruel capitalistic society toilet paper is freely available in public restrooms across the country despite the lack of the high-tech methods now being deployed in the more advanced China.

In related news, an editorial in the New York Times lauded “the amazing strides communism achieved for Chinese women.” The editorial admitted that “while Chinese women have suffered under the ubiquitous oppression inflicted on all the country’s inhabitants, the suffering has been equal. Considering the traditional patriarchal Chinese culture that preceded communism we mustn’t discount that accomplishment.” The editorial failed to mention the country’s technological advance in toilet paper rationing.

Trump Tax Plan “Death Blow” to High-Tax States

A feature of the Trump Administration’s proposed tax reform plan that has stirred fear among governors of high-tax states is the elimination of deductions for state income and property taxes. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) called it a “death blow” for his state.
“New York has traditionally relied on high taxes to fund the services we provide for our population,” the Governor pointed out. “Resistance to these tax high rates has been moderated by the fact that deductions from federal taxes has helped pass some of the burden onto to states that have lower taxes. If we lose that deduction more New Yorkers will object to our state’s taxes.”

Cuomo complained that the Trump plan’s replacement of state tax deductions with larger standard deductions ($12,000 for single filers and $24,000 for joint filers) “is unfair to our residents. Right now, the average deduction for state taxes for Manhattan residents is nearly $25,000. Trump’s plan would allow the same standard deduction for filers living in all states. A perk that has been enjoyed by New Yorkers for decades would be dissipated into a universally shared equal benefit. How will people afford to live in New York if they’re to be treated the same as residents in other states?”

New York Republican Reps. Dan Donovan and Peter King joined Cuomo’s complaint asserting that “to treat New Yorkers like everyone else is unAmerican. Our state has grown accustomed to a special status. New York City would not be a world-class city without the tax-subsidy the current code allows. We will ally with Republicans from other high-tax states and Democrats to make sure Trump’s plan is killed.”

California is the biggest high-tax state. It currently receives a $100 billion subsidy per year under the current tax code. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) called the subsidy “critical to sustaining my state’s status as the wealthiest in the United States. I cannot abide a tax reform that would change this even if it treats all states equally. California voters didn’t elect me to achieve fairness to other states. They expect me to defend our entitlements and that’s what I’m going to do.”

Feinstein also cited a recent report published by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) showing that illegal immigration costs American taxpayers $135 billion per year as further inspiration for her opposition to Trump’s proposal. “As a sanctuary state, California has to bear a disproportionate share of this cost,” the Senator observed. “If we lose the federal deduction for state taxes our ability to continue as a haven for these immigrants would be threatened.”

Special Counsel Declines to Pursue Evidence of Obama Crimes

While Special Counsel Robert Mueller has yet to uncover any evidence of a Trump-Russia plot to steal last year’s presidential election, he has turned up disturbing incidents of the Obama Administration’s illegal spying on American citizens and lying under oath.
However, it is unlikely that anything will come of these findings since, as Mueller explains, “whatever misdeeds may or may not have been committed by members of the previous administration are not part of my mandate. My mission is to prove collusion between Trump’s people and agents of the Russian government. For me to go outside of my mission mandate would violate the explicit instructions I was given when acting Attorney General Rosenstein appointed me.”

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.

Sweden Adopts Stern Response to Country’s Rape Epidemic

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

JohnNow that the influx of Muslim refugees into the country has catapulted Sweden to the top of the international heap when it comes to the crime of rape, government officials have determined it is time to take action. That action is the publication of a “sex guidebook” intended to convey a message to immigrants from Muslim countries that rape is wrong.

Youth and Civil Affairs Authority Director General Lena Nyberg explained that “the issue seems to be one of culture shock for young Muslim males entering Swedish society. These refugees were raised in a culture that explicitly designates females as sex objects for Muslim men. Naturally, these young men have a hard time adjusting to the western concept of equal rights for women.”

“Even worse, their religious doctrine declares that women who show their faces in public are whores,” Nyberg continued. “Consequently, Swedish women who go out in public with their faces showing are considered legitimate targets for punitive rape, assault, and murder by devout Muslims. Hopefully, our guide book will clarify the situation and deter Muslim men from committing these crimes.”

In Rinkeby, a suburb of Stockholm, local Imam Iwan Akillya denounced the guidebook, calling it “a violation of our religious rights and duties. Unbelievers trying to force their degraded western values on the people of Islam is unacceptable. True believers must follow the Quran, not the satanic blather of Swedish bureaucrats. It is Allah’s command that the faithful have a duty to slay the unbelievers, though it does permit using them as temporary sex slaves before killing or converting them.”

Nyberg said “the Imam’s statement is unfortunate. We hope it doesn’t reflect the real feelings among the young immigrants we are trying to reach. Our assumption is that those coming to our country as refugees are interested in fitting in with a new culture. Otherwise, why would they have chosen to leave the country of their birth?”

Akillya pointed out “the key flaw in the government’s reasoning is that Sweden is their country. All the world is for Allah. The sooner the unbelievers recognize this and convert to Islam, the sooner they can begin to enjoy membership in the only legitimate religion and know the peace of being one with the umma.”

In related news, Germany’s threat to support a European Union penalty of $75 million on Poland for its refusal to take in more Muslim refugees brought a stinging reply from Poland’s foreign minister Witold Waszczykowski. “We have seen the crime and social disruption that the importation of these so-called refugees has done to other European nations,” he said. “Germany, of all countries, should be keenly aware of the havoc that unwanted invaders can do to a country. By our estimation, the uninvited German visitors of 1939 ended up causing close to a trillion dollars worth of damage to Poland. Before Germany goes on a campaign to intimidate us to accept more invaders perhaps they should consider paying for the damage their country inflicted on all the places their troops went without being asked during World War II.”

Dem PAC Files Ethics Complaint

The Democratic Coalition filed a complaint with the Office of Government Ethics alleging that Presidential Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ suggestion that ESPN host Jemele Hill’s tweet labeling the President “a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself with other white supremacists” might be a “fireable offense,” broke the law.

Democratic Coalition chairman Jon Cooper insisted that “we cannot ignore the sinister implications of what the Trump Administration has done here. Mrs. Sanders contends she is entitled to express her opinion about the outrageous comments of Ms. Hill, but clearly her statement was intended to intimidate ESPN into firing one of its valued employees for merely expressing her opinion about Trump and his henchmen.”

Nate Lerner, the Democratic Coalition’s executive director, cast Sanders’ words as “another example of the Trump White House’s blatant disregard for the Constitution. A few months ago we had Kellyanne Conway urging people to buy Ivanka’s clothing line, now this. It is of the utmost importance that we hold the Trump administration accountable for its illicit behavior. If Sanders doesn’t go to jail over this it will be a dark day for our democratic institutions.” The law Lerner has in mind calls for a fine, up to 15 years in prison, or both.

Whether ESPN could conceivably be frightened into a firing action it disagrees with based on comments made by a Trump Administration official seems dubious. Anti-Trump commentary has become an annoying and intrusive part of the network’s sports broadcast coverage over the past year. The only employee ESPN has fired for expressing political views was former Major League Baseball pitcher Curt Schilling after he questioned the wisdom of laws forcing organizations to allow professed “transgendered” individuals to use whatever restroom or locker room they pleased despite their conflicting physical anatomy.

Weiner Pleads for Leniency

Former congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) asked a Manhattan federal court to grant him leniency after his conviction for sending obscene emails and texts to an under-aged 15-year-old girl last year. Prosecutors are seeking a sentence of 21 to 27 months for a charge that carries a maximum of 10 years in prison.

Weiner’s lawyers argued that “the girl was the instigator of the crime. She preyed upon the weaknesses of a man who was widely known as a sex pervert. Now she’s written a book and will profit from the experience. So, to say that she was an innocent victim is false.”

A second mitigating factor cited was “the fact is, Mr. Weiner’s wife has already suffered enough. Her political career has been crushed. She’s lost the confidence and affection of former Secretary of State, and the only person she truly loves, Hillary Clinton. Under the State of New York’s community property law, her suffering ought to be credited against her husband’s legal liability.”

A third mitigating factor cited was that “given the narrow margin of her loss, it could be argued that the untimely revelation of Mr. Weiner’s misdeeds tipped the scales against Mrs. Clinton in her run against Donald Trump for the presidency. Surely, the misery now being experienced by this dedicated public servant and her supporters is sufficient punishment without putting Mr. Weiner behind bars.”

Lastly, Weiner’s lawyers argued that “putting this man in jail will deprive his son of his father’s presence. The boy’s development would be stunted without the daily interaction and guidance his father would be able to provide if he is allowed to go free. Who will teach the boy how to be a man? Who will teach the boy the difference between right and wrong? For the sake of this young boy’s future he needs his father.”

Hillary Admits “Mistakes Made”

One of the more bizarre revelations in Hillary Clinton’s campaign autopsy book—What Happened—was her admission that she tried Voodoo, “but it didn’t work. I had dolls of all the key players—Trump, Bannon, Limbaugh. I stuck them with pins like you’re supposed to, but none of them even got sick, much less died.”

The former presidential candidate speculated that “some sort of Russian radiation or hypersonic interference may have short-circuited the effectiveness of this time-tested technique. I mean, it’s not like I haven’t successfully used this tool before. We made a lot of problems disappear when Bill was governor of Arkansas and when we were in the White House. So, there’s got to have been some outside interference that prevented it from clearing a path to my election last year. Putin and the Russians seem to be the logical answer.”

A more predictable Clinton reaction in the book was her castigation of the “mistakes made by every woman who didn’t vote for me. They had a chance to make history by electing the first person without a penis to the presidency, but they blew it.”

“I’ve been searching for the reasons,” Clinton said. “In some cases I think it was a case of spousal abuse intimidating women from acting independently and voting for me. In other cases I think domineering fathers discouraged their daughters from breaking free of the patriarchy. So fearsome were these baleful male influences that even the secret ballot could not overcome their fear of what would happen to them if the men in their lives suspected they had voted for me.”

Though Clinton feigned a vague implied sympathy for women frightened away from voting for her, she refused to offer any absolution. “I’m not letting anyone off the hook for the evil they’ve done by not voting for me,” Hillary declared. “It’s their sin and they should suffer their well-deserved anguish and sleepless nights for as long as they live—like the young woman whose mother made her publicly apologize to me for not voting for me. Perhaps the humiliation that woman experienced will inspire other mothers to exert more effective control over their daughters the next time a woman runs for president.”

In related bad news for Mrs. Clinton, a County Circuit Court in Maryland ordered the State Bar to open an investigation into the conduct of three lawyers who allegedly helped her illegally delete her emails. Judge Paul Harris ruled that “an accusation that lawyers who have a special obligation to obey the law actually broke the law merits more than a hasty dismissal.” Harris rejected arguments from the three lawyers—David Kendall, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson—that the case was frivolous since a similar complaint had already been dismissed in Arkansas, saying that “we should aspire to higher standards of ethics than might prevail in Arkansas.”

Meanwhile, 1600 newly released Clinton emails from her term as Secretary of State provide fresh examples of a “pay to play” scheme wherein donors to the Clinton Foundation received special favors from the State Department. Not only do these emails indicate a pattern of self-dealing corruption, they also contradict her testimony that she turned over all her Department-related correspondence before erasing only her personal correspondence upon leaving the office in 2013. A Clinton spokesperson, in a not-for-attribution statement, denied that the former Secretary of State’s testimony constituted perjury “because she was never asked to testify under oath. So whatever lies she may have told are, technically, not perjury.”

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.

Menendez Trial Raises Thorny Issues

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

JohnSen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and his “campaign donor” Salomon Melgen are currently on trial for political corruption—the Senator for taking bribes and Melgren for paying them. Menendez argues that the “bribes” in exchange for pursuing legislation favorable to Melgren was “just ordinary politics—no worse than the actions of my many peers in Congress.”

As a case in point, the Senator pointed out that “former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) was able to fatten his bank account through ‘sweetheart’ real estate deals with one of his donors. And he inserted language in the Affordable Care Act in exchange for money from the drug companies. He wasn’t prosecuted for any of this. Why am I being singled out?”

Prosecutor Peter Koski contended that Menendez “went outside the bounds of traditionally acceptable ‘pay-for-play’ bribery. Mr. Melgren doesn’t live in New Jersey. The Senator can’t pass off the favors he did as ‘constituent services.’ Former Senator Reid’s land deals were all conducted with a Nevada resident and constituent. And the payments he received from the drug companies were in the form of campaign donations. That Senator Reid retired and can now pocket these campaign donations is irrelevant.”

Kirk Ogrosky, the defense attorney for Melgen, called the distinctions between the actions of Senators Reid and Menendez “artificial. Mr. Melgren may not be a constituent of Senator Menendez in a geographic sense, but he is a constituent in a shared ethnicity. Both were part of the fellowship of Hispanic Americans. This trial is not only an attack on the two defendants, it is an attack on all Hispanics.”

Whether Menendez should resign from office if he is convicted posed a difficult dilemma for his Party peers. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) pondered the issue, observing that “on the one hand, a criminal conviction is not good for one’s resume as a member of government. Given the fact that so many have been able to skate past the rules that would typically land a violator behind bars, a conviction in his case would signal an unusual degree of incompetence. I mean, the Clintons raked in hundreds of millions of dollars using the leverage of public office. This was a much bigger heist than Senator Menendez’s petty larceny. Yet, neither of them are on trial nor likely to ever see the inside of a prison cell.”

“On the other hand, there is no constitutional bar to an elected representative also being a convicted felon,” Schumer continued. “Let’s not overlook the fact that the Senator does represent the State of New Jersey. The voters there have a right to elect whoever they wish. Who is to say that he isn’t the kind of person who best reflects the values and talents of that state’s inhabitants?”

Dems in 15 States Sue Over Trump DACA Action

Democrat Attorney-Generals in 15 states plus the District of Columbia have filed suit against President Trump for his executive action overturning former President Obama’s executive decree on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Trump justified his countering executive decree by pointing out that Obama lacked the authority to unilaterally modify US immigration law. Trump’s decree goes into effect in six months—a time span giving Congress the opportunity to handle the issue in a legal and constitutional fashion.

Nonetheless, the suing AGs described Trump’s action as “illegal” and “unfair.” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman cast Trump’s argument that only Congress can enact laws as “putting adherence to the law ahead of human decency. Whether President Obama had the legal right to enact DACA isn’t as important as whether it was the right thing to do. We’re hoping that the court will see past the legalities and confirm the fundamental justice of the DACA decree. These childhood immigrants are blameless. They have become accustomed to living in the United States. They shouldn’t be punished for the crimes committed by their parents.”

Schneiderman brushed aside the possibility that the suit may be premature since Congress may actually pass a law within the six-month grace period allowed by Trump’s executive action. “No person’s fate should be held hostage to a contingency that Congress will take timely measures to deal with an issue,” he asserted. “We have all seen how little Congress has accomplished over the past eight months. It would be foolish to count on this body to respond in an expeditious manner to the artificial deadline imposed by President Trump.”

For his part, Trump further muddled the issue by tweeting that he “may revisit the issue should Congress fail to act.” This is the same rationale used by Obama when he stepped outside the bounds of his authority to institute the DACA program.

In related news, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmauel slammed Trump’s DACA move and declared “our City will always remain a safe haven for those pursued by immigration authorities. The same is not the case for Mr. Trump himself. He is barred from entering and police have orders to use whatever force is required to see that he stays away.”

Dem Drafting Legislation to Crack Down on College Freedom of Speech

Rep. Anthony Brown (D-Md) says he will introduce a bill that would require universities and colleges to define “acceptable speech” on campus. “On too many college campuses fresh-mouthed youths hide behind the First Amendment claiming that they have a right to air their unfiltered political views regardless of whether others might find them hurtful or outside the bounds of respectable opinion,” Brown said. “They openly flout the ‘free speech zone’ restrictions that school officials have imposed in an effort to protect students from hearing offensive remarks. We’ve got to put a muzzle on these free-speech abusers.”

Brown’s proposed legislation would set up a program to award grants to schools that “properly control what, when, and where students are allowed to voice their unsolicited opinions. No student should have to fear that a walk between classrooms would expose him or her to the rantings of right-wing anti-government ideologues. Universities that develop speech codes and procedures that will silence anti-progressive elements from infringing on the rights of others to not have to hear disturbing contradictions to prevailing mainstream views should be financially rewarded for their enterprise. My bill will do that.”

In related news, black caucus representatives at Harvard demanded that noted author and scholar Charles Murray be barred from speaking on campus—for public safety reasons. It’s not that the mild-manner Murray will rouse a rabble of right-wing goons to cause trouble. The fear is that “this racist apologist will instigate an oppressed minority to attack him. We haven’t read his books and we shouldn’t be forced to allow him to speak.”

More Comey Malpractice Unveiled

On top of last week’s revelation that former FBI Director James Comey drafted an exoneration memo for Hillary Clinton before more than a dozen witnesses had been interviewed, this week it was disclosed that the famous “30,000 missing emails” were in the possession of the National Security Agency (NSA). And, it turns out, Comey declined to accept the NSA’s offer to provide him with copies.

In defense of this refusal to receive evidence, Comey pointed out that “the decision not to prosecute Secretary Clinton was unanimous. As such, there was no reason to probe these emails. At best, we would have found that she was telling the truth that none of these emails dealt with government business. At worst, we would have found that she lied. This would have cast a serious pall of doubt over the reputations of those of us, including Attorney General Lynch and President Obama, who had already agreed that there would be no prosecution.”

“I was the ‘good soldier’ following the orders of my superiors,” Comey explained. “It is the Attorney General who determines which cases are worthy of prosecution. She, of course, must answer to the President. If he decides there is to be no prosecution then both she and I, as his subordinates, must obey. That I stepped up and took the heat for announcing there would be no prosecution was a heroic act of a loyal subordinate. I deserve praise, not persecution, as will become obvious when my book is published.”

Justice Dept Declines to Press Charges Against IRS Official

Assistant Attorney General Kevin Boyd announced that the Trump Administration will not be pursuing charges against former IRS executive Lois Lerner for discriminating against conservative organizations seeking tax-free status from the Agency.

While conceding that Lerner’s refusal to testify on the grounds it would be self-incriminating was, in effect a “smoking gun,” Boyd insisted that “the prosecution of a government functionary for carrying out the wishes of the president would be excessively punitive and set a dangerous precedent. A person entering the ranks of an administration shouldn’t have to be second-guessing every decision—is it right, is it wrong, is it legal or illegal. That would slow the gears by which the president’s will prevails in the making of policy.”

“Ideally, the chief executive is the one who should be held accountable,” Boyd argued. “Difficult as this might be given that the president can order enemies to be killed, nevertheless, it is a basic principle of our Constitution. The proper remedy would be impeachment. Since the person responsible for the IRS’ illegal acts is no longer in office the entire matter is now moot.”

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, called the decision not to pursue the case “terrible. It sends the message that the same legal, ethical, and Constitutional standards we all live by do not apply to Washington political appointees—who will now have the green light to target Americans for their political beliefs and mislead investigators without ever being held accountable for their lawlessness.

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.
 

 

Trump Blamed for Violence Against Media

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

JohnAssorted media spokespersons have pointed the finger of blame at President Trump for incidents of violence that have endangered members of their profession in various locations since he became president. Jim VandeHei, founder of the news website Axios, asserted that Trump is directly “putting reporters at real risk of retribution or violence.” New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg wondered “how long before someone is seriously hurt, or worse?” Jeffrey Toobin, a writer for the New Yorker warned “Someone is going to do something awful to a journalist.”

Well, someone is doing some awful things to journalists, but it is mostly not Trump supporters. The lion’s share of the violence has come from leftists protesting Trump. Nonetheless, the media still insist Trump is at fault because, as Rutenberg maintained, “these protests wouldn’t be happening if Trump hadn’t stolen the election from Secretary Clinton. There might have been some anti-Clinton demonstrations, but it is unlikely that the kind of behavior we have seen from the Antifa movement—masked men throwing rocks and bottles, brandishing cudgels, and smashing property would have been so prevalent.”

“We have to ask ourselves whether the civil disruption that has emerged in the wake of Trump’s victory isn’t sufficient reason to reverse the election results via more peaceful mechanisms,” Toobin suggested. “Removing Trump through impeachment or the 25th Amendment may be necessary if we are to dampen down the kind of street violence that threatens the domestic tranquility our Constitution was established to ensure.”

53 Democrats Denounce Sessions’ Policy on Sanctuary Cities

Fifty-three Democratic members of the House and Senate signed a letter of protest against Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ plan to withhold federal law-enforcement aid from cities that flout US immigration laws.

Signer Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill) complained that “Sessions is only making a bad situation worse. Even with the federal aid Chicago is a virtual combat zone with dozens of shootings every week. He should be backing gun-control legislation, not insisting on the enforcement of immigration laws that would end up deporting felons who are in the country illegally.”

Sessions called the letter “an endorsement of illegality. We have laws that prescribe the approved procedures for persons to enter this country. If these senators and representatives have objections to these laws the proper way for them to respond is to work to repeal them, not to support local governments that defy these laws. The number of incidents where cities have shielded illegal aliens from this law only to see these people go on to commit heinous crimes ought to have given pause to their rash demand that we continue to tolerate the ill-considered practice of coddling these threats to the safety of law-abiding citizens.”

Durbin countered Sessions by pointing out that “not all the crimes committed by those given sanctuary can be accurately described as heinous. Many are mere crimes against property. In other instances the victims survive the attempted murder or assault. Even when they don’t survive, the toll taken by those shielded by sanctuary is small compared to the carnage perpetrated by native citizens.”

Pelosi Calls for Crackdown on “Dangerous Speech”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) demanded that “we be more selective in what kind of remarks people are allowed to make in public. I’m generally in favor of freedom of speech, but some statements and points of view are so far outside the bounds of respectable opinion that they present a clear and present danger.”

She went on to elaborate by analogy, saying “you can’t shout ‘wolf’ in a crowded theater because everyone knows there is no wolf. If we don’t suppress these bogus cries then one day when there really is a wolf no one will believe it. At that point people will be attacked without recourse. Our only option then will be to have FEMA distribute food and blankets to the victims.”

While the Minority Leader’s statement struck many as “confused and possibly demented” a spokesperson for the long-time member of congress explained that “what she was trying to say is that statements by President Trump and his supporters are inherently dangerous. Questioning policies of his predecessors undermines people’s faith in their government. Questioning the media’s coverage of the Trump Administration undermines people’s faith in the news. If these two pillars of our way of life are knocked down it would be the equivalent of exposing us all to being devoured by wolves.”

Germany to Remain Neutral in Possible US-NK War

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany has told the US Government “not to count on Germany’s support in any potential armed conflict with North Korea.”

“I don’t see how Germany would gain from allying itself with the United States in such a conflict,” Merkel said. “North Korea is far away and poses no direct threat to us. The United States’ military would most likely crush the under-fed North Korean Army with ease. If the unimaginable happens and North Korea somehow wins, our stance of neutrality will reduce the incentive for them to turn on us.”

The Chancellor also admitted to an emotional component stemming from World War II, saying that “it wasn’t Koreans who mercilessly bombed every city in Germany, sank virtually our entire navy, shot down virtually every aircraft in the Luftwaffe, and sent millions of troops into my country in 1945. It was the United States and its allies. Germans have far more reason for antipathy toward America than they do toward North Korea. If Germany were to fight anyone, my gut tells me that it ought to be the Americans.”

Merkel also complained that “President Trump’s insistence that we must honor our NATO obligations is an added grievance. No previous American president made such a demand. We haven’t budgeted for these obligations. The wisdom of our frugality has been born out by the lack of any military attacks on our country during the entire time of the NATO alliance. By assuming a position of neutrality we’re hoping that Mr. Trump gets the message that we will not be pressured into fulfilling these unnecessary obligations.”

Study Shows More Registered Voters than Adult Citizens

Data from the U.S. Census Bureau analyzed by Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity Project found that there are 3.5 million more registered voters in America than there are citizens if voting age. More than 40% of these “ghost voters” were found in two California counties—700,000 in Los Angeles County and 800,000 in San Diego County.

Of course, not every citizen eligible to vote actually registers to vote. So, the potential over-registration is even larger than these figures imply. The potential for election fraud would seem to be huge. Nevertheless, Democrats adamantly deny that any significant fraud is taking place. The Brennan Center for Justice contends that it has conclusively proven that allegations of widespread fraud are “baseless.” And the New York Times asserts that “there is essentially no voter fraud in America.”

Given the confidence that Democratic partisans have that there is no election fraud it is puzzling that they hold such animosity toward President Trump’s Election Integrity Panel. If the evidence is so overwhelmingly against the idea that fraud exists wouldn’t the Panel end up confirming their contention?

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla rejected the need for investigation saying “it makes as much sense as the Administration’s suggestion that global warming be the topic of a policy debate. It seems that every informed person but Trump knows that global warming is proven science. Likewise, every properly informed person but Trump knows there is no election fraud. Bucking this consensus is a waste of time and money.”
Padilla explained the apparent over-registration endemic in his state as “an enigmatic anomaly. Even if we could figure out why there are millions of bogus registrations there is no proof that any of these resulted in ballots being cast.”

The absence of “proof” may owe a lot to procedures barring use of photo IDs as a step toward verifying the identity of those casting ballots at the polls or by mail. Even the matching of signatures on mailed ballots with signatures on voter registration forms has been challenged by the ACLU as “disenfranchising.”

ACLU spokesman Bertram Petty said “requiring a voter to prove his or her identity is humiliating. It puts procedural technicalities ahead of the obvious truth that a human being has a natural right to elect those who rule him. To deny a person the right to vote because he doesn’t reside in the district or isn’t a citizen is a violation of his human rights. So, what we are saying is that, in the big picture, all the ID rigamarole is aimed at suppressing the vote.”

In related news, Richard Robert Rawling, a former elections worker in North Carolina, was indicted for altering vote totals by running ballots through the counting machine multiple times during a primary election in March 2016. In his defense, Rawling maintained that “I wasn’t trying to favor any candidate. I was just trying to make sure that the results of the provisional canvass would match the number of approved provisional ballots. Otherwise, I’d have had to fill out a discrepancy report. That would’ve made me look bad and could have cast doubt on the reported election outcome.”

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.

Congresswoman Has Plan to Avert War with North Korea

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

JohnRep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif) has a simple plan for deescalating tensions between the U.S. and North Korea: “give them what they want.” She acknowledged that “we may not know specifically what that is, but surely it has to be a better option than going to war.”

“Look, Korea is a small, far away country,” Waters observed. “From what I understand it is a very poor place. We could probably feed, house, and clothe everyone in it for less than it would cost to bomb them. If we could ensure Kim that all the material needs of his people could easily be met via a generous foreign aid package, what reason would he have for wanting nuclear weapons?”

In support of her recommendation, the Congresswoman cited “the pacifying effects that our domestic welfare program has had upon the poor in our own country. We don’t see any of them trying to get nuclear weapons or threatening to turn America into ashes. I’d say this experience provides the guidance we need to construct a more successful foreign policy.”

Former President Barack Obama’s National Security adviser, Susan Rice, hailed Waters’ suggestion, calling it “a breath of fresh air. As both Presidents Clinton and Obama realized, a nuclear armed North Korea would be in a better position to demand social justice from the West. The disproportionate distribution of wealth that currently exists between our two countries needs to be rectified. The ability of North Korea to do serious damage to the United States is a key element in forcing a long overdue reallocation. That Trump would attempt to turn this leverage into an excuse for a military response that would defend an unjust status quo is a crime against humanity.”

Judge Bars Defendant from Testifying

U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro barred Eric Parker from mentioning the First Amendment after he took the stand to testify in his own defense in a trial stemming from the 2014 Bunkerville standoff in which ranchers confronted Bureau of Land Management officers in a dispute over grazing rights.

“Once a duly authorized law enforcement action is underway the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech no longer apply,” Navarro ruled. “Allowing a jury to hear these words would only serve to undermine the respect for authority that is essential to an orderly enforcement of the decisions made by government officials.”

The Judge also cited “the need to avoid another hung jury in this case. If we allow the defense to raise issues that I have determined aren’t pertinent to the case we could end up in the same quandary where some jurors might elevate their uninformed opinions about freedom of speech and assembly above the instructions from the bench to consider only whether the defendants did or didn’t obey the lawful commands of the Bureau.”

Since one of the “lawful commands” forbade video taping of the confrontation, recordings that the defense contends demonstrate the peaceful intent and behavior of the defendants will not be shown to the jury.

Mysterious Death Ruled “Suicide”

In May of this year, federal prosecutor Beranton Whisenant’s body was found on a Hollywood, Florida beach with a gunshot wound to the head. Three months later, the Hollywood Police Department has ruled the death a suicide. Whisenant worked for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami in its major crimes unit. He was handling several visa and passport fraud cases in the congressional district represented by beleaguered former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Oddly, no weapon was recovered at or near the scene. Chief of Police Tomas Sanchez admitted that “the absence of a weapon near the body would seem suspicious to non-professionals. However, there could be a number of logical explanations. One possibility is that rising sea levels caused by global warming could have washed the firearm away. Another is that Mr. Whisenant swam out a ways before he shot himself and the gun is still out there somewhere.”

Sanchez brushed off contentions from family members that Whisenant had shown no signs of depression and had even seemed enthusiastic about “reeling in some big fish” in his investigation. “A person can be depressed without anyone knowing,” Sanchez said. “I just heard that vegetarians are more likely to be depressed than meat-eaters. Perhaps Mr. Whisenant was a vegetarian.”

CAIR Defends McMaster

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) rallied to the defense of National Security Council (NSC) adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster this week. McMaster has come under some criticism for purging the NSC of individuals he maintains were “overly focused on an illusory Islamic threat.” These included Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the NSC’s senior director for intelligence programs; Rich Higgins, the NSC’s director for strategic planning; and Derek Harvey, the NSC’s senior director for the Middle East.

Ibrahim Hooper, National Communications Director for CAIR, blamed “agents of the Zionist conspiracy for world domination” for what he characterized as “vicious attacks on an honorable man. President Trump is clearly a tool of this conspiracy. His failure to denounce the Jewish occupation of Muslim lands and his verbal support for the Israeli oppression of non-Jews throughout the Middle East mark him as an enemy of Allah.”
For his part, McMaster justified his purge saying that “we cannot build bridges to the adherents of Islam if they see that we have the apologists for Jewish aggression within our government. By cleansing our councils of these troublesome elements we will win the appreciation and, I hope, the friendship of the Muslim community.”

“What a lot of Trump’s supporters overlook is the strategic advantage of aligning with the much larger contingent of Muslims vs. the much smaller Jewish segment of the global population,” McMaster said. “There are more than a billion Muslims. There are only 12 million Jews. An alliance with the former is numerically superior to an alliance with the latter. President Obama understood this. I would be derelict in my duty if I didn’t do everything in my power to protect that strategic decision from being overturned by an ill-informed outsider.”

Document Dump Casts Doubt on Official Version of Tarmac Meeting

Documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request cast a long shadow of doubt over the official version of events surrounding the “chance meeting” between former President Bill Clinton and Obama Administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch in June 2016.

The official story that the meeting was a random occurrence and that the discussion was an innocent chat about grandchildren and golf was severely damaged by correspondence among Department of Justice personnel. For one, the correspondence was heavily redacted. Redaction is justified when sensitive personal data (like Social Security numbers or home addresses) or classified information might be exposed. There is no legal justification for redacting innocent chatter about grandchildren and golf scores.

On top of this, a lot of the content dealt with the development of “talking points” aimed at putting the proper “spin” on the meeting for public consumption. In this correspondence, AG Lynch used an alias. Why the DOJ would need to invest so much time and effort to develop talking points about an innocent meeting or why the AG would need to use a fake name remains unanswered, as does FBI Director James Comey’s inclusion in the loop.

A week after this “chance meeting” and following the correspondence, Comey announced that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted for her “extremely careless handling of classified information.” Comey insisted that his untruthful denial that any such correspondence existed “was due to my embarrassment at being inadvertently ‘cced’ on such an intimately private conversation” and that “no one can prove the correspondence had anything to do with my decision.”

At this point, perhaps the biggest mystery is why the Trump Administration DOJ redacted so much of the “innocent” content of the correspondence. So far, no one is talking, but the rumor is that AG Jeff Sessions has “recused himself out of respect for the privacy of his predecessor” and allowed holdovers from the Lynch regime to decide what needed to be redacted.

Trump’s “Excessive Expectations” Rile Senator

Chafing at President Trump’s very public display of frustration with the failure of the Senate to pass health insurance reform, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken) blamed “excessive expectations.”

“Frankly, the President is out of his depth on this,” McConnell maintained. “He comes from a business milieu where the emphasis is on action and results. In government the emphasis is on process.”

The Majority Leader offered to “explain the process in terms that even Mr. Trump can understand. In the Senate we have agreements that both Parties abide by. All the repeals of Obamacare that we passed were guaranteed to be vetoed by President Obama. That’s the only reason the Democrats let us pass these repeals. They could have easily filibustered and kept us from getting the 60 votes needed to stop debate. By promising to sign a repeal bill President Trump forced us to come up with another path that would be acceptable to the Democrats. That path required that several Republicans switch their previous votes for repeal to against repeal.”

McConnell expressed his disappointment that “Sen. McCain rising from his virtual deathbed to cast the deciding vote didn’t provide a greater respite from the unreasonable demands of an inexperienced and ill-informed outsider. I would think that the drama of a mortally-wounded hero making a last stand would’ve bought us some time to relax from the onerous burdens of lawmaking for a while.”

The Senator also dismissed the President’s pleas that he get back to work. “What he needs to understand is that he can’t make us do anything we don’t want to do,” McConnell asserted. “And if he keeps insulting and bullying us like he has been to Sen. Blumenthal, well we might find that to be the sort of high crime or misdemeanor requiring his removal from office.”

In contrast to the lack of legislative results in Congress, it was announced that the executive branch under Trump has reduced business regulatory costs by 90% compared to rules issued by the Obama Administration. McConnell warned that “the untimely release of this information will only further aggravate the already antagonistic relationship between the President and the Senate. This does not help his case for remaining in office.”

In related news, the prospect of being impeached is mild compared to the prediction by ex-FBI and CIA operative Phil Mudd that “they are going to kill this guy because he doesn’t support them. His joke about Russia saving us money by sending our spies home is likely the last straw. Remember what happened to Kennedy after he threatened to tear the CIA apart? Well, I think Trump has signed his own death warrant as far as these expert assassins in our government are concerned.”

Clinton’s Pastor Says Hillary’s Loss Worst Injustice Since Christ’s Crucifixion

Methodist minister Bill Shillady compared Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and concluded that “it was the second worst instance of injustice in human history. In both cases we saw exemplary paragons of virtue punished for the sins of others.”

Shillady predicted “a Hell on Earth under the demon that is Donald Trump,” but offered a ray of hope that “the forces of righteousness will triumph in the end. Right now, true believers are working assiduously to unseat the unholy Trump and clear the way for the ascension of God’s chosen candidate.”

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.

 

‘Legacy’ Legislation to Honor McCain Proposed

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

JohnFresh off his crucial vote to kill the repeal of Obamacare, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is now working with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to craft what McCain called “a fitting legacy to honor my service to the country and Senate over my lifetime.”

The bill they are drafting is a revival of the so-called “Gang of Eight” measure passed by the Senate in 2013, but rejected by the House. It would give a path to citizenship to most illegal immigrants, greatly increase the number of visas to allow companies to replace American workers with foreigners and greatly increase the number of legal immigrants who would be eligible to enter the country over the next 30 years.

Schumer suggested that “the new law might be dubbed ‘McCainesty’ as way to help people remember the man we are honoring with this crucial reform to our immigration policy. Considering the dire health of Sen. McCain, his good friend Sen. Graham (R-SC) has reluctantly agreed to surrender his long-held claimed right to name the policy change ‘Grahamnesty.’”

McCain compared his proposal with the immigration bill recently unveiled by the Trump Administration, calling it “a glaring contrast between a stance of selfishness and generosity. Trump wants to restrict immigration to protect already rich Americans from having to share our nation’s wealth with those less fortunate. This is not the America I want to leave behind when I’m gone. I want an America that lives up to the Statue of Liberty’s promise to house the homeless, wretched masses yearning to eat free.”

The Senator cited the $1.3 billion in welfare paid to illegal immigrants by Los Angeles County over the last two years as “a down payment on our historic promise. Our new bill will remove barriers to an even greater fulfillment of the dream of a more equitable redistribution of the Earth’s bounty and take us further toward President Obama’s vision of a transformed world.”

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti endorsed the McCain-Schumer initiative as “a demonstration of common sense. In theory, the redistribution could be accomplished by sending our wealth to other countries. It would be more practical, though, to let the beneficiaries come here. Not only will they spend a greater portion of the welfare in the local community, they’ll also be present to cast the votes needed to elect those who will work to continue the transformation.”

Senators Want to Strengthen Independence of Special Counsel

Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-Del) are proposing legislation that would bar anyone from firing or in any way impeding Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed to investigate President Trump and his associates for winning the 2016 presidential election.

“It is critical that special counsels have the independence and resources they need to lead investigations,” Tillis said. “Mueller can’t be independent if he can be fired by anyone in the chain of command in the executive branch of government. He can’t be independent if he must rely on congress for appropriations. He can’t be independent if he must rely on a court or jury to validate his prosecutions.”

Jay Sekulow, one of President Trump’s lawyers, blasted the proposed legislation as “unconstitutional. Ours is a representative government. What Sen. Tillis and Coons are proposing is to create an omnipotent new office within the federal government. They would immunize Mueller from any executive oversight. They would enable him to dip into the treasury for any amount of money he deems necessary.”

Coons rallied to the defense of his senate colleague, pointing out that “the premise that Trump represents the people is belied by the fact that he didn’t win the popular vote. Every member of congress did win the popular vote in his state or district. It is our prerogative to transfer whatever powers we deem appropriate to whom ever we want.

Much of the legislating that is now done in this country is by executive agencies that congress has empowered to make laws. In our view, setting a man with an untarnished record of integrity like Robert Mueller above and outside the normal processes that are suggested in the Constitution is a clear improvement over the governance we see incompetently emerging from the Trump Administration on a daily basis.”

Poll Results Addle Dem Leader

A poll conducted for Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) by her “House Majority PAC” produced consternation and confusion for this top Democrat. For one, the poll found that the political ideologies of voters were 41% conservative, 32% moderate and 19% liberal, with 37% identifying as Independents, 35% as Republicans and 29% as Democrats. For two, among white working class voters 69% favored policies that reward hard work.

“These findings make no sense,” Pelosi argued. “Surely leisure is preferred over hard work. The Democratic Party has enacted measures that have expanded the opportunities for people to leave the workforce and still be able to live comfortably. There’s public housing, food stamps, cell phones—all supplied gratis by laws and regulations we’ve championed. The liberal and Democratic cohorts among voters should be expanding, especially among the undocumented portion of the population.”

The Congresswoman speculated that “perhaps the life of leisure we’ve provided has insidiously sapped the energy and initiative of those whose votes are crucial for our Party to continue to win elections. We think asking the beneficiaries to cast a vote is a small effort, but maybe once we’ve removed the effort required to support oneself from the equation even the minimal task of marking a ballot may seem too arduous.”

“Even worse, our new slogan–‘a better deal: better jobs, better wages, better future’–seems to have backfired,” Pelosi lamented. “In the six months since Trump became president the economic data has been awful. There are more better-paying jobs and lower unemployment than anyone expected. Welfare rolls are shrinking. Fewer are living on food stamps. It’s as if Trump’s view is being vindicated.”

In related news, a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 61% say the Democratic Party “too often sees government as the only way to solve problems.” Unsurprisingly, this view was held by 83% of registered Republicans. Less expected was the finding that 44% of registered Democrats agreed. This perception of the Party as an advocate for statism is probably best encapsulated by Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy’s statement that “there is no anxiety, sadness, or fear that cannot be cured by political action.”

Felons Vying to Be Detroit’s Mayor

Half of the eight candidates for mayor on Detroit’s primary ballot have been previously convicted criminals. Donna Marie Pitts has multiple felony convictions dating back to 1977. Danetta Simpson has a 1996 felony conviction for assault with intent to murder. Articia Bomer was charged in 2008 with carrying a concealed weapon. In 2004, Curtis Christopher Greene was sentenced to 18 months’ probation under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act for dealing marijuana and in 2005 plead guilty to writing a fraudulent check.

Pitts called her conviction stemming from a shoot out at an auto repair shop “an honest disagreement over the bill. Both sides were armed. Sending me to jail was bogus.” She says she is running to “stamp out the kind of discrimination and racism that wrecked my life.”

Simpson got into a dispute with a woman who was living with the father of two of her four children, pulled out a gun and fired a shot that missed hitting the other woman. She contends that she was “wrongfully convicted. No one was hurt. How is that an assault with intent? If I had intended to kill the bitch the bullet would’ve been in her head.” She says she is running to offer voters “someone new and different.”

Bomer was charged in 2008 with carrying a concealed weapon. “Overly suspicious” police approached her while she was sitting in a parked car and found a loaded gun in the vehicle. Bomer denied that it was hers, but was convicted during a bench trial in January 2009 and sentenced to a year of probation. She says she is running on a platform of “preservation, restoration and revitalization.”

Greene contends that “my youthful indiscretions shouldn’t be held against me. I have a seven point plan to rebuild Detroit. It addresses jobs, discriminatory lending and access to meaningful employment for convicted felons. I believe I’m the one to change the city.”
Whether any of the former felons will be able to win over the four other candidates—incumbent Mayor Mike Duggan, state Sen. Coleman A. Young II, Edward Dean and Angelo Brown—that do not have criminal records seems improbable. However, this election is the first since the City went bankrupt under the governance on non-felon Democrats over the last five decades.

In related news, Fayetteville, N.C. Mayoral candidate Quancidine Gribble has been arrested twice in the last two months for stealing and vandalizing a water company’s equipment. Gribble, a philosophy student, community activist and charity leader, contends that “water is a basic human need. No business has the right withhold it from the people. My action to liberate it from their control so it could flow freely to those who need it is simple social justice.”

Trump Threat an “Impeachable Offense”

After the failure of the Senate to repeal Obamacare, a frustrated President Trump’s threat to reverse President Obama’s executive action exempting members of congress from having to live under the same regulations that apply to ordinary citizens forced into Obamacare brought howls of rage from Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT).

“We are members of government,” Murphy fulminated. “For Trump to vindictively throw us into the pit with the common people violates the unwritten rule against one segment of this elite group harming the privileges of another. It would renege on the bipartisanship exhibited by President Obama in even handedly extending the exemption to congressional Democrats and Republicans alike.”

“Trump may think he’s immune from retaliation, but he should think again,” the Senator advised. “The House has the power to impeach and the Senate has the power to convict. The Constitutional grounds for impeachment are vague and unspecified. Let me remind Mr. Trump that Congress has the sole prerogative of determining what constitutes a satisfactory cause for his removal from office.”

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.