By John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News
Homeland Security Chief Defends Air Safety System
Jan. 3, 2010
While admitting that there are “imperfections” in the nation’s security measures against “man-caused disasters,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Nipplitaliano maintained that the system is basically sound—comparing the avoidance of a Christmas Day bombing of a Northwest Airline flight to a football team’s “goal line stand.”
“Look, nothing happened,” Nipplitaliano insisted. “No bomb went off. Sure, the guy never should’ve been allowed on the plane in Nigeria or Amsterdam. Granted, the lack of a passport would normally prohibit a person boarding an international flight, especially for a person on the terror watch-list. But these errors occurred outside US jurisdiction. The important thing was our back-up plan worked.”
The “back-up plan” apparently is to rely on unarmed passengers to take action against on-board terrorists. The would-be bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was tackled by a passenger before he could set off the bomb.
Nipplitaliano urged critics not to forget that “thousands of flights landed safely without incident on the same day. I mean, even if a flight were to blow up everyday, it still would represented less than a 1% casualty rate. Which, I think would be reasonably tolerable considering how much worse it could be.”
President Barrack Obama concurred in Nipplitaliano’s assessment, calling the bombing attempt “an isolated incident. There were thousands of flights that day and only one was attacked. Even if it had been successful it would not have represented a significant threat to our government or my personal safety. Americans can rest assured that even if a plane they are on is destroyed, the critical components of our society will be protected.”
Dems Say More Jobs on the Way
Jan. 10, 2010
In an effort to offset December’s uninspiring employment numbers—more jobs lost than gained, unemployment still at 10% (officially) and 17% (unofficially: counting those who’ve given up looking for work)—key Democrats announced plans to boost employment.
President Barack Obama boasted that his “green jobs” initiative is expected to create up to 17,000 jobs at a cost of “only” $2.3 billion. “We are putting people back to work in an environmentally friendly way,” he said. “This is the path to a brighter future for us all.”
The viability of the President’s plan was cast into doubt by the $135,000 cost per job. There are currently over 15 million officially unemployed (about 25 million if we add in the unofficially unemployed). At “green job” rates, it would cost more than $2 trillion to absorb the officially unemployed and more than $3 trillion if we include the unofficially unemployed.
Obama brushed off the daunting fiscal calculations as “excessively anal. This isn’t about numbers. It’s about saving the planet and helping people. We should be willing to spend whatever it takes.”
Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) projected that “passage of the heathcare bill will create up to 400,000 new jobs every year for the next decade. There will be jobs devising the new forms that have to be prepared. There will be jobs filling out the new forms. There will be jobs reviewing the forms and deciding whether the proposed treatments are warranted. There will be jobs on panels set up to hear appeals from decisions made regarding treatments requested on the forms. There will be jobs at the IRS collecting the new fees and taxes. There will be jobs prosecuting those who fail to comply with the new rules. And there will be jobs for those who must guard those sent to prison by the courts for refusing to comply. So, aside from the health benefits, passage of our bill will also stimulate the economy.”
NYC Mayor Proposes Blocking Consumer Access to Salt
Jan. 17, 2010
Arguing that “a loving parent wouldn’t allow her child to eat asbestos or smoke cigarettes, so why should she allow him to eat salt?” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is proposing banning consumer access to salt in restaurants.
“Doctors all agree that salt is bad for us,” Bloomberg contended. “Yet, like disobedient children, too many of us can’t resist reaching for the salt shaker. For our own good, this has to be stopped.”
Admitting that “control over household use of salt is beyond our grasp given current technology,” Bloomberg said his plan is to “focus on food consumed in public places and served by licensed professionals.”
Under Bloomberg’s proposed plan, restaurants would be prohibited from allowing customers to apply salt on their own. “This means no salt shakers on the tables and no salt packets in bins at fast food joints,” he said. “Only chefs will be permitted to apply a closely regulated quantity that is deemed essential for food preparation. Pop inspections and paid informants will be deployed to make certain regulated limits are not breached.”
“Once we get restaurant consumption under control, we can think about ways to deal with home consumption,” Bloomberg added. “Whether that involves pop inspections and informants or a ban on the retail sale of salt is still up in the air.”
Supreme Court Decision on Free Speech Denounced
Jan. 24, 2010
The US Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling that the government may not restrict what or when individuals and organizations may spend to voice their opinions was roundly denounced by leading Democrats. The decision came in a case in which the producers of a film critical of Hillary Clinton had been barred from showing the film during the period before the 2008 election.
President Obama charged that “the Court’s decision is an invitation to unconstrained criticism of candidates for public office. The measured give-and-take of candidates debating each other over how to govern will now be polluted by heckling from outsiders who have no direct role in our government.”
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) rued that “it will be open season on those of us trying to run this country. Candidates can rebut opposing candidates, but how do you hit back at a private citizen who isn’t even running for office?”
Schumer dismissed contentions that existing libel and slander laws should be sufficient to deter unwarranted attacks on candidates. “Libel and slander laws only penalize the making of false statements that damage another person,” Schumer said. “True statements can be even more damaging if their disclosure is inopportunely timed—as would’ve been the case with the Hillary Clinton film that was the basis of this case. Those of us who have put ourselves on the line as public servants need more protection than these laws can provide.”
Proposed Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad Stirs Controversy
Jan. 31, 2010
The plan to place a pro-life ad amongst the parade of beer commercials that traditionally have dominated the advertising sponsors of the televised Super Bowl has stirred supporters of abortion to oppose its broadcast. In the ad, Heisman Trophy winning college quarterback, Tim Tebow tells the story of how his mother chose to give him life after doctors advised her to abort him.
Feminist lawyer Gloria Allred has urged Les Moonves, President and Chief Executive Officer of CBS, to block the because it is “misleading.” “The implication that any fetus saved from being aborted will grow up to be a valuable person is about as far from the truth as you can get,” Allred asserted. “The vast majority of abortions prevent unwanted births that would otherwise ruin the lives of everyone involved. The vast majority of women contemplating an abortion should not be allowed to be dissuaded by such blatantly biased propaganda.”
Allred’s take was buttressed by Joy Behar on the ABC TV show, The View. Behar belittled Tebow’s pitch for life, characterizing his story as “improbable.” “Any woman who foregoes an abortion on the chance that her child would live a worthwhile life is bucking the odds,” Behar contended. “It’s more likely the child would grow up a racist or pedophile. We shouldn’t be promoting advertisements that distort this reality.”
Jehmu Greene, President of Women’s Media Center, called the proposed ad “a thinly veiled attempt to subjugate women to a patriarchal agenda. They’re saying that being a mother is a better choice than having an abortion. Well, being a mother exposes a woman to a lifetime of obligations that an abortion would avert. Pressuring women to accept these obligations with a high-profile ad is a manifestation of the kind of male-dominated culture our organization has been fighting. The fact that the ad is slated for a football game—a male-centered form of entertainment—reveals, I think, their true objective.”
A statement from the National Organization for Women (NOW) reminded that “we shouldn’t allow women to be influenced by this one exceptional case. There’s a greater chance that a woman could end up the mother of a severely handicapped child, like former Republican vice-presidential candidate and Alaska governor, Sarah Palin did. The proposed ad conceals this truth. It is unfit for TV.”
Prince Charles Pitches Green Lifestyle
Feb 7, 2010
The United Kingdom’s Prince Charles lashed out at his critics in an impassioned defense of his environmental views. “I have been the victim of unbelievable abuse for my efforts to promote a better environment,” he said.
According to the Prince, “too many people are living too lavishly for the good of the planet. They consume too much in every phase of their lives—too much housing, too much food, too much travel, too much entertainment, you name it.”
Charles asserted that “technology is destroying man’s contact with nature. Rather than living simply, the average man now expects science to intervene to save him from the nasty, brutish, and short existence that is more in tune with what is natural. This may seem good in the short run to the short-sighted person, but it is bad for the planet.”
The Prince vowed to take his crusade “to every corner of the world” and “spare no expense in a cause too vital to be turned aside by the squawking of the ignorant masses.” In line with this vow, the Prince’s aides are negotiating with agents of former US Vice-President Al Gore for a joint, five-continent tour “to urge the common people to lead more frugal lives for the sake of the environment.”
Treasury Secretary Not Worried about Bond Rating
Feb 14, 2010
The prospect of trillion-dollar budget deficits as far as the eye can see and the near failure of the most recent US Treasury Bond auction have spooked securities markets. There is fear that the US Government’s heretofore AAA credit rating may fall. These fears were brushed aside by a confident Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.
“No matter what happens, the people over at Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s bond rating division have got to know better than to threaten a downgrade of the Government’s bonds,” Geithner said. “I mean, the IRS is under my jurisdiction. We have all of these guys’ tax records. They’re asking for a lot of grief if they cross us on this.”
“All I’m proposing is a simple quid-pro-quo,” Geithner said. “They give us a good bond rating and the IRS gives each of them a pass on an audit. That way nobody gets hurt.”
Decrease in Reported Crime Rate Sparks Debate over Cause
Feb 21, 2010
A reported 10% decline in the crime rate for last year has sparked a heated disagreement over the cause.
On the right, the surge in purchases of guns of all sorts since the ascension of Barack Obama to the presidency is hailed as proof that a well-armed citizenry deters crime. “The more likely it is that a law-abiding citizen is armed, the riskier it is for a criminal to attempt to rob or assault him,” said National Rifle Association Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre. “Those who wrote the Second Amendment knew this. Maybe this latest data will demonstrate this truth to a modern audience.”
The data, though, isn’t demonstrating any such truth to die-hard gun-control advocates. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence attributes the decrease in reported crime rates to the economic recession. “With so many people out of work, there is simply less for criminals to steal,” said spokesman Brayon Tripper. “So, in a way, the bad economy is leaving thieves unemployed, as well.”
Vice-President Joe Biden credits increased government hand-outs for the decline in crime. “With trillions in stimulus money floating around, there’s less need for ordinary robberies,” Biden reasoned. “I mean, why take the risk of illegally trying to get into someone else’s pocket when there’s a legal way to get the same result?”
Biden argued that “President Obama and Congress—or at least the Democrats in Congress—don’t get a fair share of the credit for what they’ve done to help lower the crime rate. Without the programs they’ve enacted, many people would be forced to initiate their own poorly-conceived heists and a lot more people would get hurt.”
President Tells Business Leaders He’s No Socialist
Feb 28, 2010
In an address to leading corporate executives at the annual “Business Roundtable” meeting in Washington, President Barack Obama made a bid to persuade them that he is no foe of the free market.
“Contrary to the socialist picture of me painted by my political enemies, I believe in a strictly circumscribed government,” Obama said. “Government should be restrained to three main functions: taxing, spending, and regulating. It must not be allowed to venture outside of these limits. I oppose socialism that nationalizes businesses because it is unnecessary and would interfere with these three main functions.”
“Nationalizing businesses would shrink the tax-base,” Obama pointed out. “This would diminish the government’s ability to carry out its second key function of spending. It is also unnecessary because the third function of government—regulating—can easily achieve the proper control over businesses without the government having to bear the direct responsibility for managing them.”
“The free market would be free to deal with everything else,” Obama explained. “Of course, businesses couldn’t tax anyone. That would infringe on government’s prerogative. But they will be asked to pay taxes and, in some cases, collect taxes on the government’s behalf.”
“Businesses will also be permitted some latitude in how they spend the resources that come into their hands,” Obama continued. “Government will only step in when needed to ensure that socially responsible parameters are maintained. If need be, government can always redirect business spending with regulations or by taxing the excess profits away and using them for higher priority needs.”
The President hastened to remind business leaders that “the government’s role won’t be all ‘stick.’ There will also be ‘carrots.’ Firms that show appropriate ‘social consciousness’ may expect to receive direct payments from government and their corporate leaders may use these monies to reward key officers of the firms.”
“We’re all in this together—business, unions, and government,” Obama concluded. “We must all work cooperatively to promote the general welfare of the nation.”
Rangel Defends Ignorance
Mar 7, 2010
Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY), forced to take a “temporary leave of absence” from his post as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee for accepting lobbyist bribes, held firm to his profession of ignorance and labeled those who doubt it as “out of touch with the reality of Washington politics.”
Rangel contends that he didn’t know that the all-expenses-paid trips to posh resorts he’d received were funded by lobbyists. “How was I supposed to know?” Rangel asked.
The Congressman rebuffed arguments that his claim of ignorance was implausible and that he should have inquired more closely into the source of his good fortune. “Since when should I have to look a gift horse in the mouth?” Rangel demanded to know. “At the Capitol, the policy has always been don’t ask/don’t tell. And members of congress have always respected each others’ right to privacy in such matters.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi supported Rangel’s perspective. “We don’t even have time to read or familiarize ourselves with the laws before we enact them,” she pointed out. “How can we be expected to carefully examine every freebie that comes our way? If constituents are grateful for the heroic work we’re doing why shouldn’t they try to repay us in some tangible way?”
Pelosi characterized the allegations of corruption as “a ‘tempest in a tea pot’ that will blow over in a few months. The nation needs Charlie’s financial expertise on the Ways and Means Committee. I expect he’ll be restored to his chairmanship once this manufactured scandal has been buried by weightier concerns.”
President Obama Aims to Restore People’s “Faith” in Government
Mar 14, 2010
President Obama contends that Americans have acquired a distrust in government that “endangers the future of the country.” He vowed to “do whatever it takes to reverse this trend and restore the kind of faith in government we saw during World War II.”
“During World War II, every American was joined in a common purpose,” Obama said. “Everyone did their part. Everyone had faith that following the leadership of the Roosevelt Administration would be best for all. There wasn’t all this quibbling over individual rights and personal prerogatives.”
The President acknowledged that “the scope of government control during the war was immense, but this very immensity of scope is what assured everyone that the common good would prevail over selfish individualism. People accepted that if the government needed them to do a job, they should do it. People accepted that their own personal consumption could be rationed for the greater good. It was like we were all part of one collective organism, each person doing his part for the good of the whole.”
“Today, there are too many separate and discrete decision-making entities,” Obama argued. “My program for change is aimed at consolidating decision-making so that one entity overseeing all can ensure that everyone pulls together toward a common end. When a single entity is empowered to take care that everyone’s needs are fulfilled, then faith in this entity will be the only option that makes sense.”
Congressman Says Citizens Have Only Selves to Blame for Government Corruption
Mar 21, 2010
Brazenly frank, Representative Tom Perriello (D-Va) put the blame for government corruption squarely on the shoulders of the voters.
“Look, the temptations of office are immense,” Perriello said. “The amounts of money we control are enormous. The fact that we write the laws means that we can legalize whatever distribution of this money we want. So, who can blame us for succumbing to the temptations to over spend and reward ourselves and those who are supportive of our careers?”
“If voters were really opposed to this they’d put a stop to it,” Perriello argued. “They could vote for guys who’d cut spending. But they don’t. Voters like their share of the goodies we dispense. We’re all on the government teat together. No one wants to be weaned. That’s why government has grown bigger over the last 100 years.”
Perriello said he remains confident that government will continue to grow because “we offer escape from responsibility. That is worth more to the average American than an abstract concept like freedom will ever be.”
NPR Changes Terminology
Mar 28, 2010
Henceforth, government funded National Public Radio (NPR) will no longer use the terms “pro life” and “pro choice” to designate the opposing sides of the abortion debate. The new phrases to be used are “abortion rights advocates” and “abortion rights opponents.”
NPR Managing Editor David Sweeney explained that “the older terminology was misleading. While ‘pro choice’ accurately captured the thrust of one side of the argument, ‘pro life’ did not. It was clear that opponents of choice are ‘anti-choice.’ But the implication that the proponents of abortion rights are ‘anti-life’ isn’t accurate.”
“First, abortion rights advocates aren’t against all life,” Sweeney pointed out. “They themselves are living. And it’s not as if they’re indiscriminately opposing life for others.”
“Second, whether the aborted fetus is ‘life,’ per se, is one of the issues under contention,” Sweeney continued. “Many maintain that it is unwanted, and perhaps dangerous, biological tissue, much like a tumor. Removal of this biological tissue is a decision for the patient and her doctor to make.”
“The new terminology avoids confusion and clearly delineates a difference between those who are for rights and those who are against them,” Sweeney concluded. “The new terminology will make it easier for us promote a more socially constructive debate on the future of public policy on this issue.”
TSA to Drop Extra Scrutiny of Travelers from Muslim Nations
Apr 4, 2010
The US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) announced that it will discontinue extra airport screening on all travelers from “terror-prone” Muslim nations due to protests from offended allies such as Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Pakistan. The extra screening had been put in place following the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a flight to Detroit by a passenger flying out of Nigeria.
“Look nothing we are doing is all that effective anyway,” said TSA’s Acting Administrator, Gale Rossides. “I mean, the extra scrutiny we’re using now wouldn’t have stopped the Christmas Day bomber even if it had been in effect then. So, why insult our friends by continuing a useless procedure?”
Rossides contended that “the main accomplishment of the TSA measures thus far has been to help overcome Americans’ fear of flying by making it seem that safeguards are in place—thereby avoiding a devastating decline in air travel. Confiscating nail clippers and shampoo gives everyone the idea that they’re sacrificing convenience to help keep the country safe. It’s a small price to pay for cultivating an appearance of security.”
Duke Unveils New Sexual Misconduct Code
Apr 11, 2010
Duke, the university that pioneered the concept that status outweighs evidence in the 2006 case against the school’s lacrosse team, is at it again with a new campus policy declaring that “in cases where there are perceived power differentials, a student may be deemed guilty of sexual misconduct even when evidence of so-called voluntary consent is present.”
Women’s Center Director Ada Gregory hailed the new policy. “Men must not be allowed to use their superior intellect, achievement, or looks to seduce women into having sex with them,” Gregory said. “This is predatory behavior akin to forcible rape. It needs to be treated as the same offense.”
Gregory pooh-poohed the use of “mutual consent” as a potential defense against a charge of rape. “How is a coed assenting to sex with a member of the football team any different from a woman yielding to a man who threatens her with violence?” Gregory asked. “She knows that the football player can easily overpower her. She knows she is powerless to enforce an answer of ‘no.’ Acquiescence under this type of duress cannot be permitted to exonerate the accused.”
Homely, powerless males shouldn’t take comfort in the new rules either. Their very “unattractiveness may be deemed to create a presumption that any sexual activity they engage in must have been achieved via coercion or deception.” It appears that at Duke, the only safe sex under the new rules would be masturbation.
Clinton Calls “Tea Party” Movement Bigger Threat than Al-Qaeda
Apr 18, 2010
In an interview with The New York Times, former President Bill Clinton blasted the Tea Party protestors last week, calling them “a bigger threat to the government than al-Qaeda ever could be.”
“No matter how many millions of Americans al-Qaeda might kill, unless President Obama and Congress are among the victims these Islamists will never bring down the United States Government,” Clinton insisted. “The Tea Partiers, on the other hand, represent a very real threat. It is conceivable that they could overturn the Democratic majority in Congress this November and might even succeed in defeating the President’s bid for a second term. This is the threat I would advise the President to concentrate his energies on.”
Clinton praised Obama’s initiative aimed at gaining control over the Internet. “This new, inexpensive means of obtaining and sharing information is undermining the Administration’s ability to control the policy debate,” Clinton warned. “It is essential that it be managed to prevent the Administration’s enemies from exploiting it to rouse widespread opposition.”
The former president belittled charges that Obama’s government is using “gangster tactics” to thwart the will of the people. “The President and members of Congress were freely elected,” Clinton pointed out. “Voters granted them the power to make the laws. So, whatever is done is perfectly legal. No gangster has such authority.”
FBI Director, Robert Mueller echoed Clinton’s remarks in testimony before a Senate Committee. “Not since the Oklahoma City bombing has the danger from domestic terrorists been greater,” Mueller said in support of a request for an added $8.3 billion in funding for his agency. “There is a vast reservoir of popular support for right wing opponents of the Administration. Millions on the right openly flaunt their animosity to the President and his supporters in Congress.”
Mueller cited the widespread demonstrations of April 15 as proof that “the greater threat comes from the right. Many ordinary citizens stand ready to provide moral and material backing to those on the right who would depose the President. There is no comparable popular base for Islamic terrorists.”
Charge of “Crony Capitalism” Rebutted
Apr 25, 2010
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s assertion that the Obama Administration’s favoritism toward certain corporations is a manifestation of “crony capitalism” was rebutted by US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who argued that “friends helping friends is something I was brought up to expect and respect.”
“Conducting a successful economic program requires cooperation and partnership between government and business,” Geithner contended. “There’s got to be an incentive to encourage businesses to act with rather than against the Administration’s initiatives. Access to loans and subsidies is one incentive we have been using to try to induce business leaders to sign on to our program.”
Geithner maintained that the Administration’s approach was both legal and nondiscriminatory. “Congress appropriated the money and gave us discretion on how to use it,” he reminded. “And whether any particular firm gets any of the money is up to them. If they cooperate we can reward them. So, if any firm can get in line to receive government money how is that ‘cronyism?’”
“Critics like Ms. Palin underestimate the potential impact of uniting the forces of government with leading businesses,” Geithner added. “We are building a juggernaut that will drive the economy to a new paradigm that these naysayers cannot envision.”
Court Rules Terrorists’ Wives Entitled to Government Benefits
May 2, 2010
The European Court of Justice ordered the government of the United Kingdom to rescind rules that prevent the wives of terrorists from receiving welfare payments.
In its ruling the Court wrote: “Once a government has undertaken a program to guarantee a minimum of income to all of its people, it cannot presume to judge the lifestyles that are chosen and use that judgment to deny benefits to those who it alleges have not chosen approved behaviors. If a man cannot provide for his family because he is a drunkard, criminal or terrorist, it is the duty of government to assume this responsibility.”
According to the Court, “the wife of a terrorist is an especially worthy recipient. Her husband may be forced into hiding while plotting his activities. Under such circumstances, holding a job may be difficult or impossible. Further, he may face an elevated risk of being killed either inadvertently in the process of making a bomb, intentionally as a suicide bomber, or by the hostile actions of others during shoot-outs with police. It should be obvious that the needs of the spouses of individuals engaged in such activities are beyond contention.”
The Court explicitly rejected the argument that funds paid to terrorists’ dependents could end up aiding the propagation of terror. “The amounts contemplated are modest. Even if they did end up being forwarded to the husbands they would be tiny compared to the funds available from traditional sources like al-Qaeda or Hizbullah. This pittance is the price that must be paid if we are to have a socially just society.”
California Latino Students Protest “Lack of Respect”
May 9, 2010
A group of 200 mostly Latino students from Live Oak High School skipped class in Morgan Hill, California over an incident they alleged showed a “lack of respect for us and our heritage.” The protestors marched through neighborhoods shouting slogans and carrying signs.
The “incident” that provoked the outburst occurred when five other students had the effrontery to wear American flag tee shirts to school on May 5th. Even though school administrators sent these students home to change their shirts “to show the proper respect for our Latino student body members,” the protestors insisted “this wasn’t enough of a punishment for their mocking our sacred day.”
“It is bad enough that Cinco de Mayo isn’t a recognized holiday,” complained one of the protestors. “But to be taunted by the Anglo oppressors of the Mexican people is too much to bear. They should be expelled.”
“Immature students may think their ‘American-flag-waving’ stunt is patriotic,” said Live Oak High School Assistant Principal Walter Wussman. “But patriotism doesn’t give a person the right to inflict emotional pain on others. As for the claim that the First Amendment protects the right to express opinions that are offensive to others, well that doesn’t apply on school grounds. The Administration has the authority to impose whatever restrictions it deems warranted in order to promote what we consider an appropriate learning environment.”
In related news, New York’s Governor David Paterson (D) announced the creation of a program to assist criminal immigrants to avoid deportation. “Immigrant felons make up an important segment of our state’s criminal class,” Paterson observed. “If we deport them the need for police, prosecutors, prison guards and the like will be diminished. These public employees have families to feed. We can’t let them suffer because of some knee-jerk notion that we should rid ourselves of so-called undesirable foreigners.”
UN Official Says Israel’s Treatment of Palestinians Worse than Nazis
May 16, 2010
Ali Abdussalam Treki, President of the United Nations General Assembly, claimed in an interview aired on Syrian television, that “Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people is worse than anything the Nazis ever did to Jews.”
“Take, for example, Israel’s refusal to allow Palestinians to freely cross the border between Israel and Gaza,” Treki said. “This creates a barrier between members of the same family. At least the Nazis kept Jewish families together when they sent them to the resettlement camps.”
“And here’s another thing,” Treki went on. “The Nazis provided food and shelter for the Jews they took into their care. In contrast, the Israelis have left the Palestinians to fend for themselves—essentially condemning them to live in slums of their own making. It is no wonder that every right thinking person wishes for the extermination of the Jewish pestilence.”
Mexican President Wants US to Open Border
May 23, 2010
In his speech before a joint session of the Congress, Mexican President Felipe Calderón urged US lawmakers to “ease the migration of people desperately seeking relief from the Hell-hole my country has become.”
According to Calderón, “in addition to being a beacon of opportunity, entry into the United States is a vital escape route for people fleeing the murderous gangs that rule many areas of Mexico. Blocking this route and sending those who have used it back condemns these escapees to almost certain harm. Common decency requires that they be given sanctuary and sustenance in your country.”
In support of his plea, Calderón admitted that “an estimated 23,000 persons have been murdered by these gangs since I became president. If the border had been open, many of these lives could’ve been saved.”
While conceding that he is unable to maintain law and order along the US-Mexican border, Calderón laid the bulk of the blame on the United States for being “an attractive nuisance. Even at your minimum wage an immigrant from my country can earn many times what he can if he stays home. If he is unable or unwilling to work you offer generous welfare assistance. You educate his children. You tend to his health. Can you blame these people for choosing as they do?”
Democratic members of Congress gave Calderón a standing ovation at the conclusion of his speech. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) praised his remarks saying “the case for immigration reform is irrefutable. It will save lives. It will ensure that the jobs Americans won’t do will get done. It’s time we pass it.”
In related news, the president of the Mexican senate, Carlos Navarrete Ruiz, urged Hispanic voters in the US to “deliver a triumphant victory to the Democratic party in the upcoming election. This is the surest path toward an immigration reform that will both open the border in the future and grant amnesty and voting rights to those who were forced to enter illegally under the oppressive restrictions currently in place.”
National Guard Troops’ Border Role Clarified
May 30, 2010
In response to criticism from advocates for loosened immigration rules, President Obama hastened to clarify the role to be played by the 1200 National Guard troops he recently ordered to patrol the border in Arizona.
“While these troops will do all they can to discourage people from entering the country illegally, they will not be arresting anyone,” the President promised. “Troops will be authorized to shout warnings like ‘go back,’ and ‘there aren’t any jobs here,’ but if those trying to enter persist the troops are instructed to supply food and water, maps and directions if requested to do so by the immigrants.”
The Administration is taking a less aggressive stance in Texas where federal involvement has been limited to the mailing of a letter from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Nipplitaliano formally telling Texas officials to “watch out for possible attempts to infiltrate the border.” The letter approach was defended as “a step up from the do-nothing policies of the previous Administration.”
Angry Obama Outlines Oil Spill Strategy
Jun 6, 2010
A visibly angry President Barack Obama vowed “an aggressive approach” for dealing with the British Petroleum (BP) oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. “This stain on my Administration will not go unpunished,” the President promised. “We will spare no effort in our pursuit of justice.”
The President’s first step was to send Attorney General Eric Holder to Louisiana “to scout for suspects that we can hold accountable for this disaster,” the President explained. “There’s got to be somebody somewhere that did the wrong thing or failed to do the right thing. That person or those persons must answer for this crime.”
In addition to a search for those responsible for this crime, the President said he is taking protective measures against “copycat criminals” by “banning all further off-shore drilling until we can be assured that there is no danger of another incident.” The President likened this measure to “a crackdown on guns. If we remove the weapons—in this case, oil drills—by which a crime can be committed we can stop crime before it starts.”
The devastating economic losses to businesses located in the path of the spreading oil pollution will, according to the President, be offset by lawsuits. “The Attorney General has been instructed to render whatever aid is necessary to assist trial lawyers in finding and representing plaintiffs who have been harmed by this spill,” he said. “The silver lining is that this will act as a ‘jobs program’ for the legal profession and a kind of ‘paid vacation’ for the plaintiffs whose lost income and assets will be restored by jury awards.”
As for actually stopping the flow of oil from the blown-out well, the President assured America that “we have called in one of the foremost experts to address this aspect of the problem.” That expert is Hollywood film director James Cameron. In light of the success of his latest movie—Avatar—it is anticipated that his genius in “special effects” will help the Administration change the public’s perception of what is going on in the Gulf.
Congressman Says Constitution on His Side in Assault Incident
Jun 20, 2010
Representative Bob Etheridge (D-NC) was recently videotaped assaulting a student reporter on the sidewalk. The student’s offense: asking him a question about his stance on “the Obama agenda.” Etheridge has brushed aside charges that he has broken the law and insists that he was “within my Constitutional rights” in the incident.
While Etheridge’s behavior would appear to fall within the legal definition of felony assault, the Representative claims he is Constitutionally exempt from any charges under Article I, Section 6 of the US Constitution. “The Constitution says that a member of Congress ‘shall not be questioned in any other place,’” Etheridge argued. “A public sidewalk is obviously one of those ‘other places’ contemplated. So, right out of the gate, we see that the person complaining about me was in the wrong.”
“Secondly, members of Congress are immune from arrest while Congress is in session or when members are on their way to and from that session,” Etheridge continued. “Inasmuch as that pretty much covers 24/7 it seems clear that my accusers have no recourse under the law.”
Etheridge said this isn’t the first time he’s had to “get tough with young punks who don’t show proper respect for their betters. It’s a sad commentary on the decline of our civilization when just any nobody thinks he can accost a member of the government anytime and anywhere he wants. If I have to be a one-man army standing against that I will.”
Democrat Poll Bad News for the President and Party
Jul 11, 2010
A recent poll conducted by Democracy Corps, the political consulting firm of long time Democratic partisan James Carville, brought more bad news for President Obama and his Party cohorts. In addition the President’s net negative approval ratings—more disapprove than approve of his job performance—majorities now view him as “too liberal” (56%) and a “socialist” (55%).
Perhaps even more shocking were the words poll respondents chose themselves to describe the President: “liar,” “moron,” “arrogant,” “incompetent.” The Democratic majority in Congress didn’t fare any better being described as “conniving bastards,” “worthless,” “ignorant.”
As one poll respondent put it, “I’m torn between giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming they’re blockhead stupid or fearing the worst—that there is a more sinister implication behind the string of policy blunders emanating from Washington. Either way, the Democrats are unfit to govern.”
Carville characterized the poll results as “grim news for Democrats” and observed that “stupidity is not a monopoly of the Democratic Party. It’s pretty pervasive throughout the population. So, blunders by Republicans or bad judgment by voters could moderate the consequences for Democrats come election day.”
In related news, a Rasmussen poll revealed that three times as many voters prefer laying off government workers and cutting welfare benefits to raising taxes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) dismissed these findings as “selfish manifestations of anti-social individualism and irrelevant to the transformation of America the President and Congress are striving to implement.”
Army’s “Carbon Footprint” Taints War Effort
Jul 18, 2010
Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-Az) took Afghan Commander, General David Petraeus, to task for what she characterized as “willful disregard of the environmental impact of our war effort.”
“There is no policy, no plan to minimize carbon emissions in our military activities,” Giffords charged. “Bombs are dropped and bullets are fired without considering the environmental impact.”
Giffords insisted that she was “not demanding an immediate halt to current military operations in the Middle East. I’m just saying that battle plans should include an environmental impact assessment as a regular part of the process before attacks are launched.”
She also suggested that the Army “put more emphasis on less environmentally damaging methods, like stabbing or clubbing enemy forces in order to minimize the carbon output.”
Dem Says Requiring Members of Congress to Read Bills before Enacting Them “Unreasonable”
Jul 25, 2010
Efforts by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) to get Democrats to agree to a 72-hour window between compilation of a draft piece of legislation and Congress’ final vote on the measure came to naught.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md) characterized Boehner’s request as “unreasonable.” “Everybody wants a piece of a legislator’s time,” Hoyer explained. “Our calendars are full for every working hour of the day meeting with people wanting this or that. Between being harangued by protestors and cajoled by lobbyists, there isn’t any time left over to read these bills before we have to vote on them.”
Describing the bills as “behemoths—impossibly long and deathly dull—not something that you’d voluntarily read if you didn’t have to,” Hoyer said he is grateful that “we have staff to take care of that for us. They give us ‘cheat sheets’ we can get by with, just like the nerds did for us when we were in college.”
Hoyer belittled Republican contentions that voters entrust their elected representatives to know what is in a bill before they vote on it. “Voters could give a hoot,” Hoyer said. “They’ve got more exciting things to occupy their time than to keep tabs on who’s reading the bills and who’s not. The idea that they’d vote Republicans in because they’re more diligent readers is laughable. It’s who brings home the bacon that counts on election day.”
Panel Recommends Reprimand for Rangel
Aug 1, 2010
A four-member panel for the House of Representatives has recommended that former Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY), be punished with a formal reprimand for a list of ethical violations he committed. The violations include tax evasion and fraudulent use of public funds.
A reprimand, in which Rangel would be publicly told he has been a “bad boy” by the Speaker of the House, is deemed a “sufficient and prudent consequence,” said Representative Gene Green (D-Texas), chairman of the ethics investigative subcommittee. “Although many others in the private sector have gone to prison for similar offenses, they did not have the stature of Representative Rangel. We felt it would be inappropriate to cast him among the ranks of common criminals. After all, he, like us, is a member of Congress. If we don’t stick up for each other we are inviting widespread disrespect for our authority.”
As part of the deal, “Representative Rangel would be forced to humiliate himself by openly apologizing to his fellow members of Congress for besmirching all of our reputations,” Green added. “Humility is not something that comes easy to people like us. I’m sure it will be an arduous and trying experience for him. This ‘pound of flesh’ extraction should serve notice to voters that we are enforcing our own standards.”
President Boasts Auto Bailout Helps Ford
Aug 8, 2010
President Obama rejected the notion that since it did not receive federal bailout money Ford’s economic health owes nothing to his policies.
“Let me remind the executives of the Ford Motor Company that it was I who saddled General Motors with the ridiculous task of producing the Chevy Volt,” the President bragged. “This car is so dysfunctional that any sane motorist is more likely to run to buy a Ford product. The fact that so many have redounds to my credit.”
“Not to be overlooked,” the President added, “is the marketing edge Ford got from rebelling against a government bailout. Motorists who resented seeing their tax dollars flow to the GM corporation and its unions were given the opportunity to express their opposition by buying Ford vehicles.”
The President contended that “the long run prospects for Ford are enhanced, as well. Quality and service are not attributes one associates with government. The influence of government ownership of GM and Chrysler will be an enduring ‘poison pill’ that should help keep Ford ahead of its traditional rivals for many years to come.”
Obama Protestors Arrested
Aug 15, 2010
President Obama’s fund-raising visit to the University of Texas inspired a spirited protest by a small group of critics. Lest the President be excessively troubled by the discord of non-universal acceptance, University Police stepped in and arrested the four demonstrators. The four were charged with “abuse of the freedom of speech privilege.”
“University rules require that free speech be restricted to the designated ‘free speech zone,’” explained campus administration spokesman Russell Bowdler. “This is an institution of higher learning. We can’t allow people to say anything they want anywhere that they want, especially when they are disrespecting the President and our government. By making an example of these four we are taking a stand against the anarchy they represent.”
John Bush, one the arrestees and the director of Texans for Accountable Government, argued that “surely our Constitutional right to freedom of speech has to take precedence over the University’s ‘speech code.’ The tiny space designated as the ‘free speech zone’ wasn’t near where the President was speaking and the audience was gathered. If we can’t take our message to where the people are what good can our speaking do?”
Bowdler called Bush’s claim to Constitutional protection “a matter of interpretation. Until someone of higher authority tells us otherwise we will enforce the rules we deem fit for the campus environment. As for Bush and his compadres now having criminal records, well, my heart bleeds for them. If they want to be dissidents then they have to pay the price. After all, I think I heard that freedom isn’t free. Mr. Bush, et al. should consider this episode a down payment on their precious freedom of speech philosophy.”
Dems Come out Swinging on Behalf of Ground Zero Mosque
Aug 22, 2010
With the controversy over the location of a new, $100 million mosque near the spot of the 9-11 attack heating up, leading luminaries of the Democratic Party have come out in favor of going ahead with it as planned.
From the White House we have observed President Obama giving his blessing to the project, both in words and deeds. “Building this mosque adjacent to the site of the worst massacre of civilians in US history opens up a dialogue between proponents of Islam and what are termed ‘unbelievers,’” the President said. “And dialogue is what America is all about. That’s why the project must go forward.”
To show that his commitment goes beyond just words, the Administration has provided funding to help mosques get built. On the one hand, the US State Department is granting $16,000 for the Ground Zero Mosque’s Imam, Feisal Abdul Raul, to go on a round-the-world trip to raise donations to support the mosque’s construction. Raul thanked the President for “his support in helping spread Islam and bringing America a step closer to the day when sharia law shall replace the ‘devil’s document’ that now rules the land.” The ‘devil’s document’ is believed to be the US Constitution.
On the other hand, the US State Department has been quietly supplying funds for the construction of mosques in other countries. So far, mosques in Tanzania, Egypt, and Iraq have received funding from the United States government. Though normally quick to pounce on government aid to religious institutions, the ACLU has refrained from intervening on the grounds that “the government’s support of these mosques is undertaken for political rather than religious motivations,” said ACLU spokesman Bertram Petty.
Democratic National Committee Chair Tim Kaine said he “would be just as supportive of building a synagogue near the site if Jewish fanatics had been the ones who had destroyed the World Trade Center on 9-11. The fact that Muslim jihadis were responsible doesn’t change my commitment to freedom of religion one bit.”
Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisc) expressed his concern that “a person’s position on this mosque will be used to affect the outcome of upcoming elections. This is a violation of the McCain-Feingold regulations that prohibit groups from speaking out against members of Congress during the 60 days before an election.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) demanded that those opposing the mosque be investigated by the US Department of Justice. “Our leader, President Obama, has already decided that this mosque deserves our support,” Pelosi said. “To persist in opposing it at this point is disloyal and tends to undermine his authority to rule America. Those committing such treasonous acts should face the full punishment permitted by law.”
Veep Says Tax Hikes on Rich Won’t Harm Economy
Aug 29, 2010
The looming boost in tax rates that will occur when the “Bush” tax cuts expire on December 31 is no cause for alarm says Vice-President Joe Biden.
“Rich people have far more money than they need,” Biden asserted. “Passing a little more of it over to the government won’t hurt them a bit.”
As for the ripple effect on the economy, Biden insisted that “any expenditures that are foregone will be more than made up for. Let’s say some rich guy has to give up a vacation at Martha’s Vineyard. Well, as the President is showing this very week, one trip by the First Family is worth many times as much to that economy. Not only is the President and his family spending money, but there’s the Secret Service, presidential aides—the White House cook is there with them, you know—and the whole media crew covering him. So, I’m not worried that the economy will suffer because of higher taxes.”
As for the argument that higher taxes will reduce the amount that the rich can invest in job-creating businesses, Biden was equally dismissive. “The government will invest this money far more effectively than if we were to leave it in private hands,” Biden boasted. “Private investment is focused on profit. They’ll only provide a job if that job produces a net gain to the business. Government can spend on creating jobs even if these jobs produce nothing of value. Not being obsessed by profit, there is no limit to how many jobs the government can create.”
As a case in point, Biden cited the National Institutes of Health’s $1.4 million study of male prostitutes in Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh City. “Here’s work that no private investor would fund,” Biden said. “Yet, thanks to government spending real people have jobs that wouldn’t otherwise exist. That these people also get to travel to Vietnam and help build bridges of understanding with a former enemy of this country is a byproduct of the sort that we would be unlikely to ever see from the private sector.”
Proposal to Do Away with Current Income Tax Forms under Consideration
Sep 5, 2010
President Obama’s tax reform commission is said to be mulling over the idea of dispensing with individuals filing income tax returns. Instead, the IRS would just send out its assessment of tax liability to each individual taxpayer. If taxes withheld from paychecks and bank accounts exceeded the amount the IRS determined was owed a refund check would be included. If withholding was deemed insufficient, a bill for the added amount due would be enclosed. Those who disagreed with the IRS assessment could file an appeal with the agency.
US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner praised the idea as “long overdue.” “The current system relies too much on amateurs struggling with the tax code,” he said. “This isn’t an efficient way to do it. The IRS has full-time tax professionals working the case. They’ve got to have a better handle on it.”
Geither brushed aside the fact that a majority of taxpayers hire professionals to help them file their taxes. “Yes, these are professionals with some expertise on the tax code,” Geithner admitted. “But their focus is the exact opposite of the IRS. They’re trying to minimize their clients’ tax burden, whereas the IRS is focused on making sure everyone pays a fair share.”
“Saving time is another benefit,” Geithner added. “Only those who want to challenge the IRS assessment would need to keep records and receipts and do their own calculations. This hassle would be avoided by simply paying what the IRS says you owe. I think most will choose convenience over confrontation. This will save a lot of time and trouble as well as boost the revenues flowing to the government.”
President Says It’s OK for Voters to Blame Him for Economy
Sep 12, 2010
Though he insists that he is not at fault for the economy’s refusal to recover from the recession, President Barack Obama says that it is okay if voters blame him. “Just as a blameless Jesus took upon himself the sins of the world, I stand willing to take upon myself the blame for our nation’s economic troubles,” Obama declared.
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs defended the President’s controversial analogy saying that “there are eerie parallels between the two lives. Both were born in obscure circumstances. Both have mysterious gaps in their chronologies. Both offered a message of hope and change. Both have been criticized by the establishments they have sought to reform. If both end up being punished for the sins of others, then so be it.”
GOP’s “Pledge to America” Assailed
Sep 26, 2010
The Republican Party’s effort to clarify its stand prior to November’s election by issuing what it calls its “Pledge to America” was met by universal scorn from the Democratic Party and its allies.
White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer called the Pledge’s plan to cut taxes and trim federal spending “wrong for America. If this economic crisis has taught us anything it’s that we need more government now than we ever have in this nation’s history.”
Pfeiffer characterized Republican contentions that individuals and businesses would do a better job with their money than the government would “ludicrous.” “The idea that government is wasteful while private individuals aren’t is exactly backwards,” he wrote. “Private individuals are repeatedly spending money on things they don’t really need—big houses, big cars, fancy gadgets, fatty foods, you name it. The President is trying to stem this private waste. Electing Republicans will undo the progress he’s made so far.”
Former President Bill Clinton labeled the Pledge “a hysterical rant against government” and “an attempt to capitalize on the failure of the President’s initiatives for political gain.” Clinton urged voters to forbear ousting Democrats from Congress this year in order to “give them more time to fix the mess they’ve made. If by 2012 voters are still dissatisfied they can vote the President out during the primaries.”
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) denounced the Pledge’s promise to cut government waste as “a dagger aimed straight at the heart of the public sector workforce. It’s the kind of thing you expect private sector firms to do to protect their profits. It is the task of government to rise above petty concerns for efficiency and solvency if that’s what it takes to ensure full employment.”
The LA Times editors opined that the “Pledge” is “the wrong medicine for what ails the economy. Promising to reduce ‘pork,’ ‘bailouts,’ and ‘special favors to corporate elites’ may sound good in theory, but these government payouts represent real income for real people. Letting ‘the Market’ determine who gets what overlooks the possibility that there may be no buyers for what these recipients of government payoffs might produce. As Keynes so aptly pointed out, spending is the key to recovery. It is nonsensical to quibble about waste if the end result would be to cut spending. We hope Americans will see this truth before they vote.”
Senator Asks IRS to Crack Down on Government Critics
Oct 3, 2010
Irritated by a rising tide of criticism of current government policies, Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont) has asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate organizations for what he termed “unwelcome political activity.”
“These critics have crossed the line,” Baucus contended. “Just because they stop short of saying ‘don’t vote for candidate X’ shouldn’t let them off the hook. The American voter isn’t totally stupid. If he’s told that a policy is bad and that candidate X voted for that policy he can connect the dots and vote accordingly.”
Baucus admitted that he was “a little uncomfortable setting the dogs of the IRS on anyone. Getting audited by those guys is pure Hell. But sometimes you’ve got to get tough when people step out of line. Maybe if we make an example of a few of them the rest will get the message and learn to restrain their comments.”
Worst Stretch of Unemployment Since Great Depression
Oct 10, 2010
The latest statistics show that the official unemployment rate edged up to 9.6% in September. This 14th consecutive month with an unemployment rate of 9.5% or higher is the longest since the 1930s.
President Obama cautioned that “these figures look worse than they really are because they don’t properly account for the leisure that has simultaneously been gained. If we just concern ourselves with the loss of hours worked we’re only seeing one side of the equation. An hour not on the job is an hour freed up for other uses. This leisure the nation has gained has a value that is not reported in the official data.”
“Studies show that leisure helps relieve stress,” the President added. “In contrast, work is cited as a major source of stress. So, there are some significant health benefits that are being overlooked by just focusing on the jobless numbers.”
The President also tried to allay fears about his own well-being by pointing out that “I want to assure those who have supported me to know that my own situation is not currently at risk. Barring anything weird happening, I’m set for another two years, at least. And I’m guarding against on-the-job stress by pacing myself and taking frequent breaks. So the American people needn’t add worry about me to their list of problems.”
In related news, the President asserted that “Muslims have a higher education status and make more money than your average American. So, converting may be an option that has some economic benefits for a large segment of the nation’s population.”
First Lady’s Campaign Crosses Legal Boundary
Oct 17, 2010
While stumping for Democrats in Illinois, First Lady Michelle Obama took her campaign inside an early voting polling location. Politicking inside a polling location and within a 100 foot radius outside the location is illegal.
Presidential Press Secretary Robert Gibbs characterized the law as “unenforceable against the First Lady. I mean, what state authority would have the brass to press charges against the wife of the President? They’d have to know that it wouldn’t work out well for them personally. So, I doubt we’ll be hearing from them on this.”
In a broader context, Gibbs allowed that the law “might serve a legitimate purpose in discouraging unwarranted intrusions by inexpert campaigners, but polished practitioners like the First Lady, the President, or really, any elected official, ought to be seen as exempt because they are the people’s chosen rulers and should be permitted access to wherever, in their judgment, they need to go to conduct the people’s business. And I would argue that aiding the election of persons supportive of the President’s issues is the people’s business.”
In related news, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine suggested that “anyone readily identifiable as a ‘Tea Party’ person should be banned from polling places. The Tea Party has been so prominently linked with lower taxes and spending that their mere presence could be intimidating to Democratic voters. It’s hard enough for a person to overcome the shame of voting for more welfare, more bailouts, more inflation without the risk of having to do it right in front of neighbors who might question their actions.”
Communist Party Urges Vote for Democrats
Oct 24, 2010
Disturbed that many on the left have given up on Obama, the US Communist Party urged “progressives” to “not lose faith.” “While some might be disappointed that capitalism is still standing we should not dismiss the very real progress that President Obama and Congress have made toward the goal of its eventual demise,” wrote the editors of People’s World Newspaper, Official Organ of Communist Party USA.
“We would have liked to see a total nationalization of health care, too,” the editors wrote. “But we must be patient. Private insurers are already pulling out of certain sectors in response to the President’s health care legislation. As other portions of the law take effect in coming years more of these private providers will be driven out of the business. And the new rules requiring those with medical savings accounts to get approval from government recognized physicians before they can spend their money deals a significant blow to the antisocial idea that individuals should make their own health care decisions.”
“Sure, the stimulus spending should have been bigger,” the editors continued. “But let’s not overlook the fact that trends have been put in place that will eventually eliminate the dollar as a medium of exchange. This will wipe out the value of capitalists’ hoards of money and level the playing field for all.”
While the editors still characterized the historic triumph of communism as “inevitable” they also warned that “a Republican victory in this election will slow the momentum toward the progressive society we have all worked so hard to bring about for so many years. Republican promises to staunch the red ink, save the middle class, and preserve freedom will ultimately fail, but giving them the mandate to try prolongs the agony and delays the arrival of that happy day when the last capitalist is hanged and his wealth is distributed to the masses.”
In related news, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pleaded with voters to “return a Democratic majority to Congress so we can continue our work toward a redistribution of the nation’s wealth into more equitable shares.”
Veep Says Government Responsible Every Great Idea in Last 200 Years
Oct 31, 2010
Seeking to blunt arguments against President Obama’s “big government” policy thrust, Vice-President Joe Biden reminded voters that “Every single great idea that has marked the 21st century, the 20th century and the 19th century came from government.”
Saying that he didn’t have time to list them all, Biden cited a few of his favorites. “Take the Federal Reserve System. Without it, the quantity of money would be severely limited. With it there is no end to the amount of money we can create. Then there’s withholding taxes. If people had to write a lump-sum check to the government each year do you think we could’ve expanded into as many programs as we have? And let’s not forget unemployment compensation. Instead of being forced to just take any job to put food on the table, the out-of-work man can bide his time waiting for a better opportunity.”
Biden begged voters to “keep these examples in mind before getting swept up in anti-government fervor. Government is your ‘rich uncle’ who’s there with a helping hand when you need it. Vote to strengthen that hand by returning Democrats to Congress.”
In related news, Biden complained about “lavish spending” by the opponents of progressive government, calling it “wasteful, unaccountable, and destructive.” “One of the things we’ve got to take care of after this election is how to control who spends what on election campaigns,” Biden vowed. “The McCain-Feingold limits aren’t working. We need a system where the Federal Election Commission has to approve all outlays in advance.”
Health Care Repeal a “Non-Starter” Says Gibbs
Nov 7, 2010
Despite indications that opposition to the President’s health care reform fueled the large GOP gain in Congress, Presidential Press Secretary Robert Gibbs declared possible repeal a “non-starter.”
“We don’t know for sure why people voted for Republicans,” Gibbs argued. “It could’ve been as Maureen Dowd said—people are just dumb. To leap from this assumption to the idea that voters want the health care law repealed isn’t warranted.”
“Besides, even it is what voters want now who’s to say they won’t change their minds next week?” Gibbs added. “No, the President is determined that America needs this law and will fight any attempt to undo it.”
Gibbs downplayed a potential GOP strategy of simply refusing to appropriate the funds needed to implement the law. “We will find the necessary funds, of that I can assure you,” Gibbs said. “One idea that is under review is for the Federal Reserve to create the funds to buy a special health care debt issue. This way we could bypass the whole congressional appropriations process.”
Administration Asserts Authority to Terminate “Enemies”
Nov 14, 2010
The Obama Administration filed court papers asserting that “the Government has the authority to use deadly force against its enemies.” The filing came in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) charging that the asserted killing authority violates the US Constitution.
As the US Department of Justice (DOJ) Brief put it, “this Government faces serious threats both at home and abroad. Just this past November 2, over 60 members of the governing coalition were driven from their posts by dangerous right-wing elements who have been identified by the President as enemies of his Administration. Under such a threat, the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has a broad power to take any measures he deems necessary and warranted to protect the nation from this kind of assault.”
The brief further challenged the jurisdiction of the court on this matter: “The voters in America have granted this power to President Barack Obama by electing him to the office he currently holds. For the courts to attempt to place any limits on this grant of power would undermine our democratic form of government. It is our position that the courts have no jurisdiction in this matter. Consequently, the Executive Branch of the Government will not enforce any court finding that interferes with the President’s Constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to order the elimination of any person he deems a credible threat.”
CCR Staff Attorney Pardiss Kebriaei characterized the DOJ’s argument as “a brief for lawless abuse of power and a gateway to unconstrained tyranny. The focus in the immediate case may be a suspected al-Qaeda operative, but the scope of the authority claimed would essentially give the President the option of ordering the assassination of anyone he chooses to name as a threat. Today the target is Anwar al-Aulaqi. Tomorrow it might be Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh.”
TSA’s Violation of Constitution’s 4th Amendment “Necessary and Proper”
Nov 21, 2010
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Nipplitaliano defended her Transportation Security Administration’s new invasive searches of would be air travelers as “necessary and proper” while also acknowledging that the procedures appear to violate the Constitutional prohibition against “unreasonable searches.”
“In a perfect world everyone’s rights can be respected,” she said. “But sometimes we have to put aside strict adherence to the Constitution if a more important purpose is to be served.”
Presumably, the more important purpose is public safety. However, scientists have raised questions as to whether safety would be enhanced by submitting travelers to repeated x-ray scans. Arizona State University Professor Peter Rez estimated that the probability of dying from radiation from a body scanner is about equal to that of being killed in a terror attack: one in 30 million. And that’s if the scanners work as advertised. Rez’s study revealed that radiation doses are often higher than the manufacturer claims.
Professor John Sedat, a University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) professor of biochemistry and biophysics, called the machines “mutagenic” and allowed that “there is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations.”
Nipplitaliano declared these risks “within acceptable parameters. Anyone who gets cancer from the scans will die years, maybe decades, from now. Besides, people who’re concerned about radiation can opt for a ‘pat down.’” These pat downs include manual probing of the passenger’s genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh and buttocks. Persons who leave the airport rather than submit to either the scanner or the pat down search—as John “don’t touch my junk” Tyner did—may be fined up to $11,000.
Cynics suggest that the real “more important purpose” may be the purchase of the scanners themselves. The Government has reportedly committed to investing $800 million in the devices, which, as it turns out, are manufactured by a company called Rapiscan, whose CEO, Deepak Chopra, made the maximum legally allowable donation to President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign.
Ironically, Nipplitaliano is said to be weighing the possibility of exempting Muslim women from the enhanced search protocol. “Having their bodies seen or touched by unbelievers is a grievous transgression in their religion,” Nipplitaliano observed. “Forcing them to comply might essentially be barring them from flying. That would be unfair discrimination.”
In related news, US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is said to be pushing the idea of using archived scan images as a possible revenue generator. “A lot of people pay a lot of money to view naked pictures over the Internet,” Geithner observed. “We’ll have a steady supply to feed into this market. Or we could agree to withhold certain images from the market in exchange for a fee. Either way, it would be money we could get without having to go to Congress for an appropriation.”
President Says He Is “Extraordinarily Proud” of His Record Thus Far
Nov 28, 2010
Despite the recent election in which his Party received a “shellacking,” President Obama told ABC News’ Barbara Walters that he is “extraordinarily proud” of his accomplishments to-date.
“I could’ve been just a run-of-the-mill president like so many others, but I’ve made these historic and interesting times in which to live,” Obama bragged. “Unemployment hasn’t been this high since the Roosevelt Administration over 70 years ago. These parlous circumstances have enabled me to preside over a spending spree unmatched by any previous president. More people are getting government checks than ever before.”
The President pointed to his “historic” health care reform legislation as another grand achievement. “What other law has been passed by congressmen who so openly admitted to not having read it beforehand?” he asked. “We are not only transforming the way health services will be delivered, we are also charting a new way to govern. There is no limit to what we can do when legislators are willing to blindly enact a policy that no one fully comprehends. This is a transformational legacy that will change this nation forever.”
Obama further contended that the idea of members of congress voting without a good knowledge about the content of the bill should not be surprising. “The American people voted for me without a good knowledge,” he pointed out. “It’s a new paradigm of faith in this nation’s leaders that may obviate the need for future elections.”
White House Seeking Open-Ended Budget Authority
Dec 5, 2010
Citing what he termed “the need to avert a gridlock that could paralyze our government,” President Barack Obama has asked the “lame duck” Congress to enact a budget reform that would permit him to transfer funding between accounts.
“With the House passing into the control of the Republicans next January there is a very real threat that our achievements of the past two years could be thwarted by the simple mechanism of the budgets being ‘zeroed out’ or otherwise crimped,” Obama wrote in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev). “This would bring the transformation that I have promised to the American people to a halt. Granting the Executive the power to transfer funds between accounts will neutralize any prospective GOP efforts to undo what we have already done or to prevent further reforms from being undertaken via Executive Order.”
While the grant of such authority to the Executive would seem to run contrary to the intent of the Constitution that Congress control the public “purse strings,” the President asserted that “Congress has the authority to delegate its powers as it sees fit. The requested delegation of authority is necessary to ensure the flexibility needed to maintain our momentum toward progressive goals. It’s a simple question of whether Democrats in Congress prefer to have their President or the new Republican majority controlling public policy.”
Homeland Security Announces “Trusted Traveler” Program for Mexicans
Dec 12, 2010
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Nipplitaliano announced a “trusted traveler” program to “help speed Mexican air travelers through airport security.” Under the program, Mexicans that are certified by their government as trustworthy will be allowed to bypass x-ray screening and pat downs on flights destined for the United States.
“This will save Mexican travelers untold hours of time and the humiliation and inconvenience of routine air port security checks,” Nipplitaliano boasted. “At the same time, by handing off the security clearance to the Mexican government we spare the expense of screening them on the TSA’s dime. It’s a win-win situation.”
Mexico’s Interior Minister Francisco Blake was reportedly “ecstatic” with the new arrangement. “Previously, Mexicans seeking to enter the United States were impeded by fences and border guards,” Blake recounted. “Even when they got through, the cost and tedium of further travel led to the majority of them being concentrated in the border states. Now they will be able to fly directly to any US city with air service to Mexico.” Blake said that over 80 million Mexicans are expected to be cleared for departure within the next few months.
Not wanting to waste what she termed “valuable momentum,” Nipplitaliano signed a “letter of intent” committing her agency to “protect Mexican immigrants once they’ve crossed into the United States.”
Time Is Ripe for Openly Gay President Says Carter
Dec 19, 2010
Former President Jimmy Carter came out forthrightly in favor of an openly gay person as president of the United States.
“We’re breaking down the barriers that have been in place for hundreds of years,” Carter asserted. “President Obama is our first openly Black president. President Clinton was our first openly fornicating president. I think it’s about time that we have our first openly homosexual president.”
Carter dismissed rumors that several former presidents may have been secretly gay as irrelevant. “I know there are those who say Lincoln may have been gay,” Carter admitted. “And Buchanan, a lifelong bachelor, certainly had the look of a sodomite. But neither acknowledged being gay.”
The former President speculated that “an openly gay US President would likely improve our nation’s relationships with Middle Eastern countries” because “these are places where pederasty is very common and the leaders of these countries would then share more of a common bond with our gay president.”
Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.) praised “President Carter’s candor” and suggested that “an openly gay President would be able to get more members behind his legislative program.”
John Semmens’ Archives
More Semmens Archives