By John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News
Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik rejected the argument that his office might bear more responsibility for the assassination attempt on Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-Az) than Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh.
“There are those who say that considering the numerous death threats Jared Loughner has made against various persons over the last year my office should have taken action against him before his Tucson shooting spree,” Dupnik said. “But these threats were against unimportant people and therefore of admittedly narrow scope. The broader threat was, and continues to be, that of right-wing extremism. Palin and Limbaugh are the foremost proponents of this extremism. As such, they are a bigger danger than one lone gunman.”
“Even though people are saying that there is no evidence that Loughner took inspiration from talk radio, that he never listened to Limbaugh’s show, that he doesn’t even know who Sarah Palin is doesn’t change the fact that the poisonous atmosphere spewing from the right is undermining support for the current Administration,” Dupnik continued. “Why, just last November the negative impact of these enemies of the President resulted in Republicans seizing control of the House of Representatives. This will do more to thwart his agenda than a 100 Jared Loughners ever could.”
As “irrefutable proof” that he is on the right track, Dupnik pointed out that “President Obama has congratulated me for my quick response and proper focus in handling this matter. Any criticisms, especially from these right-wing extremists and their allies aren’t worthy of my attention.”
Arizona Shooting May Prompt New Gun Rules
Arguing that “we must protect members of the ruling class from assaults by the governed,” Representative Peter King (R-NY) says he will introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime for anyone to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a government official.
“We can’t abide having a member of Congress—a person installed in a position of authority by voters at a cost of millions of dollars in campaign expenditures—struck down by the actions of an angry or crazed citizen like Jared Loughner,” King averred. “This imperils our political system in a way we cannot tolerate.”
The prospect that such a law could ensnare gun owners with no malicious intent didn’t faze King. “People must learn to be aware of their surroundings,” King contended. “Recognizing elected officials and keeping an appropriate distance if you are carrying a weapon isn’t too much to ask.”
Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) praised King’s initiative, but said “it doesn’t go far enough. The notion that anyone other than government law enforcement should be allowed to own or carry a firearm is the problem. Once we outlaw the private ownership of guns we’ll have greatly simplified the issue. We won’t have to measure distances or deal with the whole ‘self-defense’ excuse. Everyone’s defense will be provided by duly authorized government personnel. Everyone else with a gun will be, ipso facto, a criminal. The ‘battle line’ will be more clearly drawn and more easily enforced.”
Arizona Shooting May Prompt New Speech Rules
In a bid to “prevent a similar tragedy from ever happening again,” Representative Bob Brady (D-Penn) is touting legislation that would ban “violent words and images from future political dialogue.”
“The violent actions of one man who attempted to assassinate a member of Congress in Tucson last weekend make it clear that we must change the rhetoric of political debate in this country if we are to prevent repeated outbreaks of carnage,” Brady said. “Words like ‘target,’ ‘reload,’ ‘defeat,’ ‘beat,’ or images like ‘crosshairs’ or ‘bull’s-eyes’ and their ilk do not belong in civil discussions of political differences. Those who use them must be barred from the air waves and disqualified from holding political office.”
President Obama’s characterization of his opponents as “enemies” and his suggestion that his supporters counter opposition by bringing a “gun,” “aren’t the kind of thing we’re talking about,” Brady explained. “These statements are defensive in nature and perfectly understandable given the vitriol aimed at the President. Besides, President Obama is the Commander-in-Chief of America. Voters have elected him to rule this country. Quelling would-be usurpers of his authority is part of his duty as President.”
Fellow member of Congress, Representative Jim Clyburn (D-SC) emphasized that “it’s not just the specific words that are used, but who is using them and in what context. Last week’s reading of the Constitution in the House, for example, was a thinly veiled effort to incite the President’s enemies against the vital reforms he is trying to give to this country. It’s one thing to read the Constitution in a classroom as part of a historical study of our grievances against the British. It’s improper for it to be used to influence attitudes toward our government.”
Measures to Save Planet Debated
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessor David Shearman has proposed that parents be assessed a tax of $18,000 for each child they have.
“Humans are the most ecologically damaging species on the planet,” Shearman asserted. “It follows that if we are to save the planet we must prune back the human population. Putting a tax on each new child that is born strikes me as a most humane way of pursuing this goal.”
The Obama Administration’s Science Czar, John Holdren, took exception to the proposal calling it “a weak and attenuated measure. It would only affect future generations. Even then, it would still allow those who paid the tax to procreate. We need stronger steps if we are to truly make headway against the scourge we call humanity.”
One of the stronger steps advocated by Holdren would be “licensing reproductive rights to only those most fit and compulsory abortions of children conceived outside this process.” This would include “aborting” children as old as two years of age. Another would be “mass sterilization by introducing the appropriate anti-conception drugs and chemicals into public water supplies. That way, only those who qualified for government-issued antidotes would be permitted to breed.”
Even these stronger steps are “just a stop-gap on the way to what must be our ultimate objective—the extinction of the human species. It’s the only way we can guarantee the health of the planet for its remaining five-billion year life,” Holdren argued.
Administration Says National Security Requires More Federal Control of Internet
Based on the success of its airport screening procedures, the Obama Administration is advancing a case for greater federal scrutiny of the Internet. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke is proposing an Internet “identity ecosystem” that will require all users to have a unique ID before they can log on.
“Air travelers aren’t the only ones who represent a threat,” Locke pointed out. “In fact, it could be argued that irresponsible or malicious bloggers are capable of even more damage. A hijacked plane may end up killing hundreds or even thousands. But it won’t bring down the government. Misuse of the Internet, on the other hand, could destabilize our entire power structure.”
“As it stands right now, anyone can anonymously assail the government over the Internet,” Locke observed. “Unlike previous eras when the cost of printing and distributing anti-government propaganda imposed some finite limits on criticism, electronic blogs are virtually costless. You don’t have to be anybody, have an organization or major donors to create a message that could potentially reach millions. Unrestrained, this will disrupt established authority and lead to anarchy.”
By requiring every Internet user to obtain a government-issued ID Locke insisted that “dangerous persons can be interdicted on a ‘real-time’ basis or later prosecuted if they stray too far from acceptable norms. Those who try to use the Internet without obtaining the appropriate ID ahead of time will be liable to an ‘illegal trespassing’ charge—equivalent to a kind of ‘breaking-and-entering’ offense that will send them to prison. This should help deter unwarranted attacks by the government’s opponents.”
Locke denied that free speech would be stifled because “legitimate and civil discussion of policy issues will be protected. Only unauthorized and excessively contentious viewpoints will be targeted.”
Veep Given a “Pass” on Strangulation Threat
Neither law enforcement nor the media found Vice-President Joe Biden’s threat to “strangle” political opponents worthy of concern.
“Look, this isn’t the first time he’s made such a threat,” Attorney General Eric Holder reminded. “He didn’t strangle anyone before. So these are obviously empty words. In my judgment, it’s more the ranting of a harmless idiot than anything to become alarmed over.”
Leftist pundit, Paul Krugman said “it would be a different story if Sarah Palin said she was going to strangle someone. She could actually do it and then field-dress the carcass. But Biden? Please. Everyone knows he’s a total gas bag who can’t be counted on to zip his own fly much less strike fear into anyone.”
A Satirical Look at Recent News