President Defends ‘Flexibility’ Remarks

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

In what President Obama believed to be an “off-the-record” exchange, he was overheard requesting “space” from the Russians until after the November election when he would have more “flexibility.” This would-be covert conversation has raised suspicions about his intended defense policies for a prospective second term.

“Doing the right thing and doing the popular thing are not always one-and-the-same,” Obama explained. “I want to be able to do what’s right. But it will be of no avail if I’m not reelected. All I was asking of the Russians was to lay low for the next eight months to let me get this last election out of the way. There’ll be plenty of time after that to iron out the details of the relationship between our two countries.”

The Russians have been pressing for an abandonment of the United States’ missile defense system. They view this system as a threat to their nation’s security. “We have no similar capability,” Russian President Dmitry Medvedev complained. “All we are asking is for a more balanced equation. Exposure to mutual annihilation would provide that balance.”

President Obama is reportedly hoping to make the risk of mutual annihilation disappear by eliminating nuclear weapons. “For too long, nuclear weapons have held humanity hostage,” Obama said. “If we take them out of the mix others will not have to arm themselves with them as a defense against American imperialism. The world could be restored to the less threatening environment that prevailed before the first nuclear bomb was dropped.”

“Rather than make these complicated issues part of the debate in the run up to November, I’m asking that they be put aside,” Obama requested. “I think I’ve done enough to have earned the American people’s trust on defense and foreign policy. Remember, I was the one who killed bin-Laden. None of my potential opponents has done anything as impressive in the way of demonstrating their bonafides.”

In related news, the Russian newspaper Pravda endorsed President Obama’s reelection.

Kagan Confident Violation Won’t Get Her in Trouble

Supreme Court JusticeElenaKagan brushed off accusations that her participation in the Court’s hearing on Obamacare violates the law. Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code requires judges to disqualify themselves from hearing cases when they have “served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy.” As Solicitor General, Kagan served in such a role.

“The most important job for a judge is to mete out justice,” Kagan asserted. “Mere parchment—whether it be a  Constitution or a statute—cannot be allowed to infringe upon this solemn duty. Ensuring that everyone has health care epitomizes the President’s quest for justice. I will do everything I can to aid this quest.”

“Besides, whether a person is brought up on charges for an alleged violation of the law is at the prosecutor’s discretion,” Kagan added. “Does anyone seriously believe that Attorney General Holder would press charges against me for seeking to defend the health care law from its right-wing assailants? The two of us worked long and hard to craft the Administration’s legal defense of the law. We’re on the same team.”

Kagan rounded out her case for self-confidence saying “if by some freak occurrence I were to be impeached and convicted, is there any doubt that I would be pardoned by President Obama? I assure you, I’m not worried.”

In related news, Kagan dismissed Obamacare opponents’ argument that the law is coercive. “Since when is forcing people to buy something that’s good for them ‘coercive?’” she asked Plaintiff attorney Paul Clement. “Didn’t your mother ever force you to eat your vegetables? Would you call that coercive? Or was she just looking out for your well-being? Isn’t that what the government is doing here?”

Pelosi Says There Are Other Options in Trayvon Martin Death

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) said she is weighing “other options” in the event that Florida officials are unsuccessful in punishing George Zimmerman for shooting Trayvon Martin.

Martin was killed by neighborhood watch volunteer Zimmerman February 26. Though all the facts are not yet publicly known, demands that Zimmerman be charged with murder have been gaining momentum in certain circles. The New Black Panther Party has posted a $10,000 reward for Zimmerman’s capture and is in the process of organizing a 5,000-man posse to undertake the effort. Celebrities Spike Lee and Roseanne Barr have “tweeted” address information for different Zimmermans residing in Florida. Representative Bobby Rush (D-Ill) wore a “hoodie” sweatshirt on the floor of the House.

“If these efforts to secure justice for Trayvon don’t succeed we will have to look at what we can do to make things right,” Pelosi vowed. One of the measures Pelosi says she’s looking into is “the possibility that Congress could pass a bill declaring Zimmerman guilty and impose a reasonable penalty. Or maybe the President can declare him an enemy and have him taken out by one of those drone thingies. But the bottom line is we can’t abide racist local officials condoning the murder of a Black youth.”

In related news, Pelosi called Rush’s hoodie demonstration “the most heroic act I’ve ever witnessed.”

Democrats Press for Efforts to Combat Campaign Slander

A group of 30 Democrats called for President Obama to use an upcoming Congressional recess as an opportunity to appoint five new Federal Election Commissioners. The appointments are deemed essential to blunt the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case.

“As it stands now, anyone can say anything he wants about any candidate without fear of repercussion,” said Minority Chief Deputy Whip Peter Welch (D-Vt). “The FEC as it is now constituted is unable to properly regulate what may be said during the very important campaign ahead. By making recess appointments the President can staff the FEC with people we can trust to put the clamps on unwarranted criticisms of the Administration’s policies and prevent voters from being misled by right-wing propaganda.”

In addition to making the requested recess appointments, the group urged the IRS to “launch investigations of all 501(c)(4) groups affiliated with super-PACs that are attacking the President or other members of the Democratic Party under the guise of so-called freedom of speech.”

“The Government must use every tool at its disposal to defend itself from those who would undermine its authority,” Welch argued. “If people know that the IRS will be on their case if they try to bring down the Government I think we’ll see them exercise more discretion in what they say or do.”

Treasury Secretary Blames Congress for Economy, Excuses Obama

The Obama Administration’s Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner upheld his boss’ mantra that others are to blame for the current sorry state of the economy.

“Really, it was the guys who were in office prior to President Obama’s ascendance that are responsible,” Geithner maintained. “If any fingers are to be pointed there’s where we should look.”

When he was reminded that Obama was a member of Congress during that period, Geithner acknowledged that “some may try this ploy to shift blame to him, but the fact is, he was hardly ever present for any of the deliberations or votes in the two years he nominally served as a senator. If you’ll recall, he spent the bulk of his time campaigning for the presidency. To be fair, you have to admit his hands are clean.”

Key Democrats Warn Supreme Court on Obamacare

A handful of senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court not to overturn the Affordable Care Act—more widely known as Obamacare.

“The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility,” Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) said. “The President is Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful army in the world. Congress has control over  more spending than any other entity in the world. The Justices need to consider whether they want to lock horns with these other branches of government.”

Senator John Kerry (D-Mass) took issue with contentions that the 2700-page health care law hasn’t been properly vetted. “I admit I didn’t have time to read it before I voted for it,” Kerry said. “But I was assured by Solicitor General Kagan that the bill was Constitutional. I’m sure that now she is on the Supreme Court she will uphold the law’s validity.”

“And let’s not forget that there have been more than 30 lower court decisions upholding the health care law,” Kerry added. “Let’s face it, the President conceived it. Congress passed it. The people want it. And fellow judges have upheld it. Do the members of the Supreme Court really want to swim against this tide?”

The possibility that President Obama might just ignore an unfavorable Court ruling cannot be discarded. “It wouldn’t be the first time something like that has happened,” Press Secretary Jay Carney observed. “President Jackson set the precedent for it back in 1832. President Obama will enforce the laws as he sees fit. The Justices should keep that in mind as they mull over their decision.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

John Semmens Archives

Additional Reading:

Grijalva, Pastor Vote for ‘Death Panel’

Planned Parenthood Sued for Cheating Taxpayers, Defrauding Government

Congressional Poll: Schweikert vs. Quayle

Schweikert Would Make an Excellent U.S. Senator

Maricopa School Mocks Pledge of Allegiance

The following message came from the East Valley Tea Party Patriots’ email today:

My cousin’s daughter gets mocked by the teacher and the students for standing during the Pledge of Allegiance at Maricopa High School.

My cousin posted the following on facebook tonight so I offered to help him.

Post 1

So if your kids go to school at Maricopa High do they stand for the Pledge? I think you might be surprised. My daughter is the only one in her class to stand and the teacher joined in with the class to mock her about it. I am so angry right now!!!!

Post 2

I am so upset about it. The teacher then asked her to stay after class to talk about it and it embarrassed her even more. She wrote her feelings, her precious heart could not say what she felt, and she hated the feeling of the class and now he wants to try to take her to the counselor to ‘talk’ about it.

Post 3

I am very proud of my daughters. They have had many experiences to be one of the few or the only one to stand in many situations for honorable values and standards.

Please join me in calling Maricopa High School at (520)568-5100 to let them know what you think. Remember to be courteous and polite but firm. The Teachers name is Mr. Almond.

Thank you, Greg.

Gilbert’s Urie Not Seeking Legislative Re-Election

Seeing Red AZ reports:

Rep. Steve Urie takes a hike for greener pastures

Single-term state Rep. Steve Urie (R-Dist.22), has announced he‘s not interested in running to retain his seat in the Arizona legislature.

His reason? “I just really like working on the local level,” said Urie, a Republican who first entered politics in 1999 when he was elected to the Gilbert Town Council.

Not one to tax himself, Urie says the demands of the office were too high for a job that is supposed to be part-time. Apparently he had no idea of the legislative job description when he ran for the office — although he willingly resigned his Town Council position to campaign for the state House seat.

In a statement announcing his decision to run for Justice of the Peace, he said, “I’m excited for the opportunity to work more directly with the citizens of Gilbert, Mesa, and Chandler and to bring my personal experience to this job.”

Urie conveniently omits the fact that there is a much more attractive benefits package and salary of over $95,000, as JP’s earn 65% of the $150,000 per year Superior Court judge’s base salary. And instead of gearing up for reelection every two years, JPs only face the voters every four years. Plus, there’s also an impressive black robe and the aura of being a judge — even if you’re actually a real estate agent and property manager.

State legislators earn a paltry $24,000 a year + per diem. They need a raise. Shuck and Jivester Steve Urie needs a dose of truth serum and a focus booster.

PAChyderm Coalition, a Reagan Republican group that rates GOP legislators has Urie dragging bottom at an uncomfortable 36 out of a list of 40, with a grade of 54.6% and unflatteringly rated as a “Big Government Republican” on its most recent scorecard.

Abortion Ban Passes in Senate, Lesko Bill Down but Not Out

Two important bills went in opposite direction in the Arizona Legislature this week.

Arizona’s Senate voted 20-10 Tuesday to ban abortions of preborn children at 20 weeks. If this bill is eventually signed into law, it would change the current legality of abortion until a preborn child is “viable.”

Senate Minority Leader David Schapira (Tempe left-winger) boasted to reporters that lawmakers are empowered to determine life and death outcomes.

Sen. Steve Smith, Maricopa conservative, disagreed: “I would like to listen to the 50 million-plus children that have been aborted and killed since Roe v. Wade. I would like to listen to what they think of this bill.”

And so did Sen. Steve Yarbrough, Chandler conservative, who said, “There’s a third person in that room. There’s the baby. Who speaks for her, the totally innocent one with no voice? Who has the duty and the right to speak for her? We do.”

The bill now goes across the capital lawn to the Arizona House of Representatives for its deliberation.

The East Valley Tribune story prominently features in its story the views of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest profiteer of abortion deaths. But nowhere is Arizona Right to Life or the Center for Arizona Policy included in the story written by left-wing reporter Howard Fischer.


The Arizona Senate Wednesday defeated HB 2625, a bill introduced by Rep. Debbie Lesko, conservative, to protect religious freedom. This bill declares that any entity or individual with a religious objection to paying for objectionable insurance coverage is free to contract with an employer and insurer who want to honor their conscience. The vote was 17-13 against.

Republican Nancy Barton tendered a last-minute “no” vote to keep the bill alive for re-consideration. But no-votes included Scottsdale abortion advocate Michele Reagan, Mesa RINOs Jerry Lewis and Rich Crandall, and Republicans John Nelson, John McComish and Senate President Steve Pierce.

America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President: Barack Hussein Obama

When one observes President Obama’s unwillingness to accommodate America’s four-century long religious conscience protection through his attempts to require Catholics to go against their own doctrines and beliefs, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Catholic. But that characterization would not be correct. Although he has recently singled out Catholics, he has equally targeted traditional Protestant beliefs over the past four years. So since he has attacked Catholics and Protestants, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Christian. But that, too, would be inaccurate. He has been equally disrespectful in his appalling treatment of religious Jews in general and Israel in particular. So perhaps the most accurate description of his antipathy toward Catholics, Protestants, religious Jews, and the Jewish nation would be to characterize him as anti-Biblical. And then when his hostility toward Biblical people of faith is contrasted with his preferential treatment of Muslims and Muslim nations, it further strengthens the accuracy of the anti-Biblical descriptor. In fact, there have been numerous clearly documented times when his pro-Islam positions have been the cause of his anti-Biblical actions.   Listed below in chronological order are (1) numerous records of his attacks on Biblical persons or organizations; (2) examples of the hostility toward Biblical faith that have become evident in the past three years in the Obama-led military; (3) a listing of his open attacks on Biblical values; and finally (4) a listing of numerous incidents of his preferential deference for Islam’s activities and positions, including letting his Islamic advisors guide and influence his hostility toward people of Biblical faith.

1. Acts of hostility toward people of Biblical faith:

• April 2008 – Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” 1
• February 2009 – Obama announces plans to revoke conscience protection for health workers who refuse to participate in medical activities that go against their beliefs, and fully implements the plan in February 2011. 2
• April 2009 – When speaking at Georgetown University, Obama orders that a monogram symbolizing Jesus’ name be covered when he is making his speech. 3
• May 2009 – Obama declines to host services for the National Prayer Day (a day established by federal law) at the White House. 4
• April 2009 – In a deliberate act of disrespect, Obama nominated three pro-abortion ambassadors to the Vatican; of course, the pro-life Vatican rejected all three. 5
• October 19, 2010 – Obama begins deliberately omitting the phrase about “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence – an omission he has made on no less than seven occasions. 6
• November 2010 – Obama misquotes the National Motto, saying it is “E pluribus unum” rather than “In God We Trust” as established by federal law. 7
• January 2011 – After a federal law was passed to transfer a WWI Memorial in the Mojave Desert to private ownership, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the cross in the memorial could continue to stand, but the Obama administration refused to allow the land to be transferred as required by law, and refused to allow the cross to be re-erected as ordered by the Court. 8
• February 2011 – Although he filled posts in the State Department, for more than two years Obama did not fill the post of religious freedom ambassador, an official that works against religious persecution across the world; he filled it only after heavy pressure from the public and from Congress. 9
• April 2011 – For the first time in American history, Obama urges passage of a non-discrimination law that does not contain hiring protections for religious groups, forcing religious organizations to hire according to federal mandates without regard to the dictates of their own faith, thus eliminating conscience protection in hiring. 10

• August 2011 – The Obama administration releases its new health care rules that override religious conscience protections for medical workers in the areas of abortion and contraception. 11
• November 2011 – Obama opposes inclusion of President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial. 12
• November 2011 – Unlike previous presidents, Obama studiously avoids any religious references in his Thanksgiving speech. 13
• December 2011 – The Obama administration denigrates other countries’ religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights. 14
• January 2012 – The Obama administration argues that the First Amendment provides no protection for churches and synagogues in hiring their pastors and rabbis. 15

• February 2012 – The Obama administration forgives student loans in exchange for public service, but announces it will no longer forgive student loans if the public service is related to religion. 16

2. Acts of hostility from the Obama-led military toward people of Biblical faith:
• June 2011 – The Department of Veterans Affairs forbids references to God and Jesus during burial ceremonies at Houston National Cemetery. 17
• August 2011 – The Air Force stops teaching the Just War theory to officers in California because the course is taught by chaplains and is based on a philosophy introduced by St. Augustine in the third century AD – a theory long taught by civilized nations across the world (except America). 18
• September 2011 – Air Force Chief of Staff prohibits commanders from notifying airmen of programs and services available to them from chaplains. 19
• September 2011 – The Army issues guidelines for Walter Reed Medical Center stipulating that “No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading materials and/or facts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit.” 20
• November 2011 – The Air Force Academy rescinds support for Operation Christmas Child, a program to send holiday gifts to impoverished children across the world, because the program is run by a Christian charity. 21
• November 2011 – The Air Force Academy pays $80,000 to add a Stonehenge-like worship center for pagans, druids, witches and Wiccans. 22
• February 2012 – The U. S. Military Academy at West Point disinvites three star Army general and decorated war hero Lieutenant General William G. (“Jerry”) Boykin (retired) from speaking at an event because he is an outspoken Christian. 23
• February 2012 – The Air Force removes “God” from the patch of Rapid Capabilities Office (the word on the patch was in Latin: Dei). 24 • February 2012 – The Army orders Catholic chaplains not to read a letter to parishioners that their archbishop asked them to read. 25

3. Acts of hostility toward Biblical values: • January 2009 – Obama lifts restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, forcing taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. 26
• January 2009 – President Obama’s nominee for deputy secretary of state asserts that American taxpayers are required to pay for abortions and that limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional. 27
• March 2009 – The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit. 28
• March 2009 – Obama orders taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. 29
• March 2009 – Obama gave $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that promotes abortion and works closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations. 30
• May 2009 – The White House budget eliminates all funding for abstinence-only education and replaces it with “comprehensive” sexual education, repeatedly proven to increase teen pregnancies and abortions. 31 He continues the deletion in subsequent budgets. 32
• May 2009 – Obama officials assemble a terrorism dictionary calling pro-life advocates violent and charging that they use racism in their “criminal” activities. 33
• July 2009 – The Obama administration illegally extends federal benefits to same-sex partners of Foreign Service and Executive Branch employees, in direction violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 34

• September 16, 2009 – The Obama administration appoints as EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, who asserts that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, if they may negatively affect homosexual “equality.” 35
• July 2010 – The Obama administration uses federal funds in violation of federal law to get Kenya to change its constitution to include abortion. 36
• August 2010 – The Obama administration Cuts funding for 176 abstinence education programs. 37
• September 2010 – The Obama administration tells researchers to ignore a judge’s decision striking down federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. 38
• February 2011 – Obama directs the Justice Department to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 39
-• March 2011 – The Obama administration refuses to investigate videos showing Planned Parenthood helping alleged sex traffickers get abortions for victimized underage girls. 40

• July 2011 – Obama allows homosexuals to serve openly in the military, reversing a policy originally instituted by George Washington in March 1778. 41
• September 2011 – The Pentagon directs that military chaplains may perform same-sex marriages at military facilities in violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 42

• October 2011 – The Obama administration eliminates federal grants to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for their extensive programs that aid victims of human trafficking because the Catholic Church is anti-abortion. 43

4. Acts of preferentialism for Islam:
• May 2009 – While Obama does not host any National Day of Prayer event at the White House, he does host White House Iftar dinners in honor of Ramadan. 44
• April 2010 – Christian leader Franklin Graham is disinvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer Event because of complaints from the Muslim community. 45

• April 2010 – The Obama administration requires rewriting of government documents and a change in administration vocabulary to remove terms that are deemed offensive to Muslims, including jihad, jihadists, terrorists, radical Islamic, etc. 46

• August 2010 – Obama speaks with great praise of Islam and condescendingly of Christianity. 47
• August 2010 – Obama went to great lengths to speak out on multiple occasions on behalf of building an Islamic mosque at Ground Zero, while at the same time he was silent about a Christian church being denied permission to rebuild at that location. 48
• 2010 – While every White House traditionally issues hundreds of official proclamations and statements on numerous occasions, this White House avoids traditional Biblical holidays and events but regularly recognizes major Muslim holidays, as evidenced by its 2010 statements on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha. 49
• October 2011 – Obama’s Muslim advisers block Middle Eastern Christians’ access to the White House. 50
• February 2012 – The Obama administration makes effulgent apologies for Korans being burned by the U. S. military, 51 but when Bibles were burned by the military, numerous reasons were offered why it was the right thing to do. 52

Many of these actions are literally unprecedented – this is the first time they have happened in four centuries of American history. The hostility of President Obama toward Biblical faith and values is without equal from any previous American president.


Clearing Up the ACLU’s Distortions about Rep. Lesko’s House Bill 2625

By Catherine Glenn Foster, Alliance Defense Fund

Once again, the enemies of religious liberty have to resort to distortions as they try to convince citizens to jump on their anti-faith bandwagon.

Headlines from the American Civil Liberties Union and its cohorts are flying viral across the Internet with catchy little phrases like, “Use Birth Control? You’re Fired!” Sadly, even the mainstream media has begun to join in this echo chamber of falsehoods.

Where did the enemies of freedom at the ACLU come up with this whopper? At issue is Arizona legislation sponsored by Rep. Debbie Lesko, House Bill 2625. Lesko, a woman, is the one leading this bill, which protects the religious freedom of both women and men. And that’s all the bill does: restore religious freedom to several statutes passed in 2002.

The 2002 government mandates attack the religious freedom of all Arizona citizens by forcing all employers to cover abortion-inducing drugs and other objectionable items related to contraception — even if they must violate their religious beliefs.

HB 2625 fixes that by declaring that any entity or individual with a religious objection to paying for such coverage is free to contract with an employer and insurer who want to honor their conscience. In fact, other religious freedom statutes in Arizona already make the anti-religious mandates unlawful, and HB 2625 simply fixes those statutes to make them comport with existing law.

This is why the ACLU must engage in distortions to get people to oppose HB 2625. The people of Arizona love freedom, and HB 2625 simply restores one of the most cherished freedoms, religious liberty, to its rightful place outside of government coercion.

So how can the ACLU claim that HB 2625 would let McDonald’s fire its employees for using contraception? They’re just following the old maxim that if you say something enough times, people might start to believe it.

The facts, however, are these: Nowhere does HB 2625 create language letting anyone discriminate for any reason. On the contrary, the law puts a stop to government discrimination and restores a zone of freedom that was improperly taken away in 2002.

And the facts are even worse for the ACLU: The existing insurance mandate, which HB 2625 amends, nowhere declares that an employer like McDonald’s cannot fire people for using contraception right now. So, the ACLU’s claim that HB 2625 is somehow removing an existing protection is impossible. It cannot remove a protection that isn’t already there.

Moreover, despite the fact that the laws amended by HB 2625 nowhere talk about firing people for the mere use of contraceptives and do not stop an employer from doing so, there are no examples of any employer in Arizona ever doing such a thing. The ACLU just made it up as yet another fear tactic.

But, some have asked, what of the mandate’s clause targeting religious employers that would be removed by HB 2625? Yes, it would be removed — and for good reason. Any clause that singles out religious employers in this way almost certainly violates both the Arizona Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent 9-0 decision in Hosanna-Tabor vs. EEOC. State legislators aren’t targeting anybody; they are removing a clause that did. If the ACLU wants to fault legislators for making state law consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision, it is on shaky ground.

Arizona already has other laws that govern employment non-discrimination, and HB 2625 does not amend any of them. HB 2625 only amends language that specifically attacks religious groups so that the statutes will now let religious citizens have their freedom again.

The ACLU may believe its own press releases, but you don’t have to.

Obama’s Long Record of Doublespeak


We can’t expect to solve our problems if all we   do is tear each other down. You can disagree with a certain policy without   demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question somebody’s views and   their judgment without questioning their motives or their patriotism. This notion that’s peddled by the religious right   – that they are oppressed is not true. Sometimes it’s a cynical ploy to move   their agenda ahead.Obama advisor David Axelrod appeared on National   Public Radio last May and insisted Carrie Prejean was one of three finalists   for the Obama family dog.

You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig.

I don’t want to pit Red America against Blue   America. Conservatives cling to their guns, God, and   religion.
The strongest democracies flourish from frequent   and lively debate. All across the world, in every kind of   environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather patterns   and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate   over whether or not climate change is real.“These are the facts. Nobody disputes   them.”
“I’m happy to get good ideas from across the   political spectrum, from Democrats and Republicans.”“The only way to end the petty partisanship that   has consumedWashington  for so long and make a difference in the lives of ordinary Americans is by   bringing Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda that works for   the American people.” Obama refused to allow the Republicans to   participate in the health care process until it was almost over. Plans were   made with Democrats, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and others behind   closed doors.
Contrary   to the claims of some of my critics and some of the editorial pages, I am an   ardent believer in the free market. Obama ordered 789 Chrysler dealerships closed   because the owners donated to GOP candidates, Republican-leaning causes or   donated to Hillary Clinton or John Edwards during the Democratic presidential   primaries. “But a free market was never meant to be a free license to get   whatever you can, however you can get it.”“Its better for everybody if we spread the wealth around.”
“…Fed by Fox News, they   hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7, and it begins to seep in … ‘ Fox News has never called Obama a Muslim
Buying insurance on your own costs   you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer .”   The Congressional   Budget Office writes, “Premiums for policies purchased in the individual   insurance market are, on average, much lower — about one-third lower for   single coverage and one-half lower for family policies.” It is true that   individual insurance policies are generally 30 percent less comprehensive   than employer-provided insurance, and comparable individual policies are   about twice as expensive. But much of the extra cost is a function of the tax penalty   on purchasing such insurance and the stunted market that penalty has yielded.
“There are now more than 30 million   American citizens who cannot get coverage.” A study   prepared for the federal government estimates that 9 million people counted   as “uninsured” in the standard estimate are in fact enrolled in Medicaid. The   left-leaning Urban Institute estimates that 12   million are eligible but not enrolled, meaning they could get coverage at any   time. Health economists Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania and Kate   Bundorf of Stanford estimate   that one quarter to three quarters of the uninsured can afford to purchase   coverage, but choose not to do so.
And every day, 14,000 Americans lose   their coverage The paper   that generated this estimate assumed that two months of severe job losses   would continue forever. Applying that paper’s methodology to a broader   periodof rising unemployment (January 2008 through August 2009) produces   a figure below 9,000.It also assumes those coverage losses are permanent. Like many of the   46 million Americans we label “uninsured,” many of those 9,000 will regain   coverage after a number of months.
But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that’s   $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 — immediately the surgeon is reimbursed. Well, why not make sure that we’re   also reimbursing the care that prevents the amputation, right? That will save   us money. Medicare pays a surgeon between   $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation.
One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle   of chemotherapy. . . . They delayed his treatment, and he   died because of it.” He didn’t die because of it. The   originator of this false claim, a writer for Slate named Timothy   Noah, has admitted he got it   wrong.
Rising costs are “why so many   employers . . . are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance.” The “employer’s share” of employees’   health-care costs comes out of those employees’ wages, not out of profits. In   this comment and in five others in his speech, Obama contradicts that basic   truth. Employers aren’t forcing their employees to pick up a larger share of   the bill because they can’t. Workers are already paying the entire bill.
Rising costs are “why American   business that compete internationally . . . are at a huge disadvantage.” False. The rising cost of health   benefits does not increase employers’ labor costs because, again, wages   adjust downward to compensate. The Congressional   Budget Office, under the leadership of Obama’s OMB director, Peter   Orszag, confirmed that health-care costs do not hinder competitiveness. Obama   economic aide Christina Romer has called   this competitiveness argument “schlocky.
Those of us with health insurance are   also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it — about $1,000 per   year that pays for somebody else’s emergency room and charitable care.” That number comes from a left-wing   advocacy group. A Kaiser Family Foundation study debunked the group’s   analysis, reaching an   estimate closer to $200 per year for a family. The CBO report reached the   same conclusion.
Nothing in this plan will require you   or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat   this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.” Obama’s claim is false. The CBO   estimates that slashing payments to Medicare Advantage, as Obama advocates, “would   reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries   through Medicare Advantage plans.” It would also cause some people to   lose their coverage.
Requiring insurers to cover   preventive care “saves money.” According to a review in the New England Journal   of Medicine, “Although some preventive measures do save   money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not.”
The [bogus] claim . . . that we plan   to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens .   . . is a lie, plain and simple. Obama himself proposed a new Independent   Medicare Advisory Council with the authority   to deny life-extending care to the elderly and disabled.
“There are also those who claim that   our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The   reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” the president’s plan would, in his   words, insure illegal immigrants. Various federal agencies,   immigration critics,   and the media   all acknowledge that a small number of undocumented aliens obtain Medicaid   benefits despite being ineligible. The president seeks to   expand Medicaid, which would create greater opportunities for ineligible   aliens to enroll.
Under our plan, no federal dollars will   be used to fund abortions. The House bill allows the “government   option” to pay for abortions directly from the U.S. Treasury. Both the House   and Baucus bills subsidize private insurance that cover abortions. The HHS   mandate requires coverage of abortion-inducing drugs.
Critics of   the public option would “be right if taxpayers   were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won’t be. I’ve insisted   that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would   have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.” How quickly we forget the example of   Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Like those institutions, the public option would   benefit from an implicit subsidy: Everyone would know that Washingtonwould not allow the program to   fail, and financial institutions would therefore offer it better rates.   (During the Clinton  administration, Obama adviser Larry Summers reported   that a similar implicit guarantee was worth $6 billion per year to Fannie and   Freddie.) The public option would thus be able to undercut its   less-subsidized competitors.
And I will make sure that no   government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and   the care that you need.” Unless the president proposes to   abolish insurance, or abolish all care management, there will always be   tension between patients, doctors, and public/private insurers over what   patients “need.” Such tensions are sure to arise under the president’s IMAC   proposal. But even if a new program would be “administered by the government,   just like Medicaid or Medicare,” it would interfere in those decisions. As an   administrative-law judge wrote   to one of us after Obama’s address: “I am a government bureaucrat . . . and I   just happen to be reviewing [six] cases, albeit involving Medicare and   Medicaid, where the government has inserted itself between the patient and   the care prescribed by the physician.”
I will not sign a plan that adds one   dime to our deficits — either now or in the future.” “The plan will not add   to our deficit.” None of the bills before Congress can   credibly claim to keep the deficit from rising. The one that comes closest,   the Baucus bill, does so by making the wildly implausible assumption that   Congress will allow 40 percent cuts in physician payments under Medicare to   take place in 2012. Congress has routinely refused to support much smaller   cuts.
Now, add it all up, and the plan I’m   proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years.” The Congressional Budget Office puts   the total cost of “Obamacare” at more than $1.7 trillion; nearly   double the original projected cost of $940 billion.
The middle class will realize greater   security, not higher taxes. Obama would make health insurance compulsory for the   middle class (and everyone else). If he thinks that isn’t a tax, he should   listen to his economic adviser Larry Summers,   or his nominee for assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at HHS, Sherry Glied.   Both liken the “individual mandate” to a tax, as do other prominent health   economists like Uwe Reinhardt   (Princeton) and Jonathan   Gruber (MIT). The CBO affirms  that the penalties for non-compliance “would be equivalent to a tax or fine.”If Obama thinks the middle class wouldn’t pay the taxes he wants to   impose on the “drug and insurance companies,” he should read this CBO report   or talk to the junior senator from West     Virginia, who accurately describes   those levies as a “big, big tax” on middle-class coalminers.
I won’t stand by while the special   interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are.” Everyone from the drug-makers to the   unions to the insurance companies he demonizes are spending millions to build   momentum for his version of reform — in no small part because Obama has   promised to buy   them off with middle-class tax dollars.
I will finally end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and   for all.  Checci & Company, owned by major donors to   the Democrat Party, received a $25-million, no-bid contract for work inAfghanistan.
The truth is our earmark system … is fraught with   abuse. It badly needs reform. Earmarks have increased under Obama’s watch.   Obama signed a $410 billion omnibus spending bill with more than 8,500   earmarks.
We’ve excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs   or seats on federal boards and commissions. Obama broke this pledge two days later when he   granted a waiver for former lobbyist Bill Lyon, and eventually for several   other former lobbyists.
Under my plan, no family making less than   $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. The Cap and Trade bill raises taxes  on all families – lower, middle, and upper   classes alike.
Freedom of worship
We’ve got to protect religious freedom and rights   of conscience Obama rescinded federal protections for rights of   conscience.
There is not a liberalAmerica  and a conservativeAmerica  – there is theUnited     States of America. There is not a blackAmericaand a whiteAmerica  and latinoAmericaand   asianAmerica- there’s   theUnited States of     America. “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying,   ‘We’re going to punish our enemies, and we’re going to reward our friends who   stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that   kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be   harder.”
This budget tells our veterans that if they want increased   funding for the VA they’ll have to pay for it themselves.
“This is not about me.” (2010Ohiospeech) “Pure laziness   is about the best face I can put on the private sector’s failure to   cooperate,” the president speculated. “People apparently just don’t care   enough about what I’m trying to do for this country to put forth the effort I   need to make the recovery work.” 
“When there is a bill that winds up on my desk as   a president, you the public will have five days to look online  and find out what’s in it before I sign it,   so you will know what your government is doing.” Obama repeatedly says it is not about him. Yet   he  referred to himself 114 times in   his first State of the Union speech. During a speech atWest    Pointin 2009, he referred to himself 44 times. In his first 41   speeches in 2009, he referred to himself 1,198 times. In that 2010 speech inOhiothat wasn’t about   himself, he mentioned himself 132 times.
“The vast   majority of campaign money I got was from small donors all across the country.” On his second day in office, Obama signed the   Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act just 2 days after receiving it from   Congress. He signed the Children’s Health Insurance Program three hours after   Congress passed it. He signed the $800 billion stimulus bill in one business   day. He has broken this promise numerous times.
Unemployment will spiral out of control unless   Congress passes the stimulus bill. 66 percent of Obama’s general election campaign   money came from large donors.
Congress passed the bill, and unemployment went   over 10 percent.

Pelosi Predicts Court Will Find Obamacare Constitutional

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

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) confidently predicted that the US Supreme Court will rule that the President’s health care law is Constitutional.

The proof is right there in the Constitution itself where it promises that the government will provide for the people’s rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness,” Pelosi said. “By making sure everyone buys health insurance the law is protecting their lives. By requiring that employers cover birth control costs the law is liberating people from the risks of unwanted pregnancies. And as for pursuit of happiness—isn’t that what those who need birth control are doing?”

To further bolster her case, the former House Speaker contended that “the nation’s founding fathers would’ve written explicit health care legislation into the Constitution if insurance had been invented before they wrote it. Thomas Jefferson, the document’s primary author, could’ve benefited by avoiding the embarrassment of fathering all those children with his slave if he had had access to the kind of birth control drugs and devices now covered by the mandate issued by Secretary Sebelius.”

On top of her historical argument, Pelosi suggested that “the potential political fall-out from making martyrs of women like Sandra Fluke should give the Justices pause. Do they really want to be the ones who say ‘no the government won’t make your employer pay for your birth control?’ The men on the Court would be crucified by the media as misogynistic troglodytes if they did. So, I’m not too worried about how they’ll decide this issue.”

In related news, Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill) reassured critics that the Obamacare edict requiring colleges to provide free sterilization to students “does not mean that we are promoting sterilization. While there are many cogent reasons for doing so—to reduce the human imprint on the environment, for one—there is no intent to make this mandatory at this time.”

President’s Tax Plan Targets Rich

Labeling Wisconsin Republican Representative Paul Ryan’s budget proposal “a disaster for the middle class,” President Obama offered a plan that “will make the rich pay their fair share.”

It’s time for those who have a job, a car, a roof over their heads, and food on the table to step up and bear a bigger share of the costs of providing for those who don’t,” the President told a crowd of supporters at a campaign speech in Washington. “Those who have more than they need to live have an obligation to care for their fellow human beings. My plan helps the more fortunate to comply with this responsibility.”

The President’s plan was hailed by DC resident Jawana Johnson. “Those rich people don’t know what it’s like in the real world,” she contended. “I got four kids. One’s dad got shot last year. Another’s is in jail. The father of my youngest two only comes around to sponge off my welfare check. What’ve those rich people done to help me? I’m glad we have a President who’s taking it to them. Maybe I’ll finally get what’s mine.”

Under the President’s plan, an estimated 16% of households would end up with lower tax bills. The richest 84% would see higher levies. The 16% of households qualifying for lower taxes roughly matches the 15% of households currently living in poverty.

VP Lauds Obama’s Audacious Killing of bin-Laden

Vice-President Joe Biden praised the killing of Osama bin-Laden, calling it “the most audacious plan of the past 500 years.”

Asked about other possible contenders for “most audacious plan”–the D-Day invasion of Normandy during WWII or Washington’s Christmas Day attack on Hessian troops in 1776—Biden replied “no contest.”

The raid that killed bin-Laden was carried out without any casualties for our side,” Biden pointed out. “The same can’t be said for any other action taken by any other president. Let’s not forget that Allied Forces had 10,000 casualties on D-Day and 2500 men were killed. That’s a bit of a blemish on that accomplishment.”

Bin-Laden was hiding,” Biden said. “No one knew for sure where he was. Normandy was an obvious target. Everyone knew the Nazis were there. And don’t get me started about the Hessians. They were drunk from throwing a loud Christmas party. Finding them and whipping them was a cinch.”

Taking out bin-Laden was televised to the White House,” Biden recalled. “President Obama was virtually there with the Seals as the mission unfolded. Roosevelt played a more remote part in the D-Day event. And Washington wasn’t even president when he led the Christmas raid.”

Finally, the level of risk was incomparable,” Biden asserted. “Even if D-Day had turned into a disaster it wouldn’t have been Roosevelt’s first. Anyone remember Pearl Harbor? And Washington had a pretty mediocre war record prior to that raid. In short, neither one of them was putting a perfect record on the line. No, the reward for guts clearly has to go to President Obama. I think voters will see that and reelect him in November.”

Executive Order Authorizing Martial Law Called “Routine”

Last weekend’s issuance of an Executive Order giving the President the option of declaring an emergency and taking control over all food, energy, water, transportation and any other materials was described as “routine” by Presidential Press Secretary Jay Carney.

The President has obligations to the American people,” Carney observed. “He would like the cooperation of Congress in his efforts to fulfill these obligations. But as we have seen, there are many in Congress who have labored to obstruct these efforts. The President needs to have latitude to act.”

It would be best for members of Congress to consider this Executive Order as a kind of ‘heads up,’” Carney added. “There are reforms that the President has said on numerous occasions can’t wait. I assure you, he’s serious. Congress can participate as partners in shaping these reforms or they can be bypassed. It’s their choice.”

Obama Deflects Solyndra Fiasco Blame

President Obama went on the offensive against criticism of his “green” energy approach.

There are some who would have the American people believe that the failure of the Solyndra Corporation is somehow my fault,” Obama said. “At best, it is a shared responsibility. True, the idea that we should promote clean energy was mine. Blame me for wanting to save the planet.”

But it was Congress that appropriated the money,” Obama continued. “Without this appropriation my Department of Energy would not have had and money to hand out to firms like Solyndra. Blame Congress for enabling my Administration to climb out on a limb that got sawed off by a bad economy—an economy, I might remind everyone, that we inherited from George Bush.”

At the same time they appropriated funding for the production of green energy products Congress neglected to mandate their purchase,” the President pointed out. “This oversight is all the more puzzling considering that they did not overlook mandating the purchase of health insurance when they passed the Affordable Care Act. Blame Congress for leaving a job half done.”

Of course, consumers have done less than they could have to make green energy work,” Obama concluded. “Even though Congress hasn’t yet mandated the purchase of green products, consumers can still voluntarily buy them. Unfortunately, too many of them are selfishly concerned with a product’s cost or performance to make the kind of sacrifices we need to make for the sake of the environment. So, blame human greed, I guess.”

The Solyndra firm received over $500 million in government loans to subsidize its production of solar panels. Solyndra has since filed for bankruptcy and there is little prospect that any of this money will be paid back. Luckily, bonuses were able to be paid out to Solyndra’s management before the funds ran out.

Egypt Declares Israel “Number One Enemy”

The success of Egypt’s “Arab Spring” rolled on to yet another triumph as that country’s parliament renounced the possibility that it could ever be an ally of Israel. Instead, Israel was declared Egypt’s “number one enemy.” Following this development, President Obama announced the restoration of US military aid to Egypt.

Israel is a very powerful country in that region,” Obama explained. “If Egypt is to have any chance against them it is imperative that we extend as much military assistance as we can.”

The President acknowledged that his decision “probably won’t go over well with some of Israel’s more strident advocates in Congress,” but urged “cooler heads” to “weigh the global math that argues for improved relations with Israel’s enemies.” “There are maybe 15 million Jews in the world,” Obama estimated. “There are one-and-a-half billion Muslims. Muslims out number Jews by 100 to one. Which side of this see-saw should we be on?”

Concern for public safety was another factor cited by the President. “The aid placates hostility among a very volatile segment,” he warned. “On the other hand, there is no need for us to fear potential Jewish suicide bombers. On balance, I think the majority of Americans are well served by this decision.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

John Semmens Archives

Additional Reading:

Planned Parenthood Sued for Cheating Taxpayers, Defrauding Government

Congressional Poll: Schweikert vs. Quayle

Sheriff Babeu Refuses Question about Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

Schweikert Would Make an Excellent U.S. Senator