John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News
Chevy Volt among Worst Product Flops of 2011
Pitched to the American voter as the vanguard of a “greener” future, the heavily subsidized Chevy Volt was dubbed one of the worst product flops of 2011 by Yahoo Finance’s 24/7 Wall Street site. The low sales volume—an estimated 8,000 vehicles for 2011 (all of which are currently under recall notices to correct defects)–has made the effective unit cost for each car amount to around $250,000.
Representative Hansen Clarke (D-Mich) insists that “despite the reluctance of the American driver to buy these cars we must not falter in our efforts to make them understand the necessity for government’s role in ensuring the Volt’s survival. It’s not just about dollars and cents. Sure there are cars that get better mileage and have superior performance characteristics, but our government is backing the Volt. If we want to be good citizens and patriotic Americans we need to put the government’s choice ahead of our own selfish preferences.”
United Autoworkers Local 22 President, George McGregor, argued that “people who are loyal to the President will put the good of the country ahead of their own private interests. Just because you can buy a better car for less money shouldn’t deter you from getting behind the President’s push for the Volt. Jobs are at stake. Isn’t that more important than whether your personal vehicle is the best value?”
Whether increased sales of the Volt would have a significant impact on jobs within the US is in doubt. General Motors is reportedly planning on moving production of the vehicle to China.
DOJ to Investigate Project Veritas
The latest venture of James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas may have gotten Attorney General Eric Holder’s attention. In an effort to prove how easy it might be to fraudulently cast a ballot on behalf a dead voter, Veritas volunteers entered precincts in New Hampshire, gave the name of recently deceased persons, and were handed ballots.
Though no ballots were actually cast by any of the volunteers, the ease with which they could have been revealed the vulnerability of the system to vote fraud. Volunteers’ offers to show ID were mostly waved off as “unnecessary” by poll workers.
Calling the Project Veritas expose “an unauthorized invasion of our sacred voting process,” Attorney General Eric Holder vowed to “spare no effort in purging our system of these unwanted escapades. The responsibility for policing voting practices belongs to Party officials and law-enforcement agencies like the Department of Justice. We can’t allow publicity seeking outsiders to taint the process.”
Holder characterized the threat that unscrupulous persons might use the methods tested by Project Veritas to influence the outcome of any given election as minuscule. “Most elections are decided by margins of thousands of votes,” Holder pointed out. “Project Veritas only got a handful of undeserved ballots.”
The Attorney General also said he wasn’t convinced that a person casting a ballot for a recently deceased voter was necessarily a bad thing. “We carry out the wishes of the dead all the time,” Holder asserted. “Who’s to say that a person casting a ballot for a departed loved one is wrong to do so? Maybe casting that vote is part of the grieving process. Should we really be so eager to attribute criminal intent?”
Dems Float “Reasonable Profits Board” Idea
A half-dozen House Democrats led by Representative Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) introduced a bill that would establish a new government agency aimed at insuring that no one makes an unreasonable amount of profit. The bill—the Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784—is initially focused on excessive profits from oil and gas production.
“It’s not that the oil and gas industry is the only one ripping us off,” Kucinich said. “It’s just that we had to start somewhere. Right now, we think there’s enough anger and envy toward this industry that people will more readily accept the idea of a government bureau to control their profits.”
Kucinich maintained that “ideally, the amount of money anyone should be allowed to take from the common pool of society’s wealth should be subject to government oversight. Just because a person is luckier, smarter, or more ambitious doesn’t mean he has the right to take more than everyone else thinks is his fair share. The common good requires that everyone contribute to the best of his ability so there will be sufficient output to meet everyone’s needs. We are our brother’s keeper. It is government’s duty to enforce this moral obligation.”
As written, the bill would impose taxes of up to 100% on all “surplus earnings.” The bill’s co-sponsors include Democratic Representatives John Conyers (Mich), Bob Filner (Calif.), Marcia Fudge (Ohio), Jim Langevin (R.I.), and Lynn Woolsey (Calif).
State of the Union: President Says Higher Taxes, More Spending & Regulation Needed
Three years of failure failed to blunt President Obama’s enthusiasm for more of the same policies that have yet to show a positive influence on the nation’s economic health.
Despite the fact that both economic logic and historical experience argue that higher taxes discourage the investment that is essential to economic growth and the creation of jobs, President Obama vowed to push for higher levies on investors as part of his “recovery program.” “It’s not fair that some have more than others,” the President said. “All should share equally in the Earth’s bounty. It is the government’s responsibility to ensure that an equitable distribution is effected. Individual selfishness must not be allowed to triumph.”
Raising taxes on the successful was also cited as a mechanism for funding much needed “social investment.” “Private sector investment decisions are driven by profit,” Obama observed. “Public sector investments are driven by need. The more resources we can extract from the private sector to use for public projects, the more needs we will be able to fulfill. Vital public interests in green technology, transportation, and education shouldn’t have to suffer just because customers are unwilling or unable to pay for them.”
The President assailed the “anarchy of private decision-making” as “the third major obstacle we need to overcome on our march toward social justice. We can’t afford to allow the owners of so-called private property to have such a wide latitude for their actions. All property really belongs to all the people. It is up to the government to provide the guidance necessary to guarantee that all property is used in the most beneficial way.”
In related news, First Lady Michelle Obama rejected suggestions that the $2,000 dress she wore to the State of the Union Speech conflicted with her husband egalitarian political message. “Historically, the common people have always enjoyed a vicarious pleasure from the displays of opulence by their rulers,” Michelle contended. “No matter how badly things may be going for them personally, they are assured that the nation is prospering.”
President Claims “Jesus Would Vote for Me”
In a bid to capture the evangelical vote, President Obama boldly asserted that his programs are based on the teachings of Jesus and that “if he were alive, Jesus would vote for me.” Obama’s remarks were made this past week at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington.
“Jesus instructed his followers to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” Obama recalled. “What could more clearly be Caesar’s than money. Money is issued by the government. Both in Jesus’ time and now, money has been adorned with the likenesses of governing officials. God’s will is plain: money and its distribution is the within the scope of government’s authority. Opposition to this is what is ungodly.”
Not only is government control over the distribution of money in accord with God’s commandments, it also aids in the salvation of those it dispossesses the President contended. “Look, Jesus told us that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven,” Obama said. “So, by relieving the wealthy of their excess money, the government would also be helping them get into heaven.”
“Jesus also said that to whom much is given, much shall be required,” Obama remembered. “A society in which everyone does what he is able to do and in return receives what he needs would implement this ideal. Turning this ideal into a reality is my ambition for America.”
The President’s supporters in Wisconsin sought to assure him that Jesus would, in fact, be voting for him in their state come November. Bolstering their confidence was the appearance of Jesus’ signature multiple times on the petition to recall Republican Governor Scott Walker.
In related news, Saying that the $16 trillion national debt is “hampering the government’s fiscal flexibility,” President Obama suggested “privatization might prove a way out from under this load.”
Under the plan, each person in America would be issued a prorated share of the debt (about $49,000 apiece). “Those that could afford to pay would pay,” Obama said. “Those who couldn’t would file for bankruptcy and have the debt expunged. The government would have a debt-free balance sheet for the first time in our nation’s history.”
White House Dictates Compromise on Contraception Mandate
In an effort to quell rising opposition to its mandate for all employers to provide contraceptive coverage in healthcare benefits to workers, the White House issued a directive that it maintains “ends the discussion.” Under the directive insurers would be required to provide this coverage “free of charge” to employers.
“By putting the onus on the insurers we’ve given the Catholic Church ‘plausible deniability,’” said Press Secretary Jay Carney. “The Church itself will not be formally linked to the provision of services that it says violate its religious beliefs. No court can hold it culpable. The responsibility has been taken out of their hands.”
Carney further argued that “the insurers should be willing to comply because preventing births, by whatever means, reduces medical expenses. Birth control pills, condoms, abortifacients—all cost less than bearing, birthing, and raising a child. And that’s just the cost of medical expenses. When you add in the cost of food, clothing, education, and entertainment, it’s clear that every child brought into the world brings along a significant lifetime burden for both the parents and society. Reducing these costs is the President’s goal.”
Whether opponents of President Obama’s “compromise” will be mollified is questionable. Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ) called the so-called compromise “a ruse riddled with doublespeak and contradictions. Contrary to the President’s thinking, there are people in this country that take religious and moral obligations seriously. They cannot be bought off by a stratagem designed to give them ‘plausible deniability.’”
The President’s critics were “advised to accept the proffered compromise while it is still available,” Carney cautioned. “The President is not disposed to allow religious zealots to impede a woman’s access to essential health services. He will protect this fundamental right by whatever methods are available to him.”
In related news, the American Civil Liberties Union sided with President Obama’s position on this issue. “The fundamental promise of religious liberty in this country doesn’t give one a right to refuse to pay for the health care needs of others,” ACLU spokeswoman Alicia Gay insisted. “So-called Freedom of thought is not the issue. People may continue to think whatever they want. But they must also obey the laws laid down by the President.”
Congresswoman Clarifies Who Is Entitled to Impose Values on Others
The recent flap over the Obama Administration’s edict that all employers must provide birth control, including abortifacients, as part of heath insurance benefits for employees has given us a “teaching moment,” says representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla).
“We have established the fundamental principle that employers may not force their views on employees by refusing to cover the costs of birth control measures,” Wasserman-Schultz crowed. “The days of employer oppression of employees are over. The government has stepped in to defend the working class.”
The Congresswoman dismissed complaints that the Obama Administration’s move wrongfully violates individuals’ rights to act in accord with their own consciences. “We had an election in 2008,” she pointed out. “Obama won that election. He has a mandate from voters that overrides the supposed individual right to freedom of conscience. This is what democracy is all about.”
“In contrast, employers have no mandate to decide what they will or won’t pay for if elected authorities say otherwise,” she continued. “Obligations to invisible deities or claims of purported ‘inalienable rights’ cannot be used to set aside one’s responsibility to obey the laws laid down by our President.”
In related news, a quartet of Senate Democrats denounced a Republican initiative aimed at protecting the “right of conscience” to not be forced to participate in a government program that they believe to be morally wrong. “We can’t have people deciding for themselves whether they ought to be required to participate in funding someone else’s birth control or abortion rights,” declared California Senator Barbara Boxer. “This would put anarchic individualism ahead of social welfare. It would set the country back 200 years.”
Ironically, it was a little over 200 years ago that the First Amendment to the Constitution barred the government from interfering with an individual’s right of conscience.
Over a Million US Families Living on Less than $2 a Day
A US Census Bureau study indicated that an estimated 1.46 million families in the United States are now living on less than $2 per day. This is more than twice as many as the estimated 636,000 families that were living at a like standard in 1996.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius hailed the report as “a tribute to the affirmative steps taken by this Administration to lower the cost of living. Critics have been quick to harp on the negatives of high unemployment, declining wages, and falling home values as if that were the total picture. We’re hoping that this study opens peoples’ eyes to the other side of the equation.”
“Also, let’s not discount the environmental benefits of living on less,” Sebelius urged. “The more people we can get to live like this the less our economy will have to produce. That means fewer smoke-belching factories and less road traffic. A lower need for materials means we can stop raping nature and return more land to a wilderness status. And let’s not forget the gains in leisure time attained by every person that no longer has to work to produce the excessive amount of unnecessary stuff that a so-called affluent society demands.”
That minorities make up a disproportionately large fraction of those living so parsimoniously was held to be encouraging by the Secretary. “These are the fastest growing segments of the population,” she pointed out. “The trend foretells of a future where the majority will live as frugally as only a minority does now.”
President Rallies to Defend Woman’s Reproductive Rights
President Barack Obama waded into the controversy sparked by Sandra Fluke’s testimony before a congressional committee hearing on the mandate requiring all insurers to provide reproductive services—including birth control pills, condoms, and abortafacients—free of charge. At issue is Fluke’s contention that she shouldn’t be forced to pay for these services out of her own pocket.
Radio commentator Rush Limbaugh lampooned Fluke’s claim that she couldn’t afford to pay. “Ms. Fluke makes no case that her participation in sexual activity is involuntary,” Limbaugh said. “Her need for birth control or an abortion is within her sphere of discretion. She seems to be saying that taxpayers, employers, or insurers—anyone besides herself—must be compelled to finance her recreational sex.”
President Obama responded, saying, “I am appalled by Limbaugh’s harsh treatment of this young woman. Limbaugh and his right-wing cabal are attacking Ms. Fluke’s human rights, insisting that she must bear the consequences of her own actions at her own expense. This is pure selfishness on display.”
“I believe our nation is at a crossroad where we need to decide whether personal freedom or individual greed will prevail,” Obama continued. “Should a person’s freedom be curtailed by fear of the possible financial cost of choices he or she might make? Or should society pitch in and liberate us all from such fears? I think everyone knows where I stand on this issue and I’m confident that voters will recognize me as the kind of champion of human rights they want wielding all the powers the Presidency offers in this cause.”
In related news, the National Organization for Women (NOW) demanded that Limbaugh be banned from the airwaves for this latest assault on women’s rights. “For years Limbaugh has belittled those of us standing up for women as ‘feminazis,’” asserted NOW President Terry O’Neill. “This latest escapade is part of a pattern of abuse that must be silenced once and for all. We call upon his sponsors—Clear Channel Communications—to pull the plug on Limbaugh before the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) is forced to take action.”serious intimidation. But two guys with clubs outside a voting booth—give me a break, that’s nothing.”
Senator Demands Limbaugh Be Dropped from Armed Forces Network
Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich) demanded that the Armed Forces Network stop carrying Rush Limbaugh’s show. “Our troops shouldn’t be exposed to the barrage of criticism of their Commander-in-Chief that is spewed out by Limbaugh on a daily basis,” Levin said. “It foments disobedience and disloyalty.”
As evidence, Levin cited Marine Sergeant Gary Stein’s Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots. “The Tea Party is a threat to our government,” Levin maintained. “Men like Sergeant Stein may be called upon to suppress this threat. Yet, this Facebook page raises serious questions about where his loyalties may be.”
The Senator specifically took issue with Stein’s call for fellow armed service members to refuse to follow unlawful orders. “How is some grunt or jarhead supposed to know which orders are unlawful?” Levin asked. “We can’t have individual soldiers making up their own minds. They just need to obey their superiors.”
Levin was unmoved by the argument that Nazi troops who committed atrocities in World War II professed to be “just following orders.” “In war both sides engage in questionable deeds,” Levin observed. “Winners get to write the post-war rules and history. Losers can be made to pay for their crimes. The only thing our troops should be thinking about is how to make sure they are on the winning side when it’s all over.”
Attorney General Explains His Opposition to Voter ID Laws
Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder continued his battle to prevent states from requiring voters to show photo identification before they are permitted to cast ballots.
That the US Supreme Court has already held that voter ID laws are Constitutional makes no difference says the AG. “I don’t need some court to tell me what’s right and what’s wrong,” Holder exclaimed. “It’s something everyone who’s grown up Black just knows by instinct.”
Holder made short shrift of arguments based on the ubiquity of requests to show photo IDs in order to buy beer, enter a public building, rent a movie, board a plane, open a bank account, or check into a motel. “None of those activities are fundamental to the functioning of our democracy,” Holder argued. “The possibility that someone might be denied the privilege of partaking in them is not a threat to our way of life.”
“Voting, on the other hand, is an essential right,” Holder continued. “It is not contingent upon a requirement that voters must identify themselves. Voters may have valid reasons for not wanting to be identified. Maybe there are warrants out. Maybe he’s behind in child support payments. Maybe he lacks documentation of his citizenship. None of these deficiencies cancel a person’s human right to vote for who will rule over him. So, I cannot standby and allow any state or any court to infringe upon anyone’s right to vote.”
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.”
President Defends “Flexibility” Remarks
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.
President Illuminates Philosophies of Government
Gearing up for what promises to be a difficult campaign, President Obama laid into his critics saying “they want you to be on your own.” He contrasted this “social darwinism” approach to his “on us” philosophy.
“The idea that Americans want to be left alone to pursue happiness on their own is clearly out-of-step with the way most Americans think,” Obama maintained. “People only go to work because they have to, not because they want to. When they’re on the job they’re watching the clock waiting for the workday to end. They look forward to the weekend, not the workweek. So my opponents’ promise of more opportunity to earn a good life through hard work misses the boat.”
The President pointed to statistics indicating that the percentage of adults in the US workforce is the lowest it has been in decades as evidence that “the difficult transition to a leisure-based society is making headway. Under my leadership millions have been able to drop out of the workforce. These people now have more time to spend with their families, enjoy hobbies, watch TV, or do the many things they previously had to forgo because they had to get to a job and punch a time clock.”
“The choice for voters this Fall will be whether they want to continue on the path I’ve laid out over the last three years or whether they want to turn back toward the dismal life of toil that my opponents offer,” Obama said. “The GOP says ‘you’re on your own.’ The Democratic Party says why struggle to pursue happiness. Let it be ‘on us.’ I’m confident that only a fool would choose to pay his own way when he could vote to live off another.”
Pelosi Confident Women’s Votes Will Mean Democratic Sweep in November
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) says she is confident she will regain the gavel when Democrats sweep the November elections.
“Just looking at the top of the ticket has to give every Democrat a sense of optimism,” Pelosi crowed. “On the GOP side we have Mitt Romney—a man who virtually imprisoned his own wife, kept her from seeking gainful employment and used her to breed five children—all sons, mind you. Are women going to vote for this kind of misogynist or are they going to appreciate that before he was president Senator Obama helped his wife get a $300,000 no-show job in addition to gifting her with two lovely daughters?”
“If the comparative life stories of the presidential candidates don’t sway female voters the policy differences ought to,” Pelosi argued. “Democrats have a long record of championing women’s rights. Republicans tout marriage and family as the foundation of our social structure. Democrats have freed women from this trap by ensuring that they can still have children without having to marry a man, that the financial support they need is there for the taking from the generosity of the government.”
“Free food, clothing, and shelter isn’t all we Democrats have given to women,” Pelosi went on. “Thanks to Secretary Sebelius, the government has now mandated free birth control for every woman. And President Obama has appointed two women to the Supreme Court. No other president has done that.”
Pelosi admitted to being buoyed by polls showing that Democrats are favored by 65% of female voters. “The path to government of, by, and for women is clear,” Pelosi said. “Voting for President Obama is a no-brainer. However, he can’t do it alone. We need Democratic majorities in Congress to ensure this transformation won’t be blocked. If women unite to vote their interests the Democratic Party will be running things from here on.”
In related news, according to official records, women on the White House staff are paid 18% less than men. This is okay, though, according to White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew because “most of the men have more years of experience. There’s also the issue of job performance. You can’t just make a gender to gender comparison and conclude that somebody’s getting unfair treatment.”
Ironically, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act passed by a Democratic majority Congress in 2009 requires exactly that comparison and conclusion. Whether this Act will be enforced in this instance is unknown.
Obama Press Secretary Says GOP Is Politicizing Election
President Obama’s Press Secretary Jay Carney lashed out at the GOP for “politicizing the upcoming elections.” “They’re trying to exploit so-called scandals and policy failures for political gain,” Carney complained.
The scandals referenced by Carney included the sexploits of the Secret Service in Columbia and lavish parties thrown by the General Services Administration (GSA).
“These things aren’t the President’s fault,” Carney insisted. “Historically, the role of the Secret Service has been to cover up the President’s illicit sexual liaisons, not engage in their own. What would’ve happened to President Kennedy or Clinton if their bodyguards had been as self-serving as those assigned to President Obama?”
“As for the GSA, the biggest scandalous party didn’t even cost a million dollars,” Carney pointed out. “It didn’t amount to a hill of beans in a budget that’s over a trillion dollars in the red. Besides, abusing the expense account is one of the perks of the job. And let’s not forget that every dollar spent helps stimulate the economy. So is what they are doing really such a bad thing?”
“Even more absurd is the implication that there have been significant policy failures,” Carney added. “The premise that high unemployment, high gas prices, and high deficits are undesirable is mistaken. These are necessary steps on the path to the social transformation the President promised voters in 2008.”
Carney characterized the “negativity toward the President as disloyalty bordering on treason. It’s one thing to run for office. I mean, we wouldn’t have much of a democracy if there was only one candidate on the ballot. But tearing down what he’s trying to do goes beyond the pro forma requirements of the democratic process.”
In related news, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) urged the President’s critics to reconsider. “You know, the President has been so patient and respectful toward these people,” Pelosi contended. “They should remember that it is in his power to have them jailed or even killed if he deems them a threat to the government.”
EPA Official Regrets Remarks
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 administrator Al Armendariz apologized for boasting that the Obama Administration’s approach toward environmental enemies was to “crucify them.” Armendariz attributed his remarks to his misunderstanding of the scope of the President’s authority.
“While it is agreed that the President is empowered to kill those he deems a threat, I have been advised by the Attorney General that actually crucifying them would be construed as ‘cruel and unusual,’” Armendariz said. “Only more covert methods are currently approved.”
Armendariz acknowledged “the President’s right to impose whatever restrictions he sees fit. After all, he is our ruler. I have to think, though, that a more demonstrative display of the consequences of opposing the President’s agenda would be more effective as a deterrent. I mean, crucifixion was a very effective enforcement tool for the Romans. Since their empire lasted a thousand years I wouldn’t be so quick to disdain their methods.”
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson further clarified Armendariz’s statement, insisting that “the crucifixion we had in mind was never a literal duplication of the Roman practice. Bankrupting the businesses and destroying the reputations of those we deem responsible for polluting the environment is as far as we intend to go at this time.”
Obama Autobiography Revealed to Be Mostly Fictitious
President Obama’s putative autobiography—Dreams from My Father—is apparently mostly “made up stuff.” Nonexistent characters and imaginary events comprise the bulk of the content. The only verified content seems to be that the President was alive during the years depicted and that he must, therefore, have had a father—even though precisely who that might have been hasn’t been confirmed.
Press Secretary Jay Carney rebuffed criticism that the President’s book is a work of fiction. “Look, the title says it all,” Carney defensively asserted. “It’s pretty tame compared to my dreams. It has no space aliens, no naked clowns, and no spankings. It could’ve been a lot more lurid. I think we ought to give the President credit for being a lot more modest liar than most of us would be under similar circumstances.”
In other circles, the autobiography’s lack of connection to reality is being hailed as another sign of Obama’s genius. “Most people would be hard pressed to write a factual account of their own lives,” declared MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. “Yet, here we have a man that was able to create an alternate reality using only the power of his own mind. Reelecting him for another four year term would fall far short of what we ought to be doing. We ought to be begging him to stay on for life to rule over us like one of Plato’s philosopher kings.”
Obama’s Aunt Complains of Abuse in Autobiography
President Obama’s aunt Zeituni Onyango has recently published a memoir of her time in America. The book is titled Tears of Abuse. It alleges that her time in this country has been nothing but torment.
Residing in the United States illegally from 2002 until she was granted asylum by the Obama Administration in 2010, Zeituni’s book complains of the “shabby accommodations” and “meager sustenance” she was forced to suffer through while on public assistance during that period. “I had to live in public housing amidst an agglomeration of the common riffraff,” Zeituni wrote. “There was no one to prepare my meals. I was given food stamps and told I had to fetch my own food and cook my own meals. I felt humiliated.”
Obama’s aunt attributed her treatment to “America’s racist mindset. My nephew was an important figure in the government—first a state senator, later a US senator, and finally the president. Still, I was denied the status befitting someone whose family member was part of the ruling class. This wouldn’t have happened to me if I were white.”
Thus far, the book’s sales have been weak—a phenomenon Zeituni says further bolsters her case that she has “been the victim of racial discrimination from the first day I set foot in this God forsaken land.”
Geithner Admits “Finance Has Never Been My Strong Point”
In an interview for PBS News Hour, US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner confessed to being “severely confused” by matters of finance.
“A few years ago I was being mocked for messing up my taxes,” Geithner complained. “But, really now, who can figure out the tax code? It’s such a mixed up pile of contradictory rules and instructions that I’d be surprised if anybody got it right.”
“This deficit stuff, what’s that all about?” Geithner wondered. “How can the government be short of money? I’ve been to the mint and it seems we can print as much as we need. If there’s a capacity problem with the presses couldn’t we just switch over from ones to hundreds?”
“And don’t get me started on this whole debt ceiling thing,” the Secretary added. “I don’t get why we are borrowing money when we can print as much as we want. It seems like the Republicans are banging this drum to try to confuse voters and turn them against the President.”
As baffled as he seems on fiscal matters, Geithner claimed to have a firm grasp on the economic impacts of the Administration’s program. “More individuals have been relieved of the necessity to work under President Obama than under any of his predecessors,” he boasted. “The unemployment rate has been steadily coming down as more and more people realize they don’t have to have a job to put food on the table—that’s what food stamps are for. The President’s generosity on this alone is unparalleled in our nation’s history.”
President Blames Deficit on “Greedy Taxpayers”
Despite running up federal deficits at a faster pace than any previous president, Obama says he is not at fault. “Deficits aren’t the result of spending alone,” the President pointed out. “Deficits occur when there is a gap between spending and revenue. If you look at the trends for both you will see that it is the revenue line that has flattened while the spending line has remained pretty much on track with prior periods.”
Of course revenues aren’t keeping up because taxpayer earnings aren’t keeping up. Business profits are down. Employees have been thrown out of work. The base upon which the tax revenue stream is founded has shrunk. Nevertheless, Obama complained that “These people are selfishly focused on their own problems. They pressure their congressmen to oppose the tax increases that are necessary to cover government expenses. When deficits inevitably soar they take no responsibility for how their own greed has caused the problem.”
Vice-President Joe Biden echoed Obama’s thinking in a speech accusing the Tea Party of “thwarting President Obama’s plan to save the economy. We’re trying to get everyone to pitch-in to help us get out of the recession. But these Tea Party guys got voters worked up using the false notion that whatever they own is theirs by right. Well, in this country, it’s the government that determines who owns what. It is our view that the government must control all our resources in order to ensure that they are used effectively and efficiently. Reelecting the President is the only way we can guarantee that this happens.”
The President also got support from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev), who said that “Americans must get used to paying higher taxes if they want the government to continue to serve them.” Reid denounced the idea that the government might already be taxing us too much as “extremism of the worst sort. It’s not the terrorists who pose the biggest threat. It’s those who would starve government of the resources it needs.”
Candidate Admits to Lie, Offers to Do “Community Service”
Massachusetts Democratic senate candidate Elizabeth Warren admitted that she falsely claimed Native American status in order to advance her academic career at Harvard Law School—a felony under current law. Warren’s admission comes after weeks of denying that she had anything to do with the school’s classification of her as a “woman of color.” Warren could be sent to prison for up to five years if convicted for her attempt to gain benefits by falsely claiming Native American status.
Warren followed this admission of guilt with a demand that her opponent, Senator Scott Brown (R), apologize for trying to take unfair advantage of a minor mistake that occurred so long ago. “This practice of picking apart a person’s words looking for every little misstep demonstrates sexism at its worst,” Warren contended. “I was young. I was battling gender bias. I didn’t do anything that any other woman wouldn’t have done.”
The candidate dubbed “Fauxcahontas” and “Lieawatha” by her detractors tried to make the case that the appropriate punishment for her felony would be a stint of community service. “I think the best way for me to do penance for my little ‘white lie’ would be to serve six years in the US Senate,” Warren suggested. “I’d be an underpaid, overworked public servant dedicated to righting the wrongs that people like Scott Brown have been perpetrating on this country since its founding.”
A planned protest by Cherokees at the Democratic State Convention in Springfield Massachusetts was labeled “misguided” by Warren. “Regardless of how they may feel about my previous claims, I think these Indians have to admit that the attention I’ve brought to the issue of Native American rights has been a big plus,” Warren argued. “More people are focused on this oppressed minority now than have been for a 100 years. I’m not getting the credit I’m due for what I’ve done for them just by being who I am.”
In related news, Warren received the endorsement of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who called her “the best representative of Democratic values seen in this state since the passing of Senator Kennedy.”
Veep Urges End to Traditional Farming
Vice-President Joe Biden told the graduating seniors of Cypress Bay High School (Fla.) that “it’s long past the time when Americans should be shifting away from traditional farming as a means of supplying food.”
“Let’s face it, farming is unnatural,” Biden pointed out. “Using sharp tools to cut into the earth, planting seeds in neat rows for efficient reaping (also done with sharp tools, I might add), piping in water from far away—these are all artificial methods that rape the land.”
Biden argued that “in a more primitive era such methods may have been unavoidable. But do we really need them today? Why can’t everyone just get their food from the supermarket? Jill and I have been doing that for as long as I can remember. Most of the stuff comes in boxes and cans. It’s all very clean. You don’t have to poke tools into the soil stirring up dust and polluting the air. If we can only convince more people to follow our example the environmental degradation being caused by farmers could be greatly reduced.”
The Vice-President also hailed the doubling of the amount the government has spent on food stamps since 2008 as “further proof that there are other ways to feed our population without destroying the land.”
In support of Biden’s vision, the Environmental Protection Agency is deploying aerial drones to fly over agricultural areas “to gather evidence on those raping the land with these primitive farming techniques.” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declined to specify whether this evidence would be used to support prosecution of violators or whether the President would use it to select targets for drone-launched missile strikes. “I believe the President will choose the most appropriate enforcement mechanism on a case-by-case basis,” Jackson said.
President Initiates Plan to Boost Status of Illegal Aliens
A year ago, President Barack Obama told his Hispanic supporters that he lacked the authority to grant amnesty to people in the country illegally. “There are laws on the books that prohibit me from unilaterally granting the right to reside in America, hold a job, and vote,” the President said in a March 2011 speech at a Univision town hall in Washington, D.C. On Friday, June 15, the President issued an Executive Order that would spare up to 800,000 illegal aliens from deportation.
“Despite ample opportunity to take action over the last year, Congress has failed to do its duty to remedy the plight of those in our country who lack the documents that are required to live normal lives,” Obama asserted. “Consequently, I have been forced to offset their negligence. Therefore, I have instructed Secretary Napolitano to immediately begin the process of providing those who were brought into the country illegally by their parents with the kinds of documents they need to fully integrate them into our society.”
Secretary Napolitano characterized the move as “simple justice. Those without documents are at a serious disadvantage when it comes to enjoying the benefits of living in America. This new law levels the playing field. It will also allow my Department to redeploy enforcement resources from chasing down these unfortunate victims of racial prejudice and to focus on those that pose a real threat to the government.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) thanked the President “for saving us the trouble of trying to get this kind of a law through Congress. As we have seen with other legislation like the health care bill, it is a tedious process that too often results in lengthy and confusing enactments. An Executive Order bypasses the logistical difficulties of the 535-headed Congressional monster and substitutes the simplicity and elegance that can only spring from a single mind. Americans should be grateful they have a President with such courage.”
Attorney General Eric Holder expressed confidence that the documents that the Department of Homeland Security will issue would effectively counter state voter ID laws. “This gives us another weapon in the fight to prevent the disenfranchisement efforts being pursued in many states,” Holder bragged. “We’re still going to oppose these efforts, but in the event that we can’t block their enforcement many of the intended victims will be able to show the kind of paperwork that should get them into the voting booth.”
Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, denounced the Executive Order. “The Constitution places legislative authority in Congress,” he pointed out. “Using Congress’ refusal to act as grounds for legislating via Executive Order is a blatant usurpation of power that violates the President’s oath to faithfully enforce the law.”
Whether President Obama’s violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers will move Congress to oppose this usurpation by invoking its authority to impeach him remains to be seen.
Press Secretary Parries Questions on “Fast & Furious” Scandal
Press Secretary Jay Carney denied that President Obama’s grant of “Executive Privilege” status to the Department of Justice correspondence on the scheme to get guns into the hands of Mexican gangsters is an effort to cover up wrong doing. Despite the widespread laughter from members of the media that greeted his assertion that “it’s a matter of principle,” Carney attempted to expound upon the concept.
“The principle is that under our Constitution, the President is the country’s supreme ruler,” Carney maintained. “That status cannot be infringed by Congressional interference in how he chooses to run the country. The sole purpose of the GOP demand to see the DOJ memos is to obtain information they can use to denigrate the policies and decisions made by the Administration.”
“The Constitution says nothing about Congress having the right to read the Executive’s mail,” Carney continued. “In fact, first on the list of Congress’ responsibilities is the power to enact taxes. Yet, it is the GOP contingent that steadfastly refuses to take up this responsibility. So, I’d say that instead of trying to poke their noses into what is none of their business maybe Congress ought to stop neglecting its own duties.”
Carney also rejected comparison’s to former President Nixon’s invocation of Executive Privilege in his attempt to block scrutiny of his Administration’s efforts to cover up the Watergate scandal. “First of all, the two issues are not even in the same ballpark,” Carney argued. “The Watergate break-in was a GOP operation aimed at influencing the outcome of the 1972 presidential election. It was a dagger to the heart of our democracy.”
“Fast and Furious was a minor affair carried out far from the centers of power,” Carney said. “Ninety-nine percent of the impact occurred in another country. None of the victims were essential players in the governance of the country. The fact that we can’t remember any of their names is a testament to the relative unimportance of this whole issue compared to the machinations that cheated Senator McGovern out of the presidency.”
In related news, NBC News’ Thomas Roberts ruled that the Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was not entitled to the DOJ documents that Attorney General Eric Holder refused to supply. “You’re not the government,” Roberts told Committee member Representative John Mica (R-Fla). “President Obama is the government. If he says you can’t have something, you can’t have it.”
President Says Obamacare Decision a Victory for Freedom
President Barack Obama hailed the US Supreme Court’s narrow 5-4 decision to uphold his signature Affordable Care Act as “a victory for freedom.”
“By affirming the legality of our health care plan, the Court has ensured that every American will be free from the worry of having no insurance,” the President said. “By compelling everyone to purchase insurance we are freeing them to enjoy the benefits of medical coverage and relieving them of the necessity to plan ahead and decide for themselves whether get this insurance.”
The President attempted to reconcile the compulsory nature of the health care mandate with the concept of freedom. “Don’t be led astray by those who would have you believe that their notions of freedom are a match for what every American needs,” Obama warned. “Just think back to the times when your parents made you eat your peas. In your kid’s mind you probably saw this as an imposition on your freedom. But your parents were only trying to give you the gift of good health—freeing you from the consequences of a bad diet.”
“We’re doing the same kind of thing with our health care plan,” he continued. “By taking the issue of whether to buy insurance off your list of things to do we are freeing you from having to spend time figuring out what to do. That time can now be used in whatever way you want. On top of this, you’ll be healthier. And can there be any question that a healthier person is freer than a sick person?”
Transportation Secretary Envies China Dictatorship
Miffed that the Administration’s dream of a nationwide high-speed rail passenger system may be derailed by uncooperative states, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said he wished the US were more like China. Thus far Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin have opted out of participating in the President’s high-speed rail scheme.
“In China the government doesn’t have to put up with people thwarting their plans,” LaHood explained. “If the top guy says do something, everyone has to go along. They don’t have state legislatures or governors deciding they don’t want to pony up their share of the cost for the rail program. And they certainly don’t have to worry about voters rejecting the taxes or bonds that are needed to fund construction.”
LaHood held out the hope that November’s election might change things here in America. “Up to now, the President has had to go through the motions of asking for states to join in voluntarily in funding the program,” the Secretary pointed out. “After he is reelected, though, there’ll be no need for that. A single signature on an Executive Order mandating universal participation should suffice.”
A key factor in LaHood’s optimism was the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the Affordable Care Act. “It is now a matter of settled law that those who refuse to participate in a government mandated program can be taxed,” he contended. “Faced with the prospect of being taxed and getting nothing in return I think states contemplating rebellion against the federal plan for high-speed rail will come into line.”
Administration Eases Burdensome Work Requirement for Welfare Recipients
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued notice that it is rewriting the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) reform law of 1996. Specifically, HHS is notifying states that they may waive the law’s requirement that welfare recipients must seek work to be eligible for benefits.
Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) denounced the move calling it “a blatant violation of the law. The whole point of the work requirement was to get people to pull themselves out of poverty. The purpose of this reform was to convert welfare dependency from a way of life into just a temporary condition. By waiving this requirement HHS is saying that it’s okay to make dependency a permanent lifestyle. This is a disservice both to taxpayers and to the welfare recipients.”
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius characterized Jordan’s remarks as “an illustration of the clashing visions the President has said voters will have to choose between this November. As the GOP sees it, work is the center of the universe. But is this what most Americans really want out of life?”
“We know that people usually prefer leisure to work,” Sebelius argued. “Most only work because they feel they must. They look forward to the day they can retire. All we are doing here is bringing that day forward for as many people as we can. I mean, why should we try to force those who are already out of the workforce to get jobs that they’ll only hold until they retire? Isn’t that just wasted motion?”
The Secretary dismissed statistics indicating that the TANF reform has helped nearly three million families get off the welfare rolls. “Republicans would have everyone believe that this is a sign of progress,” Sebelius said. “What they overlook is the significant reduction in leisure this represents. Parents who could’ve been spending more time with their children, watching TV, or just hanging out are now condemned to the wage-slavery that the work requirement has imposed on them.”
Sebelius hastened to add that the new HHS directive “doesn’t require states to waive the work requirement. States in thrall to the GOP’s vision may continue to reduce the number of people carried on their welfare rolls if they want. We’ll just give the federal aid saved to other states that are more in sync with the President’s vision.”
A recent Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) report calculated that the average taxpaying American has to work 197 days a year to pay for the cost of government—a statistic that Sebelius says “makes my point. The more people we can liberate from this treadmill of toil the greater will be the sum total of happiness in our society.”
Mayors Play Chicken with First Amendment Rights
Though it would seem that Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy’s opinion that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman is protected by the Constitution’s First Amendment, mayors in three cities have vowed to punish this heresy.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel says he “will do everything in my power to prevent such a vile establishment from setting up shop in my city. Mr. Cathy’s values are not Chicago’s values.”
In addition to Cathy’s views on marriage, Emanuel also found the restaurant’s policy of closing on Sunday’s problematic, calling it “an unacceptable ‘holier than thou attitude.’ People need to eat on Sundays. Restaurants should be open to serve them. Besides, Sundays aren’t sacred to other religions. Jews revere Saturdays, Muslims Fridays. By setting aside only Sundays, Mr. Cathy is discriminating against other faiths.”
San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee warned the restaurant to “not even think about trying to open an outlet in our city.” Lee rebuffed criticism that penalizing a business for exercising freedom of speech was beyond his authority. “The Constitution says Congress shall make no law prohibiting freedom of speech,” Lee pointed out. “It doesn’t say anything about mayors or city councils taking action to prevent the spread of heinous beliefs.”
Boston Mayor Tom Menino backed off from his promise to block any Chick-fil-A franchises from setting up shop in the city. “It appears that I have no say over who can and can’t operate a business here,” Menino acknowledged. “However, it appears we can regulate businesses. Let’s see how these purveyors of hate like having city inspectors hound them on a daily basis.”
Menino’s strong stance against Chick-fil-A is a stark contrast to his assisting the Islamic Society of Boston’s establishment of a mosque in the city. This came despite the Islamic Society of Boston’s Imam Yusef al-Qaradawi’s insistence that homosexuals be put to death. “That’s a freedom of religion issue,” Menino said. “As I understand it, the Quran explicitly commands that homosexuals be put to death. There is no language in the Christian Bible that explicitly says they can’t marry. Anyway, Chick-fil-A is a business, not a church. It has no freedom of speech or religion rights per se.”
In related news, the US Department of Justice rejected Hercules Industries objections to being forced to cover abortions in the company’s self-insurance plan. “Freedom of religion is an individual right, not a business right,” the DOJ wrote in its decision. “The business owners may choose to believe whatever they want, but as a business they must comply with the rules laid out by the Department of Health and Human Services. If the business owners feel these rules violate their beliefs they always have the option of exiting the market.”
Dems Move to Block Military Vote
In recent elections less than 5% of the ballots cast by active duty military personnel serving overseas arrived in time to be counted. Nevertheless, the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and the Ohio Democratic Party have jointly filed suit in Ohio to strike down a law that gives deployed troops more time to cast absentee ballots.
The suit alleges that the provision allowing more time for deployed troops is “contrary to the policy of the current Administration” and “would improperly embroil military personnel in partisan politics.”
DNC Chairperson Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla) declared that “it is a long standing tradition in America that our armed forces do not engage in partisan politics while on duty. States should not be permitted to undermine this tradition.”
“Not only would the Ohio law undermine this tradition, it also would undermine national security,” she added. “Soldiers deployed overseas should not be distracted from their primary duty of carrying out the orders of their Commander-in-Chief. The idea that we should be accommodating the opportunity for them to vote to depose their Commander-in-Chief is about as wrongheaded as could be.”
Wasserman-Schultz assured that she isn’t advocating taking away their right to vote because “a move that overt could incite a negative reaction from too many people. Letting them cast ballots that arrive too late to be counted is a good compromise. It’s kind of a ‘pressure release valve.’ We allow them to vent without subjecting the nation to an unwarranted influence on election outcomes.”
Surveys of military personnel indicate that they tend to favor Republicans by about a three to one ratio.
In related news, U.S. District Judge Gregg Costa blocked a Texas voter registration law on the grounds that “requiring ID will tend to discourage those without documents from voting. This disproportionately affects those of Mexican descent.” Costa ruled that “until everyone has documents no one can be required to show them in order to cast a ballot.”
Obama Expresses Dissatisfaction with Media Coverage
President Barack Obama expressed his profound displeasure with the media’s coverage of the election campaign.
“I’m sure they think they’re being even-handed when they juxtapose the message we’re trying to get out with the false assertions of the opposition,” Obama complained. “Unfortunately, this gives an undeserved platform from which the enemies of truth can spread their lies.”
The President said he had hoped that “our friends in the media wouldn’t succumb to pressures to appear balanced. When we hand them the truth they shouldn’t feel they have to dilute it by inserting the disagreeable counterpoint of a disproved theory. For example, we don’t see the viewpoint of the ‘flat-earthers’ included in every report on astronomy. Why must clearly erroneous opinions on healthcare, taxes, or spending be sandwiched into every piece on the election?”
“If the media continue to feel compelled to include these erroneous opinions why can’t they clearly label them as such?” he asked. “I mean, expecting the average voter to sort out the difference between what’s true and what’s not is may be assigning him a task he isn’t capable of handling.”
Reforming the way the media reports on Administration policies is on the President’s agenda for a second term. “It’s clear that we need to do more than the Federal Election Commission has been doing to police what rhetoric is allowed in public,” Obama said. “We need to add scrutiny of statements that may be made in between election seasons. I think the federal government needs to take a stronger stance on behalf of the truth on a 24/7 basis.”
Dems Say Budget Deficit Not Appropriate Debate Topic
Representatives Mike Honda (D-Calif), Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill) issued a statement demanding that the issue of the federal deficit be excluded from any upcoming presidential debates, saying it would give the Republicans an unfair advantage.
“The President has been forced to take actions that those outside of government, like Mitt Romney, have been able to avoid,” Nadler pointed out. “For him to be called upon to defend those actions at this time would present a fundamentally unbalanced tenor to those debates, especially when Mr. Romney has continued to refuse to disclose all of his personal tax records.”
Nadler went on to assail the broader notion that “fiscal responsibility and economic success ought to be used as some sort of measure of whether the President’s policies are appropriate. Not everyone is fiscally responsible or economically successful. If I had to guess, I’d say that a majority of Americans are not. Shouldn’t a democratically elected government carry out policies that are more suitable for this majority?”
DOJ Seeks to Hire More People with Mental Problems
The Department of Justice, responding to an Executive Order issued by President Obama, issued a memo to all sections encouraging them to hire more persons with “targeted disabilities.” Among the disabilities targeted are people with “severe intellectual disability,” “psychiatric disability” and other “current severe physical, intellectual or mental conditions.”
Attorney General Eric Holder defended the Order saying that “the President doesn’t just talk the talk, he also walks the walk. From his selection of Joe Biden to be his running mate President Obama has taken a strong stand on behalf of the rights of the mentally disabled. It is his belief that for a democracy to be truly representative it has to draw from every segment of the population. Does this mean that the deranged and the stupid must be given their fair share of the responsibilities of governing the nation? Yes, it does.”
For his part, Biden embraced his role as “poster boy” for the mentally impaired, boasting that “the President be puttin’ us all back in chairs.”
In related news, Vice-President Biden blamed Republicans for mortgage foreclosures. According to Biden, Republicans in Congress are blocking the Administration’s plan to forgive all mortgage debt. “Here we have a cost-free solution to provide free homes to everyone, but can’t get cooperation from the GOP,” Biden complained. “Our message to the middle class is simple, if you’re tired of having to pay your mortgage vote Democrat.” Biden said he was confident that “a reelected President Obama would have the mandate to bypass Congress and enact mortgage forgiveness by Executive Order.”
Marijuana’s Effects on President’s IQ Contested
Presidential Press Secretary Jay Carney insisted that the President’s admitted heavy use of marijuana as a teenager “does not prove he is a dope.”
The question of whether President Obama may have suffered brain damage as a member of the infamous “Choom Gang” as a youth reared its ugly head when a recently completed study by two New Zealand professors measured an average decline in IQ of 8 points for heavy users of weed.
“First of all, these figures are an average person,” Carney argued. “The President is already acknowledged to be so far above average that a decline of such a magnitude is easily overwhelmed by his innate genius.”
“Second, we challenge anyone to demonstrate any evidence they may believe they have that shows the President to be deficient in any way,” Carney asserted. “I think the recognized mediators of our culture are pretty unanimous in their perception that the President is, by far, the most intelligent person to ever hold the office.”
Finally, even though it is likely that his Mormon opponent never touched pot, I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t trust the President to make a more intelligent decision on issues crucial to this country’s future,” he concluded.
HUD Secretary Says More Taxes Needed to Subsidize Latinos
In a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan argued that taxes should be raised to support more subsidies for Latinos.
“On balance, Latinos are more apt to be tax-consumers rather than tax-payers,” Donovan pointed out. “A robust program of government investment in housing, food stamps, and welfare disproportionately benefits Latinos. The GOP’s plan to cut this spending, on the other hand, would disproportionately hurt Latinos.”
Donovan admitted that “making the case for tax hikes is not an easy one. The Republicans have done a pretty good job of making the IRS into a bogeyman. But you only need to be afraid if you’re part of the minority that pays taxes. Most Latinos, though, especially those without documents, are in the majority who are exempt from income taxes. We need to get the message out that raising these taxes is basically a free ride for most Latinos.”
In related news, the Environmental Protection Agency commemorated Hispanic Heritage Month by touting Che Guevara as “the kind of champion of social justice that Latinos everywhere can look to for inspiration. He gave his life fighting for a more equitable redistribution of wealth. Surely we can give our votes.”
President Says He Can’t Change Washington from the Inside
In a gaffe that some are calling “Bidenesque,” President Obama sought to divert attention from his broken promises by claiming impotence.
“The most important lesson I’ve learned is you can’t change Washington from the inside,” he told the audience at at a forum hosted by the Spanish-language TV channel Univision. “You can only change it from the outside.”
A nonplussed host inquired, “If you can’t change it from inside why are you running for reelection?”
“As frustrating and unrewarding as being the president may be, I feel it is my duty to occupy that chair in order to prevent malevolent forces from taking over the country,” Obama answered. “As we have seen, my opponent has great animus against the 47% who rely on government for their living. Allowing him to be elected would be seen as a validation of the notion that people should be expected to fend for themselves.”
“It’s taken us about three generations to get to that 47% level,” the President continued. “That’s a lot of progress, but we can’t let ourselves be satisfied with only half a loaf. While we can probably never get to 100%, I hope that reaching 98% or 99% might be attained during my lifetime. I’m confident that with another term we can reach the tipping-point where a clear majority is aligned with our program. Once that happens the transformation I envision for America will never be undone.”
In related news, Presidential Press Secretary Jay Carney maintained that “Romney’s ‘47%’ remarks may effectively disqualify him from serving as president. His disdain for dependency puts him out-of-step with the moral mainstream of our society. Those who rely on government to meet their basic needs shouldn’t have to live with the fear that they might be forced to enter the workforce against their will. Romney’s made a thinly veiled attack on a way of life that I think voters will soundly reject come November.”
Administration’s Belated Admission that Libyan Attack Was Terrorism “No Biggie”
Though evidence has emerged showing that the White House knew the murder of the US Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, was a terrorist attack within 24 hours of the event, it persisted in advancing a “riot over an insulting video” meme for more than two weeks. This failure to be straight with the American people is, according to Press Secretary Jay Carney “no biggie.”
“The terrorist thing has been around for a long time, what good would announcing one more episode of the lengthy story have done?” Carney wanted to know. “On the other hand, the course the Administration did take gave the President the opportunity apologize for the insulting video. This helped build bridges to our Muslim friends. The President showed himself as sympathetic to Islamic religious sensitivities in his speech to the UN. We think this will pay big dividends in the future.”
A second factor influencing the Administration’s stance was the matter of security. “Look, if the Ambassador’s death is the result of video-inspired mob violence it’s not the Administration’s fault,” Carney continued. “We didn’t even know about the video, so there was no opportunity for us to try to interdict it. But embassy and consulate security—those are the direct responsibility of the State Department. If these facilities are vulnerable to terrorist attack who do you think will get the blame? It was the President’s desire to shield Secretary Clinton from this blame as long as he could.”
Carney suggested that “the Administration’s actions were largely successful. No one was exposed during the vulnerable period. Now that interest has died down the damage to the Administration has been minimized.”
In related news, former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader labeled Obama a “war criminal” and “worse than Bush.” “His claim to have the authority to assassinate anyone he declares an enemy of the state is a fateful stride toward tyranny that I think every person who cherishes freedom ought to oppose,” Nader said.
Dems Scramble to Explain Obama Debate Defeat
Going into this week’s first presidential debate Democrats were confident that the most brilliant man to ever hold the office would easily trounce his challenger. However, 67% of voters who saw the debate judged Romney to have won. Only 25% saw Obama as the winner.
Obama campaign strategist, David Axelrod blamed debate moderator Jim Lehrer for allowing Romney “too much leeway. Time after time the President was left to fend for himself against repeated attacks on his policies. Lehrer failed to come to the President’s aid despite numerous opportunities to do so.”
Axelrod expressed the hope that “our other friends in the media will put forth a greater effort outside the context of the stilted debate format to do the job we expect them to do. Our message that Governor Romney is a greedy, lying, cheating bastard that has been working so well in our ads needs the supporting confirmation of these widely respected arbiters of truth.”
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Chair Democratic National Committee, concurred with Axelrod’s take, saying that “review of the debate transcript clearly shows an inappropriate handling of the event by the moderator. First, the actual amount of time each was allowed to speak was unacceptably allocated. Romney got almost as much time as the President did even though the President is a much more important figure in our government than a former one-term governor of a single state.”
“Second, Romney was allowed to repeatedly contradict the President,” she observed. “This disrespect went unchallenged by the moderator. Even worse, Lehrer’s interruption of the President’s closing statement on the pretext that he exceeded the allotted time limit was a shamefully arrogant affront to our nation’s ruler.”
Stephanie Cutter, deputy campaign manager for Obama complained that “the whole debate thing unfairly exploits the President’s weaknesses. The President has said numerous times that prepping for these kinds of events is boring. Having to bone up of the issues and confront a disagreeable adversary is just not his thing.”
Cutter maintained that debates aren’t a good measure of a person’s abilities to perform in office. “Look, a president doesn’t need to be able to think on his feet. He can hire advisers to handle the technical details and speechwriters to craft the words he uses to communicate with the American people,” she pointed out. “An inability to rebut an argument against his policies in a public forum is not a crucial skill.”
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews faulted Lehrer for “not being aggressive enough. There were opportunities for him to intervene on behalf of the President that he missed.” Matthews speculated that “Lehrer may have put too much emphasis on maintaining the appearance of neutrality,” and wondered whether “a man of his advanced age should be entrusted with such a weighty task in the future when abler men like myself are available.”
Obama Campaign Downplays Illegal Donation Issue
While the Obama campaign was boasting about raising more campaign cash than the GOP during September it now looks like a significant share (an estimated 68%) of this cash may have been obtained illegally. It appears that two-thirds of the campaign’s web donors are foreigners. By law, foreigners are barred from donating to US political campaigns.
David Axelrod emphasized what he called “the inherent inequity” of the ban on foreign money. “Look, it isn’t only Americans who are affected by who is elected,” Axelrod pointed out. “We’re not a small insignificant country. What we do has ripple affects all over the globe. It impacts people in other countries. Naturally, these people would like to have some input to the process.”
In support of the idea that foreigners should have a right to contribute to President Obama’s reelection, Axelrod cited a GlobalPost poll indicating that 68% of foreigners favor Obama’s reelection and a Gallup poll of foreign voters that would give Obama 81% of the vote.
“The vast majority of the people of the world want President Obama to continue in office,” he observed. “In fact, the ratio of support is greater than three-to-one in one poll and four-to-one in another. Should this make no difference? It’s bad enough that all the people affected by US policies can’t vote for who runs America. Must we also deny them the opportunity to ‘put their two cents in’ so to speak?”
Pundit Questions Propriety of Presidential Debates
While debates have been a part of the electoral process since the beginning of this country, MSNBC’s host of the show Hardball—Chris Matthews—questioned whether they should be.
“Should the President of the United States—America’s ‘first citizen’ so to speak, and acknowledged leader of the free world—have to put up with the likes of someone like Mitt Romney?” Matthews wondered. “Isn’t it bad enough that Romney is allowed to traipse about the country lambasting the President’s policies? Is it fair to force the President to be confronted face-to-face with his detractor?”
Particularly irksome from Matthews point of view was the moment in last Tuesday’s debate when Romney rebuffed Obama’s interruption by urging the President to wait for his turn before speaking.
“Who does Romney think he is?” Matthews demanded to know. “Obama is THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. He should speak whenever he deems necessary. If the situation requires that he interrupt someone else then he should interrupt. Preventing him from interrupting strikes me as possibly unConstitutional.”
Matthews further charged that “Romney’s notion that everyone should get a turn is simply childish. This is not some playground game. Treating it like it is was very disrespectful. While President Obama was too much of a gentleman to put Romney in his proper place I’m hoping the voters aren’t so squeamish.”
In related news, CNN dismissed GOP complaints that their moderator—Candy Crowley—gave Obama more time to speak than Romney, interrupted Romney three times as often, and gave Obama the last word on 8 out of 11 occasions. “This debate was in line with the previous two debates of this
campaign,” the network’s managing editor Mark Whitaker maintained. “Showing the proper respect for the sitting President and Vice-President is not something we should be criticized for. Governor Romney should consider himself lucky he was allowed on the same stage as the President. The President would’ve been entirely within his rights to refuse to debate Mr. Romney, as was President Johnson when he refused to debate Goldwater in the 1964 election campaign.”
Defense Secretary Justifies Inaction in Benghazi Attack
US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta explained that the US military commander for Africa, General Carter Ham, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, and himself all decided against any intervention to rescue those besieged because “we lacked a clear picture of what was happening.”
Panetta admitted that “while the drone surveillance did give us a real-time view of events on the ground, there were still some unanswered questions. First, we couldn’t be sure how many attackers were involved. Was it 50, 100? Without knowing this we couldn’t be sure how many reinforcements to send.”
“Second, the pictures from the drone couldn’t clearly establish the intent of the attackers,” Panetta continued. “We had no way of knowing they would actually kill the Ambassador. Maybe if those under attack had simply surrendered they would have been taken alive. We couldn’t risk negating this potential option.”
“There was always the chance that an attempt to rescue the Ambassador might make things worse,” Panetta added. “As it now stands, only four Americans were killed. If we had sent in troops there likely would’ve been more casualties on both sides. By declining to charge in we at least have no Libyan blood on our hands.”
The Secretary brushed off reports that those under attack were desperately pleading for help. “It’s to be expected that persons in their position would have a rather narrow perspective of the situation,” he said. “It’s hard to appreciate the bigger picture when you’re in fear for your life. Those of us with broader responsibilities must maintain a calmer demeanor and balance the costs and benefits of escalating the confrontation.”
Warning Cable from Libyan Ambassador Discounted
The emergence of an August 15th cable from Libyan Ambassador Chris Stephens to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warning that the Consulate was vulnerable to attack was brushed aside by the Secretary.
“The date of that cable was less than four weeks before the September 11th attack,” Clinton pointed out. “That’s far short of the normal turnaround time for State Department action. We still haven’t fully evaluated the June attack on a British envoy in Libya. So, I hope everyone can appreciate why we were taken by surprise on September 11th.”
Clinton also cited “the stupefying ambiguity of Ambassador Stephens cable. What does ‘vulnerable to a coordinated attack’ mean? How might that be different from an uncoordinated attack? And how do you define ‘vulnerable?’ The Ambassador provided no projection of estimated casualties or even whether there would be any at all. His message was maddeningly vague and incomplete.”
The Secretary offered up the September 11th communications from the Consulate as further proof of the dilemma she and President Obama faced on that day. “Yes, the e-mail said the Consulate was under attack,” Clinton agreed. “But there were no head counts of the number of attackers, no description of the kinds and numbers of weapons being used. I mean, even now, almost two months later, there is no consensus within the Administration on what the appropriate response should’ve been.”
Clinton counseled against “using the tragic events of September 11th as a rationale for changing administrations. Why discard those who know the most about the situation? A Romney Administration would be essentially starting from scratch. Wouldn’t it make more sense to preserve the institutional knowledge we already have by returning the current Administration for another four years?”
Pundit Grateful for Hurricane Sandy
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews called “the timely arrival of Hurricane Sandy” last week “a God send,” and “a small price to pay for ensuring the reelection of President Obama.”
“Prior to the storm, polls were showing that Romney might win this thing,” Matthews averred. “But the wreckage of people’s homes and the promise of redemption from the federal government that was held forth reinforced the case for big government in many voters’ minds.”
“Governor Christie’s virtual endorsement of President Obama didn’t hurt either,” Matthews added. “Having a Republican governor laud the President’s leadership as ‘magnificent’ kind of deflated Romney’s contention that he would be the best man to work across the aisle.”
That the storm killed more than 100 people and caused over $30 billion in property damage failed to faze Matthews. “The reelection of the President will easily save many more lives,” Matthews argued. “Just yesterday, the Administration announced its support for the UN Small Arms Treaty. If this treaty is ratified by the Democratically controlled Senate the federal government will have the authority to confiscate weapons from those who aren’t qualified to have them. This alone will save thousands of lives a year.”
“Far from being a negative, the $30 billion it will cost to rebuild will stimulate the economy and provide jobs,” Matthews continued. “It will be hard for Republicans to oppose more spending while people are suffering. In a way, the more destruction there is, the better it is for the President’s agenda.”
Hostess Brands to Be Liquidated
The financially troubled manufacturer of dessert cakes announced it will be forced to liquidate its assets. The move was in response to a strike by 5,000 employees represented by the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union and will result in the layoff of 18,000 employees.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka denounced the company, calling its decision “a direct contradiction and insult to American voters. Just a week ago voters reelected President Obama. Rather than accept this vindication of the President’s policies, the management of Hostess is putting profit ahead of social justice.”
Hostess has been in precarious financial shape for years. It first filed for bankruptcy in 2004. It emerged reorganized in 2009, but has still experienced net losses. The company again filed for bankruptcy in early 2012. The liquidation plan calls for the company’s iconic brands—Twinkies, Ho-Hos, Ding-Dongs, etc.–to be sold to the highest bidders and the cash used to repay outstanding debts.
Trumka said Hostess management’s decision “putting the repayment of debt ahead of the benefit of employees is emblematic of the anti-social nature of capitalism. Here we have owners saying they’re going to sacrifice the livelihoods of thousands of workers just because they can’t afford to pay them decent wages.”
To avert the loss of jobs at Hostess, Trumka urged President Obama to intervene. “There’s no question that these workers need these jobs,” Trumka asserted. “Likewise, there’s no question that consumers want their Twinkies. The government should provide the funding necessary to assure the continuation of both.”
Egyptian President Assumes Dictatorial Powers
The so-called “Arab Spring” took a decidedly ugly turn in Egypt this week when President Mohammed Mursi issued a decree barring any challenges to his decisions.
Egyptian opposition leader Mohammed El Baradei denounced Mursi’s action calling it “a major blow to the revolution. What good does it do us if we get rid of the dictator Mubarak only to replace him with a dictator Mursi? Isn’t sharing of power and open debate the whole point of democracy?”
Mursi denied he was trampling democracy. “Debate is fine, but there must be limits,” Mursi maintained. “The laws I decree must be enforced. There must be respect for my authority. Words or deeds that would serve to undermine either of these critical objectives cannot be tolerated.”
Whether Mursi’s expansion of his own authority will be tolerated is an open question. Many of the same protesters who rallied against Mubarak are back in the streets demonstrating against this latest development.
Clashes are expected as Mursi described these protests as “unwarranted interferences.” “Mubarak was a fraudulently elected tyrant,” Mursi pointed out. “In contrast, I, like recently reelected US President Obama, have a legitimate mandate from the voters. Mubarak was also sick and weak. I am not.” The Egyptian President warned opponents that “attempts to obstruct my rule will result in dire consequences for those who go too far.”
The US State Department said it was taking a “wait and see” attitude toward this seemingly antidemocratic shift. “They’re still working on their constitution, so it’s possible that what appears to be an unjustified usurpation may yet be endorsed by those drafting the document,” cautioned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “Then, too, Mursi was just recently elected. So we can’t rule out the argument that he, in fact, has a mandate of sorts. As we are wont to say, elections have consequences.”
As for Mursi’s declaration that actions taken by the courts or legislature in contravention to his wishes are void, Clinton expressed sympathy. “Sometimes a president may have to bypass other bodies in order to carry out his mandate,” she said. “Maybe we shouldn’t be so critical. For all we know, President Obama may find himself in a similar bind in the not too distant future.”
In related news, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s order blocking the Iranian Parliament from investigating President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s mismanagement of the economy was called “intriguing” by the US Secretary of State. “Khamenei’s point that such an investigation could weaken the regime seems well taken,” Clinton observed. “Congressional investigations of Fast and Furious and Benghazi are damaging to our country. Making them disappear might eliminate a great deal of the negative impressions these inquiries are causing.”
Huge Powerball Payout Inspires “Ingenious” Fiscal Idea
The nearly $600 million payout to the two winners of this week’s latest Powerball lottery drawing has inspired what Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner called “an ingenious and painless way out of the government’s chronic debt crisis.”
Geithner’s “ingenious and painless” plan calls for the Federal Reserve to buy a minimum of $30 billion in Powerball tickets every week. “Over the course of a year this would generate a minimum of $1.5 trillion in lottery winnings,” Geithner calculated. “As the holder of more than 99% of each week’s outstanding tickets, the federal government would almost certainly win each week’s jackpot. The cumulative weekly winnings would totally cover the annual budget deficits.”
The Secretary congratulated himself for “pioneering a truly innovative solution to government finance. It would completely bypass any need for higher taxes or more borrowing. The whole ‘fiscal cliff’ thing would be blown away. In fact, if we wanted to provide even more government services than currently contemplated we could boost Fed lottery purchases to $40 billion, $50 billion, or whatever amount we wanted each week. A true ‘golden age’ of unlimited leisure for nearly every American would be within our grasp.”
President Obama is said to be “peeved” by Geithner’s proposal. “While I appreciate Secretary Geithner’s enthusiasm I am disappointed that he has lost sight of my number one fiscal priority: raising taxes on the top 2% of earners,” Obama said. “Using lottery winnings to cover deficits ignores our obligation to impose fairness in our nation’s income distribution system. Those who’s greed has driven them to take more than their fair share of the country’s wealth have to be made to give back the excess. I won’t settle for anything less.”
Amount Spent on Welfare Exceeds Average Income
Data from a Congressional Research Service report reveals that the amount the government spends on welfare per family below the poverty line exceeds the median earned income. The median for earned income in the United States is about $50,000 per year. The amount spent per family on welfare exceeds $60,000 per year. Assuming a 40-hour work week, welfare equates to an after-tax wage of over $30 per hour.
Congressional Democrats used these figures to make the case against prospective cuts to the government’s entitlement spending. “The GOP’s notion that we ought to be pushing people to get jobs is completely refuted by these numbers,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) contended. “Any person who can qualify for welfare payments would be harming her family by leaving the shelter of government benefits for the uncertainties of the marketplace.”
Over in the Senate Charles Schumer (D-NY) claimed that “cutting welfare benefits would devastate our economy. As the research shows, families on welfare contribute more spending to stimulate the economy than those who work for a living. Rather than foolishly trying to reduce the number of persons who qualify for welfare as the Republicans want us to do, we ought to be adding to and extending the benefits we bestow on this economically vibrant segment of our society.”
The New York Senator averred that “the President’s bid to raise taxes on the wealthy is a small step in the right direction, but it doesn’t go far enough. The number of these people who will be encouraged to leave the workforce is small. A much bigger impact would be achieved if we could, like former Governor Howard Dean advises, raise everyone’s taxes. That way a lot more could join this crucial economic cohort.”
In related news, disability is now America’s fastest growing career choice among persons aged 18-64. In 1960 less than 1% of these persons were receiving disability payments. Last year more than 5% were. Disability due to “mood disorders” was credited with “making substantial inroads into the workforce over the last 50 years.” “Given the plasticity of this designation we see no reason why the vast majority of the population shouldn’t qualify for benefits for this cause over the next few decades,” boasted Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “We are within sight of creating a society where the majority can be relieved of the burdens of toil.”
Right-to-Work Passes in Michigan, Violence Feared
This week the Michigan legislature passed a “right-to-work” law making the state the 24th to allow workers to abstain from joining a union without losing their jobs. Opponents of the new law are incensed.
Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, predicted “civil war.” “What we have here is a betrayal of democracy,” Hoffa claimed. “This law will allow workers to decline becoming members of a union even if the majority of their fellow employees vote that they should join the union. It puts individual rights ahead of the collective right to compel everyone to participate.”
Hoffa denied that the democratically elected legislature and governor might be carrying out the will of the people. “I don’t think those that voted for these Republicans knew that they could be forfeiting their freedom to force others to join a company union,” Hoffa argued.
Michigan state Representative Douglas Geiss (D-Taylor) agreed with Hoffa’s assessment saying “there will be blood. There will be repercussions! The right of unions to take action to protect their interests is sanctioned by our laws.” Geiss is believed to have been referring to the 1973 Supreme Court finding in United States v. Enmons that violent acts in pursuit of a legitimate union objective are immune from federal prosecution.
President Obama did his best to stoke the fires of resentment by miscasting the legislation as “taking away the right to bargain for better wages.” Press Secretary Jay Carney explained that “right-to-work laws undermine the united front image that gives unions extra muscle when it comes to negotiating with management. Granting individual workers the freedom to not join a union negates the freedom of the majority of workers to coerce the minority into joining. The President feels that when there are disagreements the freedom of the majority trumps the freedom of the minority. That’s what democracy is all about.”
NRA Call for Armed School Guards “Reckless,” Says Senator
Maintaining that laws banning guns are ineffective at deterring criminals, National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre urged that we “harden potential targets. The placement of trained and armed security guards in vulnerable locations would be a more potent defensive measure than the placement of signs declaring these locations ‘gun-free zones.’”
LaPierre pointed out that “Connecticut’s law banning assault weapons had no impact on the madman who killed 20 school children. Government officials themselves don’t place their trust in gun control laws. The President has armed guards to protect him. Many members of Congress have concealed carry permits. They put their trust in self defense. Why shouldn’t our children have a similar protection?”
Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) called LaPierre’s plan “reckless. How can more guns be the answer? What if the armed security guard turns out to be a madman? The NRA proposal would, in effect, allow armed lunatics to infiltrate our schools and be perfectly placed to carry out their evil agendas.”
In further support of his position, the Senator reminded that “the DOJ’s plan to arm the Mexican drug cartels should have dispelled all illusions that simply increasing the number of guns would be a good strategy. Many of those guns have been used to murder hundreds of people.”
Representative Jim Himes (D-Conn) went even further saying that “those who use the Second Amendment to block the government from confiscating all unauthorized firearms have blood on their hands. There is no question in my mind that public safety requires the elimination of all privately owned guns. Laws making it illegal for private citizens to own guns would greatly simplify law enforcement.”
Himes pooh-poohed the notion that an armed citizenry might be a barrier to tyranny. “First of all, we have free elections, so tyranny is not a realistic possibility in America,” Himes insisted. “Even if it were, does anyone doubt that the firepower the government could muster would easily outgun civilian resistance? In a worst case scenario, I think most would agree that the potential risk of government oppression with gun control is preferable to the proven risk of random violence when the general population is allowed to have weapons.”
Russia Bans US Adoptions
The Russian legislature passed and President Vladimir Putin signed a bill banning the adoption of Russian children by U.S. Families.
In a signing statement President Putin asserted that “we cannot continue to subject the fruit of Russian loins to lives of degradation and depravity in an immoral society. Not only is the culture permeated with filth that poses as art, but the physical safety of the children is not even protected in the schools. For us to continue acquiescing to these adoptions would make us knowing accomplices in the criminal abuse of these children.”
A secondary concern cited by Putin was “the looming economic hardships that will befall most American families in the months and years to come. The government is accumulating debts it cannot repay. Bankruptcy and currency collapse are inevitable. The Obama Administration’s insistence on pursuing the same types of socialist policies that wrecked the Soviet Union augur a bleak future—one to which we cannot in good conscience allow to be inflicted on our children.”
US Presidential Press Secretary Jay Carney said “the President is a bit miffed by Putin’s blunt assault on American culture, but not overly concerned about the effects. Those negatively affected by the ban on adoptions are mostly the rich—people who generally have done less than their fair share of human suffering. So there is an element of inadvertent equity in the move.”
Carney pointed out that “it’s not as if those blocked by the Russian legislation are without recourse. There will still be plenty of non-white babies they can buy from China or Africa. In fact, obtaining a child from these other sources might help them overcome some of the ingrained racism that dominates this segment of our society.”
There were nearly 1,000 adoptions of Russian orphans and unwanted babies by American parents last year. The measure puts an end to that option for those desperately seeking to become parents.
A Satirical Look at Recent News
Please do us a favor. If you use material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit, and do not change the context. Thank you.