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

It was recently discovered that the Obama Administration has been working jointly with the Mexican government to inform that country’s illegal migrants to the United States of their “rights to government food assistance.”

The product of this cooperative undertaking is a Spanish-language flyer supplied to the Mexican Embassy by the US Department of Agriculture. The flyer asserts that “even those who enter America illegally are still entitled to certain benefits” and explains how these “undocumented persons” may secure these benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala) called the revelation “evidence of a dangerously misguided policy. We are $16 trillion in debt. Adding foreign nationals to our welfare rolls is fiscally irresponsible.”

U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack defended the outreach program saying “it clearly falls within the nation’s proud tradition of welcoming newcomers to our shores. Doesn’t our Statue of Liberty ask the world to give us their poor and hungry masses yearning to live free? How can we not feed them once they get here? Wouldn’t that be breach of promise?”

Vilsack hastened to point out that “our efforts aren’t confined to Mexicans. We’re very ecumenical in our outlook. One of the guys who bombed the Boston Marathon was a beneficiary of the SNAP food subsidies. We didn’t pry into his private life. We didn’t question his beliefs. To us he was a human being in need of help. That he may have been ungrateful for that help is something we can’t control. Should we let this unfortunate turn of events change who we are? Isn’t this when we’re supposed to turn the other cheek?”

Election Fraud Conviction Labeled “Irrelevant”

Former St. Joseph County Democratic party Chairman Butch Morgan, Jr. was found guilty of felony conspiracy counts to commit petition fraud and forgery, and former county Board of Elections worker Dustin Blythe was found guilty of felony forgery counts and falsely making a petition, after being accused of fabricating signatures on petitions that enabled Senator Barack Obama, to get on the presidential primary ballot in 2008. The finding means that Obama lacked sufficient valid signatures to qualify.

Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, David Plouffe, labeled the convictions “irrelevant and of no consequence. Look, we’re talking about a few hundred forged signatures in one Indiana county. In the end, 69 million votes were recorded for Barack Obama. He was clearly the choice of a majority of Americans. What’s the difference if there were a few minor irregularities in the process on his way to the presidency?”

Plouffe said hoped that “the punishment for these two longtime Democratic Party stalwarts wouldn’t be too harsh. I think we have to consider intent. Election rules can be complex and picayune. The time spent complying could be put to better use doing something else. These officials were only trying to enable the most qualified person to succeed. Since that intent was fulfilled we should forgive any missteps that occurred.”

Boston Bombing May Lead to Crackdown on Public Use of Cameras

One of the lessons the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is taking away from the Boston Marathon bombing is the “potential for phone cameras and video recorders being used to plan these kinds of attacks.”

Secretary Janet Napolitano says DHS is “looking into the inherent threat posed by unauthorized use of these devices, especially in heavily trafficked public places. Law enforcement personnel at every level need to be on alert for people deploying these devices.”

Napolitano professed to be “especially concerned that government officers in the midst of carrying out the directives of higher authorities might be intimidated by fears that their actions are being secretly recorded.”

In related news, those who want an iconic photo of President Obama observing a moment of silence in memory of the victims of the bombing should contact Democratic National Committee headquarters (ph. 202-863-8000). Chairwoman Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz urged everyone “to commemorate this tragic and historic moment by obtaining this portrait of our indomitable leader and simultaneously making a donation to help ensure that the Party has the funding needed to continue promoting its agenda.”

House Report Faults Administration for Benghazi Attack

An interim report for the US House of Representatives on last September’s slaying of the US Ambassador and three other Americans laid the blame squarely on Obama Administration officials. Specifically cited was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s approval of reduced security.

The report found “serious inconsistencies between the documentary record and Secretary Clinton’s testimony under oath to Congress” and suggested that “a prima facie case for a charge of perjury has been laid.”

Press Secretary Jay Carney scoffed at the report’s “so called evidence. The revelation of documents with Secretary Clinton’s signature on them authorizing reductions in security doesn’t mean anything. It certainly doesn’t prove that she knew what she was signing or that she even read those documents. Signing papers put in front of them is what the officers of government do. Insisting this means they bear responsibility is a stretch.”

To bolster his case, Carney recalled “Congress’ habit of passing legislation they haven’t read. It’s like the pot calling the kettle black. The US Government is such a huge operation that running it is beyond a normal person’s capability. Congress ought to be cutting us some slack instead of honing in on every little mistake we make.”

Carney gave long odds to the possibility that the perjury issue would go anywhere. “I seem to recall that there were ‘inconsistencies’ in some of former President Clinton’s statements under oath,” Carney remembered. “Was he prosecuted? No. No one had the guts to open that can of worms. Secretary Clinton will get a pass. She’s a private citizen now and should be allowed to enjoy her retirement without being dogged by accusations.”

DHS Explains Huge AMMO Needs

Congressional inquiry into the Department of Homeland Security’s huge ammunition acquisitions spurred agency officials to try to explain what is going on. At current inventory levels, DHS has four to five times as many bullets for its officers as the US Army has for our troops.

DHS training officer Humberto Medina pointed out that “the Army faces known enemies in numbers far smaller than we have to consider. I mean, Afghanistan’s population is tiny compared to that of the United States. And the Army can supplement with aerial and artillery bombardment. We don’t have that capacity at this time.”

Medina also suggested that “Army troops are better trained and more accurate shooters than the majority of those we’ve recruited for Homeland Security. So it stands to reason that we’d need to fire more rounds to hit any given target, whether it be in a training exercise or, heaven forbid, suppressing an insurrection. In a nation with over 300 million potential enemies an inventory of billions of bullets doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.”

Nick Nayak, DHS’ chief procurement officer, offered an alternative explanation for the recent surge in ammo purchases. “The notion that we are specifically targeting civilians is overwrought,” he said. “People don’t understand the way federal budgeting works. If we end the year with unspent funds that money is lost to us. Our surplus would then be used by the Administration’s enemies to argue for reduced spending in the next budget cycle. In that context, buying a billion bullets that we may never use seemed to be our best option.”

Mayor Downplays Indication that NYC Was Boston Bombers’ Next Target

A statement from captured bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and corroborated by the terrorists’ carjack victim that New York City’s Times Square was the next target was met with surprising calm by Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

“As horrific as the Boston Marathon bombing was or that a similar attack in Times Square might’ve been, the carnage entailed cannot match that wreaked on our citizens by sugar-laden soft drinks,” Bloomberg said. “The Boston bomb claimed the lives of three innocent victims and maimed dozens more. Sugary soft drinks kill and incapacitate far more on an annual basis.”

Bloomberg insisted that “we should not be diverted from the bigger threat to our health and well-being just because a bomb is a louder and messier way to kill people. The argument that sugary soft drinks are a voluntary choice is a smokescreen meant to obscure our social obligation to be our brothers’ keepers.”

The Mayor sought to assure that his concerns about people’s unhealthy habits “is not my sole focus. I think recent events in Boston and Newtown are clear warnings that our interpretation of the rights protected by the Constitution must undergo an evolution.”

“Take, for example, the Fourth Amendment’s bar to ‘unreasonable searches and seizures,’” Bloomberg added. “Given the speed with which criminals can carry out their crimes is it truly unreasonable for police to enter any place and seize weapons or dangerous materials before they can be used? As we saw from the successful manhunt that captured the Boston bomber, citizens don’t mind warrant-less searches of their homes. So, should we really let rigid adherence to an ancient document overrule contemporary common sense?”

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.

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

Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano denied that the Administration’s 45% cut in the budget for bomb prevention would have made any difference. “As I have said many times before, the greatest threat comes from right-wing extremists,” Napolitano maintained. “Even at the lower funding amounts we have successfully continued to suppress this most dangerous element. We, like everyone else, were taken completely by surprise by these Muslim extremists.”

Minority Whip Representative Steny Hoyer (D-Md) blamed the bombing on the “Republican sequester.” Hoyer was unmoved by the seeming illogic of casting the sequester’s 2% decrease in spending growth as decisive. Neither was he deterred by the fact that the sequester was President Obama’s idea. “Well, the President never thought it would stick,” Hoyer retorted. “Besides, everybody now thinks it was the GOP’s idea.”

Representative Peter King (R-NY) asked that “retailers be required to report persons who buy pressure cookers, pellets, ball bearings, or nails—anything that might be used to construct a bomb—to police. I’ve been working on legislation to require beefed up background checks for gun purchases, and that’s important, but as events in Boston have shown, we may need background checks for a wider range of potentially dangerous items.”

Former Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass) contended that “the bombing thoroughly rebuts the case for small government. I think that most people would eagerly exchange the freedom that right-wingers are saying is the American birthright for a government big enough to protect them from being blown away. A government with the manpower to search every bag and pat down every person entering any public transportation vehicle or any building that is open to the public would have the support of an overwhelming majority of voters.”

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel saw the incident as evidence for the superiority of police surveillance over an armed citizenry for defending the country. “I would say that even if everyone in the country were armed they’d still be vulnerable to terrorist bombs,” Emanuel argued. “I’d make the case that if all the money people spend on buying guns were instead invested in more extensive surveillance government would be better prepared to apprehend the perpetrators of heinous crimes and counter any threats to existing authority.”

Former GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney espied a “silver lining in this terrible tragedy. We saw President Obama give a superb speech at the memorial. It was much better than I could’ve done. In hindsight, I guess I’d have to say the voters made the right decision last November.”

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews called the indication that the bombing was undertaken by Islamic jihadis “truly disappointing. If it had been a Timothy McVeigh type of guy we could’ve used that to bolster the President’s campaign for gun control. Now every redneck in the country is going to think he needs a gun to fight off alien enemies. It’s a crucial lost opportunity.”

The revelation that the attack was carried out by two ex-patriots moved Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov to blame the crime on America’s “toxic values. The appalling depravity that is on display in every corner of the country drove these two deeply religious young men to strike a blow for decency.” Kadyrov rued the slaying of one of the bombers as a “true tragedy. America’s violent culture has claimed yet another innocent victim.”

President Endorses Rubio Immigration Legislation

President Obama heartily endorsed Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio’s proposed 800-page immigration reform bill. “This bill would speed the normalization of life for immigrants already living here while providing the Administration with much needed flexibility in enforcement,” Obama declared.

Under the bill, all those currently living here illegally would be granted amnesty if they come forward and identify themselves. At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be given five years to come up with a plan for improving border security.

“The trust Senator Rubio’s bill demonstrates for our efforts to manage the problem is impressive,” the President said. “I have been told that there are over 400 categories under which officers of the DHS would have the authority to exempt or excuse actions taken by those who have entered the country illegally. This latitude moves us from a position of rigid reliance upon written rules to one where human judgment can intervene. It makes me confident that real people rather than static words will govern the America of the future.”

Tension with North Korea Builds

Saying he was “fed up with the nutso actions of this goofball gook,” Secretary of State John Kerry threatened North Korea’s Kim Jong-un “if he continues to taunt us with his threats to launch his nuclear missile.”

The former decorated Vietnam veteran warned Kim “Don’t make me come over there. If I have to I will kill you and cut off your ears. Don’t think I won’t. I’ve done it before. In case you weren’t aware, I served in Vietnam. And if you ask those who served with me they’ll tell you I was a virtual Genghis Khan. So, don’t mess with me.”

Meanwhile, President Obama expressed his disbelief that North Korea even possesses a nuclear missile. “I don’t believe that have such a device,” Obama asserted. “I’m calling their bluff. I say go ahead and launch it.”

The words of the President and Secretary of State appeared to have little impact on Kim who vowed he would destroy the United States unless his demands are met. The demands are reported to include immediate withdrawal of all US armed forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, complete dismantling of all US intercontinental missiles, the payment of $3 trillion in reparations for the Korean War, and the appointment of former NBA basketball player Dennis Rodman as US Ambassador to Korea.

Kerry said he “would be willing to accept all of these demands except one as the basis for further discussions aimed at a peaceful resolution of our two nations’ differences. There’s no way the President can support the appointment of Dennis Rodman as ambassador to anywhere. He simply has not made a big enough donation to the Democratic Party.”

In related news, Kerry urged Congress to drop further investigation of last September’s attack on US Embassy personnel in Benghazi. “I think former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put this issue into its proper focus when she asked, ‘at this point what difference does it make?’ We can’t revive those who were killed. And now that the person who was in charge has left the government what’s the point of trying to allocate responsibility?”

Administration Pressures Washington DOT

A series of signs critical of President Obama may cost the State of Washington its share of federal aid for highway construction. The signs are on private property but can be seen by travelers on I-5 about 90 miles south of Seattle near the town of Chehalis.

“Interstate highways are 90% funded by the federal government,” said USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood. “It is improper that they be exploited for the communication of messages opposing the government.”

The Secretary added “we’d regret having to resort to withholding funds, but when people don’t show the appropriate respect for all the President is trying to do for the country we can’t just sit back and take it. State officials aren’t going to be allowed to hide behind a ‘freedom-of-speech’ argument in order to evade taking action. We think the prospect of losing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid will inspire them to find a way to eliminate these affronts.”

WSDOT CEO Lynn Peterson acknowledged “feeling frustrated by the difficult position we’re in. We can’t afford to lose this money. Our contention that there is no proof the signs are having any impact was rejected by the USDOT. They say that waiting for proof would set a bad precedent.”

“We can’t just tear down the signs,” Peterson complained. “We don’t own the property they’re on. Trying to screen them from view is impractical. Any obstruction we might erect on our right-of-way could simply be avoided by moving the offending signs a few dozen yards. Our best bet might be to try to induce the locals to take action.”

The “inducement” reportedly under consideration is a threat by WSDOT to close the Chehalis on-ramp to I-5. The idea is that if drivers from the local area lose their access to the highway they may prevail upon the town council to zone these signs out. It’s also felt that fear of possible retaliation from angry neighbors might cause the owners of these signs to take them down themselves.

Dem Admits Gun Bill Wouldn’t Have Prevented Newtown Massacre

Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), author of a just defeated gun control bill, acknowledged that “this bill wouldn’t have prevented the murder of those Sandy Hook school kids. In fact, it’s likely that nothing we could pass would impede any determined criminal from carrying out plans to kill innocent victims.”

“The point is to overcome a feeling of helplessness by giving the appearance of remedial action,” Manchin explained. “The only thing that might deter or decrease the body count in these shooting sprees would be if an armed victim or good Samaritan were to cut the spree short by returning fire. The problem with this, though, is that it would vindicate a world view that we Democrats find extraordinarily distasteful.”

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.