WASHINGTON, D.C. – During today’s House Judiciary Committee markup on H.R. 3530, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2013, Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-District 8) introduced the Crime Victims Amendment, which was approved by a voice vote.
“This amendment provides that crime victims are informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement, and advised of their rights and the support services available to them under the law. When Congress passed the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), it intended to protect crime victims throughout the criminal justice process, from the investigative phases to the final conclusion of a case. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice takes the view that these rights do not arise without prosecutors choosing to file formal criminal charges. This is completely wrong. Properly understood, the CVRA does indeed extend crime victims’ rights during criminal investigations.
“This amendment also provides flexibility, if the parties agree, to the time clock for the courts of appeal to take up writs of mandamus. Lastly, the amendment would clarify the appellate standard of review applicable to existing procedures in the VCRA by which a crime victim can seek review of a denial of their rights. This would essentially establish a procedure where a crime victim can immediately appeal a denial of their rights by a trial court to the court of appeals.
“To quote President Ronald Reagan’s Task Force on Victims of Crime, ‘In applying and interpreting the vital guarantees that protect all citizens, the criminal justice system has lost an essential balance….The victims of crime have been transformed into a group oppressively burdened by a system designed to protect them. This oppression must be redressed.'”
I was recently invited for coffee by a close friend and fellow Republican to discuss upcoming state legislative races. Well respected in both local grass roots circles as well as the so called “GOP Establishment,” he was chosen to reach out to me in hopes of convincing me to not get involved in several key legislative primaries. However, by the time we finished our second cup of coffee, he would not only fail to convince me to stay silent, but he would instead volunteer to help me in my efforts to inform GOP voters of the threat to our state. It took a simple history lesson to change his mind.
I take you back to the 46th Legislature. In 2004, a handful of so called “pragmatic” Republicans conspired with Democrats to give then Governor Janet Napolitano a budget that would increase state spending by more than $700million, a 10% increase in spending in a year that saw little inflation (2%).
Worse yet, that budget created a $500 million budget deficit; in violation of Arizona’s Constitution which requires a balanced budget. Rightfully, fiscal conservatives were outraged at what was clearly an irresponsible budget. In response, conservatives recruited fiscally responsible primary opponents to challenge these fiscally irresponsible Republicans.
Then the “GOP Establishment” stepped in. They argued that we risked losing our legislative majorities by running more conservative candidates in the general. Even going as far as saying that even though these “pragmatic” Republicans may have strayed a bit and voted with Democrats for the big spending budget, at least they voted right on things like guns, faith and family issues. They used the old rationale of “even the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat any day.” Generally I would agree with that statement, however, it only holds true if those Republicans support the Republican platform and not the Democrat platform. In 2004, there were 39 Republicans in the House and 17 in the Senate. (In Arizona, you need only control 31 seats in the House and 16 in the Senate to maintain your majority.)
Many of the party faithful bought the establishment’s argument, held their noses and voted for the fiscally irresponsible Republicans “for the good of the Party.” Deep down they hoped these “pragmatic” Republicans would realize the error of their ways and act “more Republican” and fiscally responsible if they got re-elected. As a result, the fiscally conservative challengers were defeated and the “GOP Establishment” candidates got re-elected.
What did voting for the establishment candidate get us? Over the next few years, more and more spending occurred and the budget deficit got bigger, ballooning to over $2.2 billion. Well at least it helped us keep our majorities in the legislature right? Not exactly, in the House the GOP lost six seats and our majority declined to 33 seats; dangerously close to the 31 needed to maintain majority control.
Then in 2008, “Pragmatic Republicans” did it again. Cutting a backroom deal in the dark of night with legislative Democrats and Governor Napolitano, four House and four Senate Republicans essentially voted to put Arizona on the verge of Bankruptcy. They left the State with no money in the Rainy Day Fund and a $3 Billion budget deficit. This time conservatives had enough.
A grassroots groundswell of conservative candidates filed to run for the legislature and challenge the big spenders of both parties. Once again the “GOP Establishment” clamored about “party unity, we’re going to lose our majority if we elect conservatives in the primary, think of the big picture and don’t get hung up on a single budget vote, etc.” This time, despite the GOP establishment spending heavily on their “pragmatic” candidates, the GOP primary voters weren’t going to listen.
Fiscal conservatives won primary after primary, soundly defeating establishment candidates in several key races. Instead of lining up behind the party’s nominees, the GOP establishment instead sided with Democrats by undermining conservative candidates in the general election. Establishment lackey and so called “political consultant” Nathan Sproul even penned an open letter to voters stating “In my opinion, the Republican Nominees are not reflective of the overall electorate.” His statement was quickly picked up by Democrats and used in mailers against conservatives.
Despite the “GOP Establishment’s” efforts to torpedo our candidates, we not only kept our majorities in the State House and Senate, but increased them! Keep in mind this was 2008, the year Barack Obama was elected President. Conventional political wisdom predicted a Democrat landslide nationally and the Tea Party was still more than a year from even coming into existence. Arizona was one of only two states in the whole country that saw Republicans add seats to their legislatures. The GOP Establishment was not only WRONG, they were DEAD WRONG.
Then came 2010; “the year of the Tea Party.” Both Establishment GOP candidates as well as Democrats were steam rolled by conservatives. Republicans obtained “Super majorities” in both houses of the legislature and it immediately led to a balanced budget in Arizona, the first in over five years.
Now we’re back to 2014 and here we go again. A new bunch of so-called “Pragmatic Republicans” have again voted with state Democrats to bring Obamacare to Arizona and once again bust the state’s bank by voting for fiscally irresponsible budgets. Where there was once $1Billion in the Rainy Day fund, now there’s essentially nothing. The budget is once again structurally unbalanced and we’re looking at huge deficits again in 2016 and 2017.
So guess what the “Establishment” is saying. Yep, you guessed it: “Don’t primary them, they only voted ‘wrong’ on Obamacare and the budget, but otherwise, they’re still better than Democrats. Don’t primary them for the ‘good of the party’ and so we don’t lose our majorities.”
Well I for one am not buying it. I’m not going to let history repeat itself. These turncoat Republicans, also known as “Legistraitors,” are causing irreparable damage to our states’ fiscal and economic future and they must go. We can’t let the financial disaster of 2004-2008 happen again. Reelecting these “pragmatic” traitors to the platform will spell fiscal disaster for Arizona. Ask yourself, do you want to go through what we had to go through back in 2009-2011? Huge budget cuts, a sales tax increase, selling our Capitol? Heck no!
John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News
The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Bill Killian, says “the Administration is looking into ways we can curb anti-Muslim hate speech. Such speech violates Muslims’ Constitutional right to freely exercise their religion. It is our duty to protect this right.”
Killian acknowledged that “there are some tricky and delicate issues here. Some believe that freedom of speech gives them the right to make remarks critical of or disparaging toward Islam. On the other hand, Islam commands its faithful to fight against, subdue, and slay those who insult their beliefs. The only way we can see to head off potential violent confrontations is to interdict the insults through official prohibitions.”
“Muslim beliefs are different from those of Christians and Jews,” Killian explained. “Jesus bade his followers to ‘turn the other cheek’ toward those who harm or offend them. And Jews have a long history of suffering under discriminatory laws and pogroms without violently responding to these oppressions. So, while there is clearly no need for the Government to intervene against anti-Christian or anti-Jewish speech the same cannot be said in regard to anti-Muslim speech.”
“If we can persuade Muslims that the government will impose satisfactory sanctions against persons who insult their religion there will be no need for them to take matters into their own hands,” Killian argued. “They will see that government is up to the task of protecting their faith and that they won’t have to take up arms to defend it. It’s simply a matter of maintaining both the Constitutional right of Muslims to practice their religion and our Constitutional obligation to secure domestic tranquility.”
Alabama Democrat Welches on Offer
Alabama State Representative Alvin Holmes (D-Montgomery) resumed his accusations that 99 percent of White people are racists. Previously he had asserted that “even so-called pro-life whites would want their daughters to have abortions if they were impregnated by Black men.”
His latest claim is that “white people are intolerant of Black children and would never adopt a Black child.” Holmes even went so far as to offer $100,000 “to anyone who could show him a whole bunch of whites that have adopted Blacks in Alabama.”
When dozens of white parents who have adopted Black children showed up to disprove his claim, Holmes remained unfazed. “Who says that dozens represent a whole bunch?” Holmes defiantly asked. “And how are we to know that these parents who appear to be white are, in fact, authentically white? Many people who have Black ancestry have passed for white. Without DNA testing these so-called white parents can’t prove they aren’t really Black under the skin. So I’m keeping my money.”
Bundy’s Speculations Further Enrage Senator Reid
The Nevada rancher currently embroiled in a dispute with the Bureau of Land Management over cattle grazing fees drove Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev) into a rage when he ventured to suggest that Government welfare programs may have done more harm than good to minorities.
“In addition to impeding the development of land for solar power production, Bundy has revealed his true anti-Government animus by bad-mouthing a vital government program,” Reid complained. “For him to imply that a life style of crime, abortion and unwed motherhood could in any way be facilitated by the financial assistance provided to minorities by the Government is a vicious slander.”
The Senator added that “Bundy is extremely fortunate that he was not shot down like the dog he is for the provocations he instigated against duly authorized government officials sent to confiscate his cattle. His statements since that time can only increase the chances that this may yet be his fate. I suspect that something may happen in the not too distant future. At least I surely hope so.”
IRS Says Difference in Treatment Is Economically, Not Politically, Motivated
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen insisted that differences in the way two organizations were treated by his Agency were not politically motivated. The conservative-oriented Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty was penalized by having its tax-free status revoked. In contrast, Media Matters, a liberal organization funded by billionaire George Soros has not been penalized for its partisan activity.
“The key distinction we made was based on the potential economic impact we could expect from the demise of each of these organizations in response to any action we might take,” Koskinen said. “On the one hand, the Patrick Henry Center is a vanishingly small operation. Its closure would have minimal repercussions for the economy. On the other hand, Media Matters is a veritable behemoth. Its closure would cost hundreds of jobs and negatively affect scores of government office holders who depend on it.”
“I realize that it could appear unfair to treat a small operation differently from a big one,” Koskinen admitted. “However, we can’t afford to be indifferent to the foreseeable ripple effects on the economy from whatever enforcement action we take. In simple terms, Media Matters is in the category of ‘too big to fail.’ Our nation’s economy is already in too desperate a shape to have to endure a blow to this large of an employer.”
More Duplicate Voter Registrations Found
A month ago an audit of voter registration rolls in North Carolina found 150,000 duplicates in other states and 35,000 duplicate ballots cast by these registrants. This week it was disclosed that 44,000 persons are registered to vote in both Virginia and Maryland.
While only 164 of these voters were confirmed to have cast ballots in both states during the 2012 November election, the continued insistence by Democrats that this type of vote fraud isn’t worthy of further investigation is not reassuring.
US Attorney General Eric Holder maintained his stance that “this is much ado about nothing. The election of 2012 was decided by far more than 164 votes. Felonious or not, none of these illegally cast ballots could have changed the outcome. The notion that we should invest resources prosecuting these overly zealous voters strikes me as an unwarranted modern day witch hunt unworthy of a truly enlightened civilization.”
Vets Die While on Secret Wait List
This week it was revealed that at least 40 veterans died while waiting to see doctors in the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Health Care system. The 40 were part of over 1,000 sick vets forced to wait months to get an appointment for treatment. This occurred despite rules setting 30 days as the maximum wait time.
Newly appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Mathews Burwell characterized the deaths as “unfortunate, but perhaps unavoidable. Let’s not forget that the vast majority of those who died were old men. Old men die. No matter what kind of medical treatment they might receive or not receive that’s still going to happen. The bigger question is how much of society’s resources can we justify being expended to defer the inevitable? Wouldn’t using these same resources to care for people with more useful years of life ahead of them make more sense from a collective well-being perspective?”
In related news, First Lady Michelle Obama justified her pricy world travels by declaring that “splurging is the key to life. When you have the opportunity to do something interesting or exciting you should grab it.” In the last year the First Lady has grabbed over $20 million from taxpayers for trips to Dublin, Africa, and Hawaii. She also has a retinue of 26 personal servants consuming a total of $1.7 million a year to tend to her every need.
Clinton’s Apparent Lack of Accomplishments at State Misleading
The fact that neither Hillary Clinton nor State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki can name a single significant achievement of her tenure as Secretary of State may not be as devastating as it first appears.
“First of all, Secretary Clinton is a very modest person,” Psaki claimed. “It’s really hard for her to toot her own horn. So, there could be lots of things she’s done, but doesn’t want to boast about.”
Psaki defended her own reluctance to enumerate even a small number of the former Secretary’s accomplishments as “a tribute to Mrs. Clinton’s self-effacing personality and for reasons of national security. A lot of what she did has to remain classified. I’m sure there’s a lot of good stuff there, but I’m not at liberty to divulge what it is right now. Maybe when the files are declassified 50 years from now everyone will be able to appreciate the magnificent job she did for America and the world.”
Sotomayor Assails Court Decision
This week the US Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that voters in Michigan have the authority to outlaw racial discrimination in State University admissions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor castigated this decision calling it “a return to the Jim Crow era.”
“It is simplistic thinking that discrimination can be ended just by ending it,” the Justice wrote. “It may take centuries of counterbalancing discrimination to even the scales of justice. The idea of letting people vote to end discrimination and negate decisions made by University experts elevates mob rule over reasoned judgment.”
A Satirical Look at Recent News
John Semmens is a retired economist who has written a weekly political satire column for The Arizona Conservative since 2005. He says working on his satires is one of the ways he tries to honor the liberties that our nation’s Founding Fathers tried to protect.
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
Among the most important purposes of civil government are to restrain evil, bring good to society, and bring order to society. On all three grounds, it is right to conclude that government should define and regulate marriage.
Marriage restrains evil by promoting sexual faithfulness between a man and a woman, by establishing a legally binding commitment for parents to care for their children, by establishing a legally binding commitment for spouses to be financially responsible for and to care for one another, and by providing a legal protection to keep women from being exploited by men who might otherwise enjoy a sexual relationship for a time and then abandon a woman and any children she may have borne.
Second, marriage brings good to society in multiple ways. It promotes social stability, economic well-being, educational, and economic benefits for children, the transmission of moral and cultural values to the next generation, and a stable social unit for interactions within society.
Third, the establishment of marriage brings order to society to the general public will know who is married and who is not. Marital status can be established as a matter of public record so that in various ways the society as a whole can honor and protect individual marriages and can know who is responsible for the care and protection and training of children, and for the care of spouses who have medical, financial or other needs. In this way, defining and regulating marriage gives stability and order to a society. It is an extremely important social good that government should encourage and protect.
Only civil government can define a standard of what constitutes a marriage for the state, nation, or whole society.
If no definition of marriage is given to an entire society, then chaos and much oppression of women and children will ensue. Without government establishment of what constitutes marriage, the result is a proliferation of children born in temporary relationships without commitment, and more children born with no one taking responsibility for their general well-being and welfare.
The worldwide consensus throughout history is that society as a whole, through its governing authorities, needs to define and regulate marriage for its citizens. The greatest cost benefit to government and society is when children are protected by a permanent, faithful, co-residential, sexual coupling of a committed, married man and woman.
Since marriage provides great benefits to society with immense value, society has an interest in protecting and encouraging marriage. The Supreme Court has frequently confirmed this, declaring in 1885 “the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman” is “the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization.”
The history of marriage law in the U.S. shows that society has a strong interest in protecting and encouraging marriage between one man and one woman because of the great benefits that accrue from this institution – in multiple ways, benefits that no other relationship or institution can give.
Comparing the environment marriage provides during the pregnancy and birth of a baby with the environment of a cohabiting couple with no legal commitment attached, or to the environment provided by a temporary sexual liaison with no ongoing relationship, or to the environment provided by a homosexual couple that lacks either a mother or a father, or to the environment provided by a single mother who bears a child through in vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood, it is evident the environment provided by the married heterosexual couple provides far more security for the child.
The environment is also better for the mother because marriage provides a better guarantee that the father will not abandon her to care for the child alone – including at cost to the taxpayers through government welfare programs. The environment of marriage is also better for the father because it provides strong legal and societal expectation that he will stay around and act responsibly with regard to the responsibilities formally associated with fatherhood.
All societies need babies to survive and thrive, and marriage between one man and one woman is the best environment for the birth, care, and raising of children. Children living with their own married parents attain significantly higher educational achievement. They are much more likely to enjoy a better economic standard in their adult lives and are much less likely to end up in poverty. Their physical and emotional health is better. They commit fewer crimes and experience less drug and alcohol abuse. They’ve demonstrated higher standards of integrity and moral principles.
Furthermore, children living with their own parents are less likely to experience physical abuse and are more likely to live in homes providing support, protection, and stability for them. They, in turn, are more likely to establish stable families in the next generation – requiring fewer government resources. Marital fidelity is highest among a married man and woman, resulting in the fewest STDs of any types of relational coupling. In addition, the highest rates of domestic abuse in society are among homosexuals – particularly females.
All of these factors are demonstrable through scholarly, peer-reviewed data – much of it provided by university researchers who describe their political leanings as Left.
And for all the reasons outlined above, marriage between one man and one woman is the basic building block of a stable society. It’s essential to the continuation of a healthy, stable society. It is highly beneficial for government to encourage and reward marriage between one man and one woman – through laws and policies. Policies and laws to the contrary do harm to the nation.
Homosexuals, as a whole, cannot provide the same benefits to children or society. Male homosexuals can expect a life expectancy shorted by 25-30 years. They are at a heightened risk of chronic, potentially fatal, liver disease (infectious hepatitis), fatal immune diseases including cancer, fatal rectal cancer, multiple bowel and other infectious diseases, higher rates of suicide, more drug and alcohol abuse, and adverse consequences due to risky behavior – most notably, frequent sex with hundreds, if not thousands, of anonymous sex partners.
Media in America typically represent homosexual couples as “normal” parents. But that is not an accurate portrayal of social realities. Nor is it an honest attempt at journalism, for the result is to delude society with false information. Media refuse to acknowledge that science has proved indisputably that homosexuality is not genetic, and fail to recognize the many social problems associated with homosexual relationships. The main reasons for dishonest, skewed, and false reporting by media is its collective liberal worldview, and its fear of protest by homosexual advocacy groups.
Furthermore, heterosexual marriage lasts many times longer than homosexual relationships (about 18 months. And when hetero marriages pass the 10-year mark, the divorce rate drops precipitously.
***
Postscript: Homosexual activists are attempting to place an initiative on the general election ballot in November of 2014 to overturn Arizona’s constitutional protection of marriage between one man and one woman. If they succeed in changing the law, everyone in Arizona loses. Additionally, the result of same-sex “marriage” means a loss constitutional freedom for Americans; same-sex “marriage” will over-rule the First Amendment’s recognition of free speech and religious freedom because to oppose same-sex “marriage” will result in punishment, job loss and marginalization for those opposed. For so many reasons, the best outcome for Arizona society is to defeat this effort.
Information cited from:
Wayne Grudem, Politics and the Bible.
Marcia Barlow, The Marriage Advantage, United Families International
We told you earlier this year that religious freedom is more at risk today under Governor Jan Brewer than it ever was under former Gov. Napolitano. Under pressure from far Left extremists several weeks ago, she vetoed an amendment which would have protected religious freedom in Arizona. And now further proof:
Brewer vetoed a bill that would have equal treatment for churches with regard to property taxes.
HB 2281 was supported by Republicans and Democrats. The Arizona Constitution exempts churches from paying property taxes. But churches that rent facilities for their worship services don’t enjoy the same exemption. HB 2281 would have remedied that.
Governor Brewer sided with atheists in opposing this bill.
How sad. How disappointed we are in this governor.
At a prominent conference of education innovators, Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who is considering a 2016 presidential run, called for more guest worker programs and a path to amnesty for all of the country’s illegal immigrants.
Speaking at what is known as the “Davos in the Desert” event in Scottsdale, Arizona, on Monday evening, Bush said the United States needed “robust guest worker programs” and an expansion of H1-B visas for the high-tech industry,” even though the notion that there is a shortage of American high-tech workers has been called a myth. He also called for a “tough but fair path to legalized status” for all of the country’s illegal immigrants and an end to immigration quotas for countries.
Bush said that it was not an “American value to have 12-13 million people living in the shadows” and spoke about the need to protect borders and sanction companies that may hire illegal immigrants.
He asserted that the “rags to riches rate” in the country is only four percent and that the American Dream is being replaced with “stickiness at both ends,” as those born either wealthy or poor are likely to remain so while the middle class feels the squeeze.
Bush has previously called illegal immigration “an act of love” and said the issue “shouldn’t rile people up.” Establishment Republican guru Karl Rove even conceded that Jeb Bush was not artful in those remarks. At the conference, which was co-hosted by Arizona State University and GSV Advisors, Bush made no reference to those prior comments, though he has previously defended them.
Better think again, GOP, before you abandon the basic unit of society …
By Kim Trobee, CitizenLink
A national poll by American Values and the Family Research Council shows 82 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents believe marriage “should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman.”
The poll comes after Nevada’s GOP announced it would remove social issues from the state party platform. Several prominent members of the Republican Party made statements supporting same-sex marriage.
Yet, in reality, the American people “overwhelmingly support the institution of marriage,” said American Values President Gary Bauer.
“Public policy makers are doing a great disservice to themselves and future generations,” he said, “by continuing to misread the convictions of the American people. The misinformation campaign waged by media elites muddies the debate and attempts to isolate those who support the time-honored traditions and values shared by every major world religion throughout human history.”
Bauer said the debate is no longer about privacy and tolerance.
“Religious liberty, free speech and rights of conscience are now at stake” he said. “This survey should remind political and cultural leaders that this debate is far from over. If anything, it is taking on a new sense of urgency for millions of men and women of faith.”
FRC President Tony Perkins said Republican leadership would do well to listen.
“Republican voters continue to resist the demands of cultural elites who want to see the party abandon the very core values that gave rise to American exceptionalism,” he said. “The vast majority of the GOP base continues to believe that marriage is a non-negotiable plank of the national platform and want to see their elected officials uphold natural marriage as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage and promote in law.”
John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News
Top Democratic strategist, James Carville, advised Democrats seeking reelection to avoid discussing the economy.
“The whole notion of an economic recovery is pure poison to any Democrat hoping to retain his or her seat,” Carville lamented. “The Administration has spurred too many false hopes with repeated promises of ‘green shoots.’ Our Party’s credibility on this issue is totally shot.”
Instead, Carville recommends “an approach that transcends the stale notion that getting people back to work ought to be a goal of the nation’s economic policy. Democrats need to embrace the decline in workforce participation and increase in the number on food stamps as ways for people to enjoy more leisure time.”
“The whole notion that it is man’s fate to toil to feed his family is what Democrats must attack,” Carville argued. “With generous income support from government a growing share of the population can escape from this wage slavery. If Democrats can sell enough voters on this new conceptualization of the American Dream we have a chance to regain a majority in the House as well as hold onto the Senate.”
Bloomberg Rebuts Idea that Guns Can Be Used in Self-Defense
In his continuing battle against the right of individuals to bear arms, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg pooh-poohed the idea that guns might be a valid or necessary tool of self-defense.
“The argument that an abused spouse might need a gun to defend herself is bogus,” Bloomberg insisted. “Very few spouses are actually totally beaten to death by abusive husbands. So, access to deadly force is seldom an appropriate response. A wife who escalates the situation by drawing a weapon will likely later regret her action. The better course is for her to lessen the beating by placating her husband and trying for a peaceful resolution.”
“Once a gun is deployed the chances are good that somebody ends up dead,” Bloomberg observed. “Avoiding this dire outcome for the mere cost of a few bumps and bruises seems the wiser course. If, ultimately, someone needs to be shot it is best that the police or other government authorities make that determination.”
“Domestic Terrorists” Threaten Real Estate Deal
This past week Bureau of Land Management Troops were called upon to seize cattle owned by Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy. The livestock confiscation was thwarted when hundreds of supporters rallied to Bundy’s side.
While it seems likely that the BLM had sufficient firepower to prevail, the confrontation dissipated when it was realized that there would be substantial casualties on both sides. That the BLM chose to stand down enraged Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev) who characterized it as “an abject surrender to domestic terrorists.”
“The so-called ‘cooler heads’ suggesting that there are more pacific ways of resolving the issues surrounding this dispute are overlooking the damage done to key investors from using a time-consuming court adjudication,” Reid complained. “My son has worked long and hard to broker a deal with a Chinese firm to use the land in question for a solar power harvesting operation. If the efforts of a Senator’s son can be swept aside by an ugly mob of cowboys it would completely cancel out the whole purpose of government as I see it.”
Reid acknowledged some compassion for BLM troops not wanting to risk their lives and urged President Obama “to deploy a drone strike against the ringleader. Bundy and his chief lieutenants could be surgically removed from a distance with no loss of life to government troops. He already has authority to excise terrorists on American soil. It’s time that he used that authority to instill respect for the law among the disloyal riffraff.”
President Vows “No Fixes” to Obamacare until GOP Changes Attitude
Despite heart-breaking stories of critically ill patients being denied treatments under Obamacare, President Obama steadfastly refuses to offer any relief “until the GOP changes its attitude.”
“Those who are suffering need to know that I stand ready to fix all their problems as soon as the Republicans cease their criticism of the Affordable Care Act and get behind the effort to implement it nationwide,” the President said. “The Republicans are harping on the theme that these people are suffering because provisions in the ACA caused their previous insurance to be canceled. Well, I can abolish those provisions, but the price is GOP acquiescence in the permanence of this law.”
“Republican contentions that the 7 million we signed up for policies under the ACA is only a tiny fraction of the nation’s 300 million population is irrelevant,” the President continued. “The new signees may represent less than 3% of the population, but I, as their President, represent 100% of the population. And I say that the law is here to stay. As soon as the GOP comes to terms with this reality everyone can partake of its benefits.”
Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), a physician, labeled the President’s attitude “cruel and sadistic. It is his law that has bumped people off of insurance that would’ve covered their ailments. It is his law that is boosting the cost of medical care for everyone. For him to say that he will alleviate the consequences on the condition that all resistance to his tyranny cease is extortion, plain and simple.”
Candidate’s Complaint Called “Misguided”
Arkansas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dr. Lynette Bryant’s complaint against the Arkansas Democratic Party was rebuffed as “misguided” by Democratic National Committee Chairperson Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla).
Dr. Bryant took exception to her primary opponent, Mike Ross, being described by Democratic Party officials as “the next governor of Arkansas.” She also protested being barred from speaking at Saline County’s Jefferson Jackson Dinner.
“I can understand how Dr. Bryant—an African-American woman—might feel frustrated and belittled by the way she’s been treated,” Wasserman Schultz offered. “However, we need to focus on the big picture. The message of the Democratic Party is that it is Republicans who are waging war on women. It is Republicans who are racist. By going public with her complaint she is diluting our message and potentially confusing voters.”
Wasserman Schultz suggested that “Bryant might be able to get back within the Party’s good graces if she mutes these types of criticisms when speaking in public. We’re not saying that there is no tole for her to play, but if she wants to appear on the public stage she’s got to memorize her lines, not complain about the part she’s assigned.”
In related news, Brandeis University withdrew its invitation to Somalia-born Ayann Hirsi Ali to speak at this year’s commencement. In a prepared statement University officials explained that “Ms. Ali’s life story portrays a disparaging image of Islamic barbarity—her narrow escape from genital mutilation and persistent death threats from Muslim extremists—that demeans a protected minority. As such it was our feeling that a person more representative of American values give this important address.” The person selected to fill in: Bill Ayers.
Congressman Denies Conspiracy
Revelations that Representative Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland) corresponded with the IRS on the topic of harassing conservative groups conjured up suspicions of illegal attempts at intimidation.
Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, vigorously denied that there was a conspiracy between him and IRS officials. “Conspiracy implies that what I did was unlawful,” Cummings contended. “I have been assured by Attorney General Holder that neither he nor the President accepts that interpretation. “All I did was request that the IRS look into ways to disqualify some of these anti-government groups from criticizing the President’s policies.”
Of particular concern to Cummings was the group True the Vote—a citizens’ organization aimed at combating election fraud. “Their ‘nit-picking’ insistence on voter ID is a tactic to intimidate those who may have forgotten to register or be technically ineligible because they’ve done time in jail,” Cummings complained. “This disproportionately disenfranchises minorities. This kind of racism must be stopped. If there’s anything that the IRS can do to prevent this and similar groups from spreading their vicious smears they ought to do it.”
The Congressman disavowed any role in IRS official Lois Lerner’s efforts to get the Department of Justice to prosecute conservative groups engaging in “excessive discussion of policy issues.” “The idea that as long as you don’t say vote for so-and-so you are free to discuss issues strikes me as inordinately narrow,” Lerner wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder. “I mean, a group that publishes documents critical of the Administration’s policies on health, immigration, the budget, etc. is clearly conveying an anti-government point of view. How can we just let this go? There’s got to be some recourse, some severe penalty we can impose that will deter this type of undesirable communication.”
In related news, the FBI has stepped up its efforts to track down critics of “big government.” The campaign is sending agents into gun shops to query owners about customers overheard using the phrase. Director James Comey deflected concerns that Islamic terrorists might be a more important focus for the Agency’s limited resources. “Muslim terrorists may kill hundreds or even thousands, but they won’t bring down the government. The ‘big government’ opponents aim to do that very thing. Clearly they are the bigger threat.”
A Satirical Look at Recent News
John Semmens is a retired economist who has written a weekly political satire column for The Arizona Conservative since 2005. He says working on his satires is one of the ways he tries to honor the liberties that our nation’s Founding Fathers tried to protect.
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
By Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy
“Arizona’s thriving pro-life movement has had another tremendous victory today as Governor Brewer has signed the Women’s Health Protection Act (HB 2284).
This law ensures abortion clinics are subject to the same inspection standards as all other medical facilities in the state. Abortion clinic inspections matter, and it is unconscionable that they would be exempt from common-sense health and safety standards.
I am tremendously grateful to the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Debbie Lesko who championed this important legislation and all the legislators that voted for HB 2284. Governor Jan Brewer is also owed a debt of gratitude for standing up to the attacks and distortions from Planned Parenthood to carry on her tremendous legacy as the nation’s most pro-life governor.
Today we celebrate this victory, but our work will never be done until every woman and preborn child is protected from the dangerous and deadly practices of Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry.”
