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

Outraged by the surging popularity of anti-Clinton books overtaking sales of Hillary Clinton’s State Department memoir, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill offered his opinion that “in a just world such despicable nonsense would neither be allowed nor enabled.”

The “despicable nonsense” books Merrill is saying ought to be censored include The First Family Detail by Ronald Kessler, Clinton, Inc. by Daniel Halper and Blood Feud by Ed Klein.

“It is a travesty that books like these are outselling a historically important work by a major player in contemporary American history,” Merrill complained. “Their authors are comparative nobodies trying to get rich by feeding off the greatness of someone toward whom they ought to be showing greater respect. To suggest that the Clintons may have been motivated by anything other than an extraordinary commitment to public service is a libel that should not be tolerated.”

In addition to banning such books Merrill suggested that “all profits be confiscated and donated to the Clinton Foundation where they can be more meritoriously deployed for the good of the country.”

Halper said that “the virulence of the Clinton camp’s reaction to the modest success of my book serves to vindicate my thesis that the Clintons run a ruthless political machine.” Klein called “the demand for censorship a very telling confirmation that the facts I presented cannot be refuted.”

Court Ruling on Obamacare Exchanges Assailed

This past week’s D.C. Court of Appeals panel ruling that customers in the 36 states that didn’t establish their own exchange and use HealthCare.gov instead cannot be given premium tax credits was assailed by the program’s backers as “flagrant judicial activism.”

Presidential Press Secretary Josh Earnest promised that “this insupportable ruling will be ignored. For the Court to insist upon a literal reading of the statute at this late date would unduly hamper the President’s scope of action. He cannot and will not abide having his hands tied by this judicial interference.”

At issue is explicit statutory language in the Affordable Care Act that permits federal subsidies to only those states that set up state healthcare exchanges. Thus far only a third of the states have set up such exchanges. The Obama Administration, though, has been awarding subsidies to all states.

“Millions of people have come to depend on these subsidies,” Earnest pointed out. “To cut them off now on the pretext that there is no statutory authority for the subsidies to two-thirds of the nation places legalistic formalism ahead of human rights. That’s not a legacy the President intends to leave behind.”

“The original intent of legislative language limiting subsidy eligibility was to proffer an incentive for states to set up exchanges,” explained Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of the legislation. “By dangling a ‘carrot’ of millions of dollars in federal aid in front of the states it was hoped that they’d be induced to take on the task of establishing healthcare exchanges and relieve the federal government of this burden.”

Gruber characterized the original intent as “no longer operative. Obviously, the lure failed to elicit the response desired. Since the fundamental purpose of Obamacare is to establish a comprehensive and uniform health care system a reinterpretation of the statutory history is required. The interpretation that is currently most in line with the President’s objective is that the exclusionary language was a typographical error. In light of the fact that key participants in the process openly acknowledged that they hadn’t read the bill before voting on it I think there is reasonable grounds for a conclusion that it was a typo. And we can’t let a typo impede social justice.”

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling this week seemed to bolster Gruber’s reinterpretation. While agreeing with the DC Court that “the plain language of the statute makes a clear distinction on eligibility for federal subsidies” it refused to believe that “such an ill-conceived and stupid ploy aimed at bribing states to set up exchanges should be allowed to wreak negative impacts on the beneficiaries of government’s handouts.”

Hamas Defends Investment in Tunnels

Recent criticism from Israel that the $1.25 billion Hamas has spent constructing tunnels from Gaza into Israel has cheated Palestinians out of investments in schools or hospitals was rejected by Hamas’s political leader, Khaled Meshal.

“The notion that schools or medical care should be a higher priority is a Jewish conceit,” Meshal asserted. “It presumes that Western values should supersede Islamic values. We do not contest that schools or health are important matters, but they pale in contrast to the overwhelmingly more important goal of exterminating the Jewish presence in Palestine.”

“The tunnels,” Meshal argued “are a major weapon in our fight to oust the Zionist occupiers. They give us the opportunity to covertly penetrate underneath Israel’s defenses and place our fighters in the midst of vulnerable Jewish populations where they can take a deadly toll.”

An integral component of the tunnel building effort included generous aid from the United States. “The hundreds of millions of dollars the United States has given us freed up funds for the tunnel construction,” Meshal bragged. “So while the United States is nominally pro-Israel on the surface we feel confident that President Obama’s vow to stand with the Muslims is our insurance of a favorable outcome.”

A possible clue to Meshal’s confidence was revealed by the UN Human Rights Council’s 29-1 vote to investigate Israeli war crimes. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called the vote “a democratically arrived at truth and the only plausible option for assigning responsibility for the carnage currently wracking the region. Even if the question of Hamas war crimes were to be raised, given the composition of the Council it would be easily voted down. If by some quirk it wasn’t voted down it would simply be ignored by Hamas. Rather than descend into total irrelevance the Council did this. For that I applaud them.”

President Says We’re Better off “on Practically Every Economic Measure”

In an interview on CNBC this past week President Barack Obama boasted that his programs “have made America better off on practically every economic measure.” He contended that “the seemingly negative outcomes cited by my critics stem from false consciousness.”

“From a broad perspective let’s consider the declining participation in the workforce that many in the GOP harp on,” Obama suggested. “Work, as any economist will tell you, is a disutility. People don’t work because they want to. They work because they have to. The fact that a growing number of Americans can live their lives without having to work is a positive development.”

“From a narrower perspective let’s consider the rising costs of fuel and food—two items excluded from most measures of inflation,” Obama continued. “Has anyone wondered why these items are excluded? It’s because consumption of them contributes to a worsening standard of living. Burning more fuel leads to higher levels of pollution. Rising costs for gasoline helps deter unnecessary travel and reduce pollution. This is good for everyone’s health.”

“The same goes for food,” the President added. “Look around you. It couldn’t be more obvious that too many Americans overeat. Rising costs for food can help discourage overeating. The result will be a thinner, trimmer population—which is healthier all around.”

“Confirmation that things are a lot better than some want you to think can be found in the Stock Market where share values have reached an all-time highs during my term in office,” Obama said. “The smartest and wisest when it comes to money management are giving a big ‘thumbs up’ to my policies.”

“The whining of a small minority who would place their own personal troubles ahead of these more significant collective gains shouldn’t be allowed to distort our perception,” the President concluded. “I’d really like the media to keep this in mind as they report economic news in the run up to the November elections.”

Woman in Labor Blocked by Obama Motorcade

A woman on the verge of giving birth was blocked from crossing the street to get to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center because the road was blocked in anticipation of President Obama’s motorcade passing by. The woman was told to wait on a bus stop bench while staff from the Medical Center crossed the street to her aid.

Los Angeles Police Department spokesman Hector Morales defended the seemingly unnecessary impediment to the woman’s access to health care as “routine protocol. Look, the President of the United States is the world’s most important person. Whatever he is doing must take precedence over anything being done by any person of lesser importance.”

In this particular instance it seems clear that the pregnant woman could have easily crossed the street prior to the arrival of the motorcade taking President Obama to a local fundraiser. Nonetheless, Morales was adamant that “the possible delay of the President even by a few seconds could have major detriment to this country. Suppose a potential donor to the Democratic Party gets ticked off having to wait and declines to write a check? Surely that would hurt the country more than a mother giving birth on a public bench?”

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

Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kan) continued his refusal to debate challenger Dr. Milton Wolf prior to the upcoming August 5 primary election date on the grounds that “Wolf is not qualified to hold such a high office.”

“I’ve been in this political racket for nearly 50 years,” the 78 year-old Roberts pointed out. “I didn’t just leap into the national arena as my first venture into joining the governing elite. I served on the staff of Senator Frank Carlson and Representative Keith Sebelius for over 12 years before I ran for Congress in 1980. Then I put in 16 years in the House before I ran for the Senate.”

“Dr. Wolf wasn’t even born when I began my political career,” Roberts pointed out. “He was just a fuzzy-cheeked kid when I first started bringing home the bacon for the State of Kansas. Even as an adult Wolf made no effort to work his way into government. So he has no track record by which voters can judge his suitability to participate in ruling them. If I debate him it would lend a sheen of credibility to his candidacy that would only make it easier for every upstart outsider to gain unearned attention. This would shake the foundations of the way we do business in Washington. I won’t be a party to it.”

Arizona Anti-Abortion Law Racist Says ACLU, NAACP

The ACLU has filed suit alleging that an Arizona law that bars sex-selective and race-based abortions is racist. He suit was filed on behalf of the NAACP and the National Asian-Pacific American Women’s Forum.

Alexa Kolbi-Molinas of the ACLU insisted that “this law has a racially disparate effect as its intent. African-Americans are nearly four times as likely to opt for abortion as the end point of a pregnancy compared to whites. Consequently, the Arizona law has a chilling impact on what should be a freely taken choice.”

“The barrier to sex-selective abortions introduces a culturally insensitive affront to persons of Asian descent,” Kolbi-Molinas asserted. “In these cultures a male child is valued more highly than a female child. Seeking to block women from terminating a low-valued pregnancy would, in effect, impose a costly unwanted burden in order to mandate adherence to a largely white ideal of equality between the sexes.”

Rep. Steve Montenegro (R-Litchfield Park), sponsor of the law in its course through the Arizona Legislature, maintains that the new lawsuit against the law “reconfirms the necessity for it. The desire of a mother to abort her baby because of its race or sex is barbaric. Whether this barbarism stems from cultural pressures or individual cruelty we owe it to the innocent victims to try to deter such crimes.”

Cost to House Influx of Illegals Stuns Senators

In testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson shocked senators of both parties when he disclosed that it costs between $250 and $1,000 per day per person to house the illegal immigrants that have been surging across our border with Mexico.

“There was an audible gasp, a bipartisan gasp,” Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) recounted. “I could take a luxurious Caribbean cruise every day of the year for a lower total cost. I cannot fathom why the spartan accommodations we are providing for these people should cost so much.”

Senate Budget Committee chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash) questioned the applicability of Rubio’s luxury cruise comparison. “While the amount may appear excessive to the untrained observer I’m sure there are unseen factors that we just don’t realize,” Murray presumed. “If Senator Rubio takes a cruise he makes all his own arrangements and may exert some judgment over whether the expenses are worth it. No such latitude is available for these refugees. Housing them is official government business entailing multiple layers of authority and decision making. Who are we to second guess what they do?”

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) was one of the few that weren’t shocked by the expense. “We pay upwards of $50,000 per year for each prison inmate,” he pointed out. “Let’s face it, government housing is expensive.”

Housing prisoners at $50,000 per inmate per year comes to around $140 per day—far lower than DHS’s estimate for housing the immigrants. “You’ve got to remember that the budgets for prisons aren’t arrived at in a panic situation,” Johnson said. “There’s time to reflect on what might be the most cost-effective methods. The urgency of the immigration crisis eliminates the opportunity to pursue issues of efficiency. It’s Congress’s duty to appropriate whatever amount the President has requested to handle this emergency.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi suggested that “the high cost of housing these immigrants could be averted if we make use of the vast inventory of unused housing that exists in this country. How many American families have more room than they need? Can’t some of this space be made available on an emergency basis?”

Pelosi said she was unsure of how to make unused housing available but speculated that “President Obama could issue an Executive Order compelling home owners to provide access to their excess capacity. We could look at a home’s square footage and number of rooms, compare that to census data on who currently lives there and make a determination of which homes can take in some of the refugees.”

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees concurred in Pelosi’s assessment noting that “the typical American family has far more living room than the refugees that need to be accommodated. Simple equity demands that this excess be shared among these less fortunate people.”

In related news, the New York City Council announced it is prepared to grant citizenship to up to 500,000 illegal immigrants. Mayor Bill de Blasio called the passage of this ordinance “a proud day for our City. While Congress may be too indifferent to act in this time of emergency I’m pleased to see that New Yorkers have stepped in to fill the void. And with the documents we will be giving these immigrants there will be nothing to stop them from enjoying the full fruits of living in America no matter where they choose to go.”

Bill to Curb “Operation Choke Point” Introduced

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo) is sponsoring H.R. 4986, the End Operation Choke Point Act of 2014. The bill aims to stem Department of Justice abuse of legitimate businesses.

Under Operation Choke Point the DOJ working in concert with the FTC, FDIC, OCC, CFPB, and FBI has been intimidating banks in order to deny these financial resources to targeted commercial operations. While DOJ claims it is merely combating criminal activity, legal, but pariah businesses like firearms vending, marijuana dispensaries and check cashing firms have frequently been shut off from the banking system.

The Administration opposes the bill. “Even though some businesses may technically be legal their existence still poses a threat to the community,” Attorney General Eric Holder explained. “If we can take action to cut these businesses off from being able to deposit money and write checks we may be able to achieve a goal that Congress has not shown the guts to accomplish on its own.”

“Achieving a policy that Congress has declined to enact is beyond the scope of the Attorney General’s authority,” Luetkemeyer pointed out. “The role of the DOJ is to enforce the laws that exist not concoct schemes to implement laws they think should exist.”

In related news, the DOJ has opened an investigation of Dale Remmich whose float depicting an outhouse labeled “Obama Presidential Library” in a Fourth-of-July parade in Norfolk Nebraska was deemed “unacceptably disrespectful of the President.” “Freedom of speech is not a blank check,” Holder argued. “We have to draw a line. Mr Remmich needs to answer for his insult. At the very least we can make him sweat a bit.”

White House Claims President’s Appointees “Absolutely Immune”

Despite audio evidence of prohibited political activity by Obama Administration officials, White House Counsel Neil Eggleston rejected House Oversight and Government Reform Committee requests for testimony from David Simas, director of the White House Office of Political Strategy and Outreach.

“Mr Simas and, in fact, everyone working for the President is absolutely immune from any demands Congress or the Judicial branch might seek to impose,” Eggleston contended. “To hold otherwise would undermine the President’s authority to rule this country.”

“It would also be unfair to those attempting to carry out the President’s wishes if they were to be held answerable to any other center of power within the government,” Eggleston added. “Their work is difficult enough without adding the complication of worry over whether what the President has ordered them to do may be illegal or not. Obedience should be their only concern and must grant them immunity from oversight.”

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif) characterized Eggleston’s argument as “disturbing. In effect he’s saying that none of the President’s henchmen need answer to anyone other than the President. This is not the action of a limited government as conceived by the Founding Fathers.”

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md) denounced Issa’s “persecution of the servants of the President” and maintained that “only after proof of wrongdoing should we even consider asking for testimony. The only evidence that Mr. Issa has is against former Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis. Since she is no longer with the government the whole issue is, in my opinion, moot.”

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.