Amnesty ‘Loophole’ May Allow Illegals to Vote

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

JohnSecretaries of state from Ohio and Kansas say that the documents—driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers—being provided to the illegal immigrants granted amnesty by President Obama open a “loophole” that will make it easy for these non-citizens to vote in our elections.

Presidential Press Secretary Josh Earnest questioned the characterization of potential voting by these persons as a “loophole. I would say it would be more accurately described as a ‘feature’ of the President’s executive action regarding the ‘dreamers’ he is trying to aid.”

Earnest also took issue with the premise that the “dreamers” being granted these privileges are “non-citizens. The President’s intent is to bring these people out of the shadows and into the light by normalizing their status. An important part of the normalization process is having the right to exercise all the privileges extended to other Americans—including voting.”

Excluding these folks from voting would shut them out from enjoying the very basic human right of participating in the selection of those who rule them,” Earnest declared. “That would be tyranny. This country is indeed fortunate that a person able to break free of the prejudices and out-dated constraints that have hampered previous presidents has taken the bold step of decreeing a new reality.”

The Press Secretary expressed the hope that “these secretaries of state won’t take the same futile obstructionist road that the Alabama Supreme Court attempted to take on gay marriage. Voluntary cooperation in the issuance of key state documents like driver’s licenses and voter registration is preferred, but the President will not hesitate to enforce compliance if that cooperation is resisted or delayed.”

In related news, the Obama Administration has ordered U.S. Border Patrol agents to release illegals driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The directive signed by outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder warned agents “not to impose American standards of sobriety on persons raised in a different culture. Yankee imperialism must not spread its tentacles into places where it doesn’t belong.”

UN Official: Capitalism Must Be Destroyed for Sake of Planet

In remarks to an inner cadre of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres, maintained that “economic progress since the Industrial Revolution has gone too far. The Earth is in danger of being overrun by unconstrained prosperity.”

Capitalists like to contend that the increased life expectancies and material well-being of billions of people is some sort of proof that the system is a good thing,” Figueres said. “But they are wrong. Billions more humans living longer lives in greater luxury is a problem, not a benefit.”

There is no objective evidence proving that people living longer is better in a collective sense for all the biota of the planet,” Figueres continued. “What about all of the other animals and plants whose lives may have been made worse off by the success of this one species?”

Nether is there any objective proof that the freedom and opportunity the market system imposes on people is a source of happiness,” Figueres argued. “Freedom and opportunity force people to make choices. If these choices don’t turn out well, people may experience guilt or regret. Failures would then be largely an individual’s own fault. If we transition to a system where the important decisions are made for people by ruling authorities we will relieve them of their feelings of guilt and regret. Their suffering wouldn’t be their own fault.”

Figueres hailed the anti-global warming movement as “an ingenious innovation in social thought. World leaders and the media have done a masterful job of elevating normal climate fluctuations into a crisis justifying stern government measures to rein-in the excesses of human achievement. This will make the necessary culling of the human herd in order to save the planet an attainable goal within the next decade or two.”

Walker’s Lack of College Degree Called “Disqualifying”

Unsuccessful presidential candidate and former Governor Howard Dean (D-Vt) assailed Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker’s lack of a college degree as “disqualifying. Given the complex world we live in, America needs to be led by only the most highly educated men and women. The fate of the nation can’t be entrusted to a guy who couldn’t hack it and dropped out.”

Look, college in the 1980s, when Walker was a student, wasn’t that hard,” Dean argued. “Even the minimally competent could get a degree. A person would’ve had to be incredibly dumb or unmotivated not to have been able to finish. Why should voters want such a guy?”

As “proof of his dumbness,” Dean cited Walker’s unwillingness to comment on evolution. “Do we really want a president who dodges such an important issue?” Dean asked. Dean characterized Walker’s stance that the topic of evolution was not within the bounds of the legitimate authority of any government position, as “a smoke screen. The nation’s president is a moral as well as a political leader. The people have a right to know whether he accepts the common core of beliefs agreed upon by our best and brightest minds.”

Friends say Dean’s rancor toward Walker shows he is still bitter about 2004, “when the best educated person to ever seek the presidency was edged out of the Democratic nomination by a pompous ass who then turned around and lost to an ignorant Texas yokel—a sequence of events that forever shamed America.”

In related news, veteran Democratic strategist Pat Caddell castigated his Party as “dictator to the common man. They must be using Orwell’s Big Brother as their role model.”

Islamic State Files Slander Suit against Obama, Kerry

Incensed that the President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have damaged their reputation by falsely claiming that Islam is a religion of peace, attorneys for the Islamic State have filed a defamation of character suit in the District of Columbia Federal Court.

The unrelenting attempt to portray our righteous slaughter of unbelievers and apostates as contrary to the will of Allah and the tenets of Islam is a slander of the worst kind,” insisted attorney Muhammad Baddman. “Islam is the religion of the sword. The Quran commands the faithful to make war on all who resist the Prophet’s message. We are the true adherents of his message, not the kafirs occupying the Obama Administration.”

One of the biggest lies propagated by Kerry and Obama regards the linguistic root for the word Islam,” Baddman asserted. “They claim it comes from the word salām (peace), when in actuality it comes from words meaning submission. We follow the sharia. We pray five times daily as prescribed. We strike the necks of the infidels and unbelievers. Our right to define Islam is fully supported by our obedience to scripture.”

The suit asks that the Court order Kerry and Obama to “cease and desist their campaign to misrepresent Islam and to award monetary damages in an amount sufficient to compensate the Islamic State for expenses incurred in its efforts to correct the misrepresentation—including, but not limited to the costs of acquiring, housing, and executing hostages, as well as the costs of both subjugating unbelievers and fending off interference from US Armed Forces.”

In related news, Former Clinton Administration Secretary of State Madeleine Albright denounced Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned speech to Congress next month as “the worse invasion of US sovereignty since the British burned the White House in 1814.” Albright expressed her approval of President Obama’s efforts to deal with the threat by sending help to Netanyahu’s political opponents. “It’s a peaceful and restrained response. The President could’ve just sent a drone to take him out. That he didn’t is further validation of the Nobel Peace Prize he won in 2009.”

FEC Mulling Plan to Limit Political Blogging

Concerned that “the low cost of Internet communications could adversely impact candidates who communicate by legitimate regulated paid media,” the Federal Elections Commission is considering regulations that would place a cap on blogs and tweets that conforms with campaign finance rules.

Under the proposed scheme, the FEC would estimate the monetary value of every political comment made on these media. Once the accumulated value of comments reached the ceiling for contributions to a candidate or ballot measure, the blogger or tweeter would be ordered to stop making any additional comments prior to election day. Failure to do so would subject the offender to triple damages.

FEC Chairwoman Ann Ravel characterized the move as “one of simple fairness. The hard work of candidates like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush raising money for media buys shouldn’t be diluted by the cheap shots taken by unregulated bloggers and tweeters. We can’t let our election process devolve into some sort of free-for-all where anyone can say whatever he wants without limitation. It just wouldn’t be right.”

In related news, the United States dropped to 49th in the annual World Press Freedom Ranking just published by Reporters Without Borders. This is lower than countries like Malta, Niger, Burkino Faso, El Salvador, Tonga, Chile and Botswana, none of which are covered by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Press Secretary Josh Earnest sought to downplay the news by reminding that “at least we’re still in the top 50.”

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.

California’s Embryonic Stem Cell Research a Complete Failure

Investors Business Daily reports what we all knew 10 years ago when Californians foolishly passed an amendment for unproven, unreliable destructive embryonic stem cell research, which treats human life like a mere commodity …

A Casualty of Love: the daughter of two moms speaks out

A single Arizona judge has taken the audacious step of overthrowing Arizona’s constitutional marriagement amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman. He mistakenly and purposefully is denying children of what they need most: a mom and a dad. Read this account of what this judge, and many other judical activists around the nation, are doing by writing new, unwanted laws, from the bench.

By Meg

I was raised by my biological mother and her same-sex partner. I have only a few fuzzy memories of my father: a phone call here and there, his deep and unfamiliar voice wishing me a happy birthday, and a dim picture of the way the furniture had been arranged in his house. I have less than a handful of pictures of him. My mom and dad were married for a short time but she left him when I was too young to remember. She always knew she was gay and she wanted a chance to be happy with someone she really loved—with a woman.

I was raised in an area that was pretty liberal, open, and accepting of gays and lesbians. I know my mother experienced a lot of pain at the hands of others because of her sexuality, but as a child of same-sex parents, I was never mistreated because of it. I had two loving mothers who cared for my every need and with whom I have many wonderful and sweet memories. There was one need, however, that they could never meet no matter how much they loved me: the need for a father.

I love my mom deeply, fiercely, and unconditionally. She is an incredible woman, but I cannot pretend that her decision to leave my father and raise me with another woman did not have long-term and devastating consequences for me. I am a casualty of same-sex parenting. You see, I also love my absent father. I love a man whom I don’t even know. A man who, by all accounts, is a lousy father. I don’t know why I love him, I just do. When you are separated from a parent, for whatever reason, a wound is inflicted upon you. I ached for my father to love me. I ached for the father I knew I would never have. Losing my father was a tragedy in my life and it is a loss that I feel deeply every day. It’s a loss that can be ignored or numbed, for a short time, but never forgotten. Growing up without my dad colored everything about me. I had abandonment issues. I expected and feared that everyone close to me would leave me. Even as an adult I still grieve for what was taken from me. It wasn’t until my husband and I had children and I watched him with our kids that the full weight of what I’d lost with my own father hit me. And it hit me like a ton of bricks. Many people believe that so long as a child has two parents, gender doesn’t matter. But it does. I shouldn’t love my dad, but I do. I should love my “other mom,” but I don’t. I can’t change that, though I’ve definitely tried.

My relationship with my “other mom” was awkward. She helped raise me through my most formative years and I cannot recall life without her. I have many fond memories with her, but what I mostly remember is how awkward and uncomfortable our relationship felt. I had a mom, a dad whom I ached for, and then I had her. I hated the times she would try to parent me by offering me comfort or discipline. I accepted her only as my mom’s partner, not as a parent. Later, when she and my mom split up I felt relieved. I felt sad for my mom but I didn’t miss my “other mom” despite the fact that she raised me as her own daughter.

As a child growing up within the gay community, I was exposed to a lot of inappropriate things very early on. From the adult toys and pornographic magnets in the local gay and lesbian bookstore, to the men who parade around in S&M costumes at gay pride festivals. My interaction with and exposure to these parts of the larger gay culture and my missing father created the perfect storm that led to my early sexualization. As I got older, I used attention from boys to try to fill the wound my missing father left. I found myself in two abusive relationships in college because I was looking for the love and approval of a man but I had no idea how a good man should treat me. I accepted almost anyone who would “love” me.

Do I wish my mom lived a miserable life married to a man she didn’t love? No. I want my mom to be happy. But I also wish that she and my dad did love each other and that somehow it could have worked out. Her happiness cost me a great deal. We have to recognize that all children of same-sex parents are being raised in brokenness. Something precious and irreplaceable has been taken from us. Two loving moms, or two dads, can never replace the lost parent. In my case, and in many like mine, I was raised by same-sex parents because I was intentionally separated from my other biological parent and then told that “all that matters is love” and “love makes a family”. Love matters, but accepting and promoting same-sex parenting promotes the destruction of families, not the building of families.

Congressman Says Media Not Pushing Amnesty Hard Enough

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

JohnRep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) castigated the media for its “lackadaisical support of the President’s innovative solution to this chronic problem.”

As Gutierrez sees it, “the vilification of amnesty opponents and the glorification of illegal immigrants the media have been doing is too mild. They still go through the motions of pretending that there is another side to this issue rather than accepting that the President has laid down a new law.”

The Congressman warned that “President Obama may have to institute strict controls over what is reported if the media doesn’t fall in line. Their job is to help the President achieve the transformation of America. They do not have the option of sitting on the fence or only giving limp lip service to his agenda.”

Getting these immigrants documented, funded, and voting are crucial if we are to permanently reshape the way this country thinks and operates,” Gutierrez said. “Falling short because of a misplaced affection for an illusory even-handedness would be a tragedy. If necessary, the President should not balk at taking harsh measures to ensure the triumph of his vision.”

IRS Needs 9,000 More Employees to Enforce Obamacare Tax

President Obama’s $4 trillion budget proposal calls for a $2 billion boost in IRS spending in order to hire 9,000 new employees. The task of these new employees will be to track down persons who have failed to enroll in a health insurance plan and extract monetary penalties from them.

The era of individual choice in healthcare is drawing to a close,” IRS Commissioner John Koskinen declared. “The law requires everyone to purchase a federally approved health insurance policy. Those who think that they know what’s best for themselves are free to do what they want, but they still have to purchase insurance or pay the government if they neglect to do so.”

The fact that we have to resort to coercion is regrettable,” Koskinen lamented. “Ideally, everyone should have gotten into step with what’s good for the collective whole of society. Sadly, out-dated philosophies preaching individualism have encouraged some to resist what the government has prescribed for them. We hope that by hammering them with progressively larger financial punishments year-by-year they will be brought to heel.”

For this coercion to be most effective it must be adequately staffed and funded,” the Commissioner demanded. “There are an estimated six million Americans we must crack down on. Two billion is the absolute minimum needed if we are to successfully carry out the mission the President has assigned to us.”

Koskinen admitted that this year’s higher penalties combined with the need to reconcile heath care subsidies received under Obamacare “will be difficult and confusing to a lot of taxpayers, both insured and uninsured. Luckily, there are major tax-preparation firms ready to assist. The fees these firms will earn will boost the economy, as well as provide compensation to the owners of these firms’ for their support of the Affordable Care Act.”

In related news, the IRS has launched an outreach program to assist illegal immigrants granted amnesty by President Obama to receive tax refunds. “These people have undertaken lengthy, arduous, and dangerous journeys to reach this country,” Koskinen said. “It’s only fair that we find some way to compensate them for the time, trouble, and risks they have endured to get here.”

President Urges More Understanding for Islamic State Atrocities

With videos of beheadings, stonings, and incineration of helpless victims by the Islamic State flooding the media, President Obama took the occasion of his address to the National Prayer Breakfast this week as an opportunity to try to dampen the anger of partisans of civilized behavior.

Let’s not forget that 800 years ago Christians committed horrendous crimes against peaceful Muslims during the so-called Crusades,” Obama reminded. “Whole populations were massacred—men, women, and children—all in the name of Christ. Five hundred years ago, the Inquisition sent thousands of heretics and apostates to be burned at the stake. From a historical perspective, we can see that the followers of the cross are not blameless when it comes to cruelty and inhumanity. Rather than be so quick to point the finger of blame at Islam, perhaps we should credit them for their patience in waiting so long to try to even the score.”

The President rejected contentions that the Crusades might have been seen as a legitimate response to prior Muslim aggression against, and oppression of, Christians. “If people keep trying to reverse previous conquests there’ll be no end to bloodshed,” Obama warned. “At some point someone must put an end to the tit-for-tat. It seems to me that Christians have the best chance of doing that. It was Jesus who bade his followers to turn the other cheek. It was Mohammed who bade his followers to fight for Islam. Christians can give up the fight and still be true to their faith. Muslims do not have this option. What I am urging here today is that there is a way out of the conflict if both religions simply hew to the tenets of their faiths. If Christians would simply submit and pay the jizya there could be peace and an end to the bloodshed.”

NBC Anchor Admits to Lying about Iraq War Experience

NBC’S Brian Williams finally admitted that after 12 years of bragging about how he faced death while reporting on the Iraq War in 2003 that he had lied. Real soldiers flying in the helicopter transporting Williams to the war zone unanimously attested that, contrary to Williams’ heroic story, the aircraft was not hit and landed safely.

Williams characterized his lie as “a mistake made in good faith. It was my way of bonding with the men and women who risked their lives in the battle against Saddam Hussein. It was also an attempt to make the war seem more real to my TV audience. If someone as important as a major network figure like me could come so close to dying for the sake of reporting the news, well, wouldn’t that make the news more credible?”

The unveiling of this long-running falsehood has had mixed results among media luminaries. Former CBS anchor Dan Rather counseled that “we ought not to be too hard on Brian. His story might have been fake, but was it really so inaccurate? Thousands of helicopter sorties came under fire in Iraq. Couldn’t his fib have served the more important purpose of showing how Bush’s war could’ve cost the life of an eminent journalist?”

Williams’ contention that what he said “was no worse than President Obama’s promise that those who liked their health plans could keep them under the Affordable Care Act. He misled tens of millions of voters and was rewarded with reelection. All I did was puff up my resume a little bit in front of the camera.”

Former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw dismissed Williams’ analogy to what President Obama did as “unworthy of our profession. We can’t use the chronic dishonesty of politicians as our standard for what is allowed to come out of our mouths when we’re on the air.”

Former Pro-Life Democrat Evolves

Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) announced he was switching sides in the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. The former pro-life Democrat claimed he had an epiphany persuading him that abortion is a woman’s right and that no government had the authority to intervene for any reason.

It is the Congressman’s position that it is not for anyone else to judge whether or when an abortion should or shouldn’t be permitted,” Ryan’s chief of staff Ron Grimes maintained. “And yes, this means up until the moment of birth and for whatever reason the woman finds meaningful, including the sex of the fetus.”

Grimes rebuffed an abortion survivor’s argument against the Congressman’s new position as “irrelevant. Her existence is a fluke. She shouldn’t even be here haranguing the Congressman for exercising his judgment on this human rights issue. The Congressman finds this sort of emotional appeal outrageous and offensive. He has no time to listen to it.”

AG Nominee Calls Civil Forfeiture “Wonderful Tool”

President Obama’s nominee for Attorney General Loretta Lynch followed up her stunning defense a president’s “right to summarily execute enemies of the state” with fulsome praise for government’s controversial practice of seizing the property and money of people before they are found guilty of a crime, calling it “a wonderful tool.”

It is difficult to prove someone guilty of a crime under our laws,” Lynch pointed out. “The evidence required is substantial. The ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard is daunting. Under Civil Forfeiture, though, there is more leeway. Under this statute, the property or money is accused of illegal actions. Since property and money have no civil rights the government’s chances of success are higher. The burden of proof is on the person trying to reclaim the assets. He must prove to the court’s satisfaction that no crime was committed.”

The fact that the majority of cash circulating in America has traces of cocaine on it makes proving that this money was not obtained illegally nearly impossible,” Lynch bragged. “The best thing about Civil Forfeiture is that it gives government access to sorely needed resources without having to get an appropriation through the legislature. This increases the amount of funds available for socially beneficial uses by transferring them out of the hands of selfish individuals and into the hands of those dedicated to the collective welfare of all. It’s a win-win situation all around.”

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.

Congressional Democrats May Boycott Netanyahu Speech

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

JohnWhile a number of key Democrats were still wondering whether attending Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in February would be proper, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) was adamant that “it sends the wrong signal. Congress acting in contradiction to the wishes of the President undermines his authority. If his Congressional subordinates can defy him without consequence, what will foreign leaders think?”

A second consideration weighing on Pelosi’s mind was “the unfairness of the United States appearing to endorse Netanyahu in his upcoming March election campaign. For Congress to interfere with another country’s electoral process is just not right.”

As for interfering with another country’s elections, though, it would seem that the arrival of Obama’s former campaign aides to assist those campaigning against Netanyahu is okay. “It is the President’s duty to protect our country’s vital interests and prevent individuals who may be hostile to him from gaining or retaining political control in foreign countries,” Pelosi contended. The former House Speaker cited President Obama’s efforts to oust former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak as “an instance in which our influence was pivotal in helping the Muslim Brotherhood to bring true democracy to that nation.”

The Muslim Brotherhood has since been deposed by General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Since taking power Sisi has caused a stir by urging Muslims to turn away from violence as a means of propagating Islam. Pelosi called this turn of events “regrettable,” but insisted that “it should not be blamed on President Obama. He did the best he could, but cannot yet control everything that happens around the world.”

Ironically, news of Obama’s hostility toward Netanyahu seems to have boosted the Israeli Prime Minister in the polls. As one poll respondent put it, “Obama is an enabler of antisemitism and jihad. If he’s against Bibi, then every Jew who hopes to avoid extermination should be for him.”

University Bans Use of Sexist Salutations

Contending that “Mr., Mrs., and Ms” are hurtful and offensive to those with nontraditional gender identification, City University of New York wants its employees—professors and staff—to stop using these greetings.

Dean of Students Peter Beaver explained that “for us to assume that because a person looks male we should address him as ‘mister’ overlooks the possibility that inwardly that person may identify as female. The situation for those who look female is even more complex, as ‘miss’ and ‘missus’ inject a marital status into the equation.”

The appropriate form of salutation will be situational,” Beaver said. “If a university employee knows the person’s first or last name the employee should simply use that in addressing the person. If the individual is unknown to the employee he should use the term ‘student’ if the person being addressed is known to be a student. If that information is not known a non-sexist term like ‘hey,’ ‘hello,’ ‘you’, or ‘comrade’ should be used. Under no circumstances shall the terms ‘sir’ or ma’am’ be used.”

Biden Says Everything Ought to Be Free

In what some are saying may be a move to lock up progressive support for a possible 2016 presidential run, Vice-President Joe Biden declared that if he were running this country everything would be free.

You know how we’ve all heard that the best things in life are free, well, that clearly hasn’t been the case,” Biden observed. “Almost everything people want costs money. And a lot of people just don’t have enough money to fully partake of this nation’s abundance.”

Biden criticized past efforts to try to solve the problem by handing out government benefits to the poor. “No matter how energetic we are there’ll always be some who fall through the cracks,” Biden lamented. “Then there’s the stigma of having to flash an EBT card or cash a welfare check. We have clearly fallen short of our ideals.”

As Biden would have it, “if the government were to abolish prices, if everyone were simply enabled to take as much as they need from wherever they could find it, no one would go without anything merely because he has no money. No one would be embarrassed by coming up short.”

The Veep attributed our nation’s failure to implement an “everything is free” policy to “pure spite. The haves are content to feather their own nests and ignore their moral obligation to be their brothers’ keeper. It’s time we turned this around and held their feet to the fire. Let them work off their debt to society.”

While a snap poll showed nearly two-thirds of adults responding favorably to Biden’s rhetoric, economists questioned the feasibility of his plan. “If everything is supposed to be free why would anyone undertake the tiresome task of working for a living?” asked George Mason University Professor, Walter Williams. “If history is any guide, Biden’s idea will be a colossal failure characterized by a widespread dearth of material goods and a brutishly coercive state apparatus. The world has already been there and done that. It’s called communism.”

Biden’s lunge to the left was praised by Communist Party, USA Chairman John Bachtell. “We are pleased to see that the ideas we have been pushing so long and hard have taken such a firm hold on the Democratic Party,” Bachtell crowed. “All those right-wing intellectuals who predicted that communism would never take root in America have been decisively proven wrong. It’s just a matter of time before progressive policies are the only policies tolerated in this country thanks to the efforts of men like Biden and Obama.”

Castro Makes Demands

Saying that President Obama’s apology for 50 years of aggression, discrimination, and abuse of his country by the United States government “was a good start,” current Cuban dictator Raul Castro demanded further concessions as the price for normalizing relations between Cuba and the US.

First on Castro’s list was compensation for the economic damage done to Cuba by the US trade embargo. “Prior to this embargo Cubans had the highest standard of living in Latin America,” Castro pointed out. “Now, Cubans are worse off than any country in the western hemisphere.”

Castro called upon President Obama to “use his executive powers to seize the undeserved wealth hoarded by American capitalists and use it to make reparations for the wrongs committed by his predecessors.”

A second grievance cited by Castro was the US policy of admitting Cuban refugees into the United States. “Cubans belong to Cuba,” Castro maintained. “They have obligations to the collective well-being of their countrymen. They have no right to evade these obligations. Their escape to America is selfish. The United States government has the responsibility to return these refugees and their offspring to Cuba so they may begin making amends for their sins.”

A third grievance was Castro’s objection to his country’s inclusion on a list of nations sponsoring terrorists. “We sponsor those fighting on behalf of the revolution,” Castro argued. “The enemies of the revolution are powerful. Directly confronting the armed forces of the United States would invite annihilation. This forces revolutionaries to select soft targets. They should not be labeled ‘terrorists’ for sensibly targeting unarmed civilians.”

US Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged that “the Cuban government has made a persuasive case. There is no doubt in my mind that the people of Cuba have been grievously wronged by US policy over the years. I can’t say that we can grant all the demands President Castro has made, but we do promise to look into what form of compensation we may be able to make to help indemnify them for the suffering we imposed.”

Venezuelan Army Authorized to Execute Protesters

The Venezuelan Ministry of Defense has authorized the Army to shoot any protesters that do not obey orders to disperse. Minister of Defense, General Vladimir Padrino López defended the decree as both “necessary and proper. In this time of crisis everyone should be working together in support of the government. Public complaints alleging that the government has not fulfilled its promises encourages people to oppose the government’s measures to deal with the crisis. Such disloyalty cannot be tolerated.”

There is also a pragmatic aspect to the policy. According to the General, “to the extent that shortages of food and other necessities have provoked the crisis, the physical elimination of anti-government individuals helps to close the gap between supply and demand. This will decrease the number of shares into which limited supplies must be divided and leave more for those loyal to President Maduro.”

María Esperanza Hermida, leader of some of the protests, called the authorization “a violation of both the Venezuelan Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Ministry of Defense cannot legally issue such a policy. Shooting people for publicly expressing their grievances against the government is a gross violation of civilized behavior. It is analogous to the terroristic threat to behead those who insult Islam. Imitating the policies of those barbarians is not a direction our country’s officials ought to be taking us.”

AG Nominee Makes Case for Summary Executions on President’s Order

In Senate hearings designed to vet Loretta Lynch, President Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, the question of whether it is constitutional for the government to use extrajudicial lethal force on an American citizen on American soil failed to elicit the obvious “NO” that should be expected from someone aiming to become the nation’s top law enforcer.

As Lynch sees it, “it all depends on who gives the order. If it’s someone trustworthy like President Obama, I think we give him the benefit of the doubt. We can’t allow ourselves to get tied in knots over ‘due process’ concepts originating more than 200 years ago. It is essential that our nation’s ruler have the flexibility to carry out whatever actions are needed to protect the government elected by voters.”

Lynch’s answer provoked startling divergent responses from key Republicans. Senator Ted Cruz (Texas) called her answer “absolutely disqualifying. Every attorney is an officer of the court and bound by ethics to pursue justice. Lynch seems more suited to the role of consigliere to a mob boss than chief legal adviser to a president.”

Senator Orrin Hatch (Utah), though, expressed admiration for Lynch’s “intellectual dexterity. The ability to create new legal standards on the fly is an invaluable talent. The only prudent course for us is to approve her elevation to the post, lest we ourselves be perceived as threats and get added to the President’s list of targets.”

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.