By John Semmens – Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News
President Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, received a vote of support from both media star Al Sharpton and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush this week. Her confirmation has been held up by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken) in protest over Obama’s executive grant of amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.
Sharpton labeled McConnell’s actions “racist. Keeping a Black woman from rising up to take her rightful place is a continuation of the hundreds of years of oppression of African Americans in this country. They let a white woman hold this job when Bill Clinton was president. For them not to extend the same courtesy to a Black woman is just shameful.”
Bush took a more nuanced stance saying that “while I doubt that the Republican opposition to Ms. Lynch can be totally attributed to racism, it could be construed as such by the media. Rather than having this monkey on my or any Republican’s back as the GOP strives to win the 2016 presidential election, it would be much more convenient if Lynch were simply approved as AG.”
“Besides, as a matter of principle, I believe that it’s the President’s prerogative to have anyone he chooses to serve in his cabinet,” Bush added. “I certainly would expect such deference to me if I were president. If you ask me, to violate this basic courtesy on the rather flimsy grounds that President Obama may have exceeded his authority on the amnesty thing isn’t the way we should be running this country. Do we really want to set a precedent of denying a president the option of bypassing Congress when circumstances warrant it? Would we want such a rigid adherence to the Constitution if a Republican was in the Oval Office?”
To help press home their seriousness on the issue Sharpton and Bush vowed to do more than just offer words of support for Lynch. Sharpton announced a partial hunger strike and swore off sushi until Lynch is confirmed. In contrast, Bush says he “will eat nothing but Mexican food, which I will cook myself—unlike a certain other public figure who has to get hers from Chipotle. I will prove that I am the authentic Hispanic presidential candidate in the 2016 race and simultaneously express my solidarity with the plight of the immigrant.”
In related news, Lynch rebuffed the idea that the Department of Justice ought to investigate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails. “As I understand it, all of these emails were sent from or received on Secretary Clinton’s private server,” Lynch observed. “Well, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution bars government from intruding into private communications. As far as I am concerned this case is closed.”
Judge Rules Cops May Seize Your Home to Use as a Fort
When a neighbor was engaged in a domestic dispute, Henderson, Nevada police demanded that Anthony Mitchell allow them to use his home as a fort and command center in order to gain a tactical advantage in their efforts to cope with the situation. Mitchell refused, but police battered down his door, pepper sprayed him, and put him in jail for the duration.
Mitchell sued contending that this home invasion by the police violated his constitutional rights under both the Third and Fourth Amendments to the US Constitution. Federal district court Judge Andrew Gordon dismissed Mitchell’s Fourth Amendment argument, saying that “the Constitution guarantees against ‘unreasonable seizure.’ In this instance, the police had a reasonable need to occupy the home. The damages they did to Mitchell’s home could’ve been avoided if he had simply obeyed the commands he was given.”
“Mitchell should consider himself lucky he only had to spend one night in jail,” Gordon added. “He could’ve been shot. For all the police knew, the whole neighborhood could’ve been a terrorist enclave. Many Americans own guns and have excessive and erroneous notions about their so-called rights.”
Gordon was even harsher toward Mitchell’s Third Amendment argument. “The whole ‘troop quartering’ thing applied to British troops,” Gordon maintained. “Since no British troops were involved, Mitchell’s line of reasoning is totally irrelevant to this case.”
President Says ISIS Camp in Mexico Vindicates His Amnesty Policy
President Obama says that evidence that the Islamic State has opened a training camp in Mexico, just a few miles from El Paso on the Texas border, vindicates his decision to grant expedited amnesty to illegal immigrants from Latin America.
“We’ve all seen the atrocities these terrorists are capable of,” the President observed. “Who can blame Mexicans for fleeing? To deny these refugees sanctuary would be inhumane. To deport them would be cruel and unusual punishment. To delay their integration into our society merely on the grounds that Congress has failed to enact the necessary legislation would be barbaric.”
Obama ruled out the possibility of any aggressive action aimed at neutralizing the ISIS threat near El Paso, claiming “it would be an unconscionable intrusion on Mexico’s sovereignty. We have a duty to respect Mexico’s border. We can’t just brush this aside because the presence of jihadis so close to America makes us uncomfortable. If some of those living in Texas feel unsafe they are free to move elsewhere.”
Administration Remains Undaunted by Obamacare Setbacks
The Obama Administration remained undaunted by yet another court ruling against its attempts to compel religious groups to fund abortion coverage in their health insurance plans. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued an order preventing the Obama Administration from forcing religious groups in Pennsylvania to pay for abortion-causing drugs mandated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The Supreme Court had previously blocked HHS from imposing similar mandates on the Little Sisters of the Poor, Hobby Lobby, Wheaton College, and the University of Notre Dame.
That the Administration would repeatedly attempt this type of coercion caused Lori Windham, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, to wonder “how many times must the government lose in court before it gets the message?”
HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell denied that her Department’s actions were as futile as Windham implied. “Every time we order an organization to comply they must obey or take us to court,” Burwell said. “Fighting us costs them time and money. Granted, some large organizations can afford to wriggle out of the trap by such means. However, many others are too small, too poor, or too intimidated to make the effort. They obey. So, inch-by-inch we are gaining ground. Eventually, all opposition to our health care reforms will crushed.”
In related news, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (Fla) assailed Republican presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul’s (R-Ken) for supporting any limitation on a woman’s right to abort her child as an “enemy of liberty” and called his pro-life stance “savage.” “Paul would place the interests of a 7-lb. unborn baby ahead of those of a living, breathing woman,” she complained. “This is not a modern way of thinking and he’s a fool if he thinks his position gives him a better chance of being elected president. Obviously, he hasn’t done the math. The women whose liberty he wants to infringe are eligible to vote. The babies he wants to save are not. He has cooked his own goose.”
Hillary Blames Rich for Ruining America
In her bid to portray herself as the champion of the average American, millionaire presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is lambasting the wealthiest 1% for the impoverishment of the other 99%. It is, she says, “outrageous that the CEO of a major corporation makes 300 times the annual salary of its lowest paid employee.”
Clinton’s argument is ironic since her hourly rate for public speaking is 16,000 times the $15 hourly rate that she says ought to be the legal minimum wage. If CEOs are overpaid, former Secretary of State Clinton would appear to be obscenely overpaid.
According to Mrs. Clinton, though, the comparison isn’t fair because “unlike corporate CEOs I haven’t spent my career grubbing for money. I’ve been engaged in governing—the highest service one human being of superior capabilities can contribute to humanity. My $250,000 speaking fees are the deferred reward of a life of public service. I earned them. They are rightfully mine.”
“In any case, I want every voter to know that when I am president the inequities of capitalism will be rectified,” Clinton promised. “We will take things away from those who have too much. Selfish self-indulgence will be replaced by socially determined collective investment for the good of the whole. We can’t make everyone rich, but we can make everyone equal and finally realize the dream laid out in the Declaration of Independence.”
In related news, reports that the so-called typical Americans that Clinton is meeting on the campaign trail have been “pre-screened” before they are allowed to approach her were pooh-poohed by former Vermont Governor Howard Dean (D): “If her staff lets just anybody talk to her there is no guarantee that it will be a representative sample of typical Americans. People with atypical views could disrupt the process and take the campaign off message. By weeding out the unsuited this can be prevented.”
Dean also defended the confiscation of cameras and cell phones from those visiting with the candidate. “A person has the right to control the use of her image,” Dean said. “Anyone wanting a picture of Hillary can pay the standard $1,000 fee and the campaign will give him or her an autographed photo.”