Court Strikes Down Idaho Abortion Limitation

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

JohnAn Idaho statute banning abortions after the fetus reaches 20 weeks of age was struck down by the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as “an undue burden on a parent’s ability to get an abortion.”

The assertion that 20 weeks is the age at which the fetus is capable of feeling pain cannot be permitted to outweigh the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision that a woman’s access to abortion is a fundamental right that cannot be abridged by state action,” wrote Judge Harry Pregerson for the three-judge panel hearing the case. “First of all, a fetus is not a person under our laws and deserves no more protection against pain than a hog sent to a slaughterhouse.”

Furthermore, the legislature of the State of Idaho is unfit to meddle in this issue,” Pregerson added. “Elected bodies are notoriously influenced by the ill-informed opinions of voters who elected them. Matters of such magnitude are better left to the greater wisdom of the judiciary branch where the wisest of our species is free to rule without the distraction and interference of having to stand for election.”

Ten states currently have a similar law banning abortions after 20 weeks and legislation establishing a federal law is working its way through Congress. Pregerson predicted that “all such laws would ultimately be struck down as unconstitutional. No mere statute, either state or federal can overturn a court ruling. It would take an amendment to the US Constitution to invalidate the rights given to women by Court in the Roe v. Wade decision.”

In related news, The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that New York’s Department of Motor Vehicles acted within its discretion to reject an option for vehicle owners to have “choose life” appear on vanity plates. DMV Commissioner Barbara Fiala explained that “it is a question of public safety. New York is a majority pro-choice state. Allowing a minority to promulgate its message on a moving vehicle is a ‘stick in the eye’ that has the potential to inflame passions and possibly provoke unsafe driving.”

IRS Defiant on Data Breach

This week’s revelation that hackers stole the identities of 100,000 taxpayers from the IRS was characterized as “small potatoes” by Commissioner John Koskinen. “There are over 120 million individuals who pay federal income taxes. The 100,000 who will be victimized by this data breach represent less than one-tenth of one-percent of the total.”

Koskinen went on to boast that “we stop nearly 50% of the breaches we know about before any individual’s information can be used to defraud the government”–an effectiveness ratio that he contended “far outshines your typical performance for any other federal agency.”

The Commissioner lamented that “while the Russian hackers responsible for this latest incursion into federal databases may be beyond our jurisdiction, the individuals who leaked word of the breach to the media will be tracked down and punished. The damage done to the people’s confidence in their government from this leak far outweighs the trivial amounts that any individuals may have lost from their refunds being stolen. The vast majority of those taxpayers eligible for refunds are low-income wage earners. Our nation can easily absorb the losses inflicted on them by Russian gangsters.”

More than 20% of Americans Receive Welfare

According to the latest Census Bureau data, 21.3% of those living in America are receiving welfare benefits. This includes more than 41% of Blacks, more than 36% of Hispanics, more than 17% of Asians and more than 13% of whites.

Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell called it “a good start on the President’s transformative agenda. Ideally, all output would be put into a common pot and doled out to individuals and families based on need. The notion that a person should be self-supporting is archaic. In another generation it will be completely replaced by an appreciation for the collective good of the whole.”

Burwell expressed faith that “robots will eventually do all the menial work that has enslaved humankind for thousands of years. The non-menial work will be performed by a dedicated minority that has placed selfishness aside in order to work for the benefit of those less able. Need will supplant greed as the primary principle by which the Earth’s bounty is distributed among the people. All will live as one big family with the President serving as the virtual ‘parent’ to each and everyone of us—allotting each an allowance appropriate to his needs, meting out extra rewards for good behavior, and punishments for willful disobedience.”

In related news, socialist candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination Sen. Bernie Sanders called for the government “to seize the resources wasted on manufacturing 23 different kinds of deodorant and 18 brands of sneakers and divert them to the production of food for starving children. The American consumer’s addiction to free choice must not be permitted to divert us from this greater purpose.”

Sanders also came out in favor of a flat tax of 90% on all income saying that “the average person has far more than he needs. Most private spending is frittered away on non-essentials like fancy cell phones, private automobiles, and entertainment. Shifting this spending over to the government will ensure a more useful deployment of society’s resources.” As for low wage earners hit with the 90% tax, the Senator said he was “confident that a package of carefully selected social welfare benefits would offset most of the pain.”

Documents Reveal State Dept Aided Rise of ISIS

The latest batch of declassified emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private server indicate that weapons used by ISIS to conquer half of Syria and Iraq were covertly supplied by the US. It appears that Ambassador Christopher Stevens was intimately involved in smuggling armaments from captured Libyan stockpiles to anti-Assad forces in Syria.

Current Secretary of State John Kerry defended the arms transfers as “based on the best intelligence we had at the time. We knew Assad was a brutal dictator who needed to be deposed. We thought relying on anti-government elements in Syria could do the job without having to risk direct US intervention. Who could’ve known that these anti-Assad rebels would turn into ISIL and misuse the weapons we gave them?”

In support of his argument, Kerry pointed out that “Sen. McCain (R-Ariz) had met with these anti-Assad rebels and pronounced them trustworthy. McCain, like me, served in Vietnam. He was even tortured by the North Vietnamese. So, I think Secretary Clinton may have given a lot of weight to his pronouncement. It only looks stupid in hindsight.”

The Secretary said “the really baffling part of all this is why Ambassador Stevens was murdered by jihadis. He was trying to help them get weapons. Killing him made no sense. I don’t think we’ll ever figure that out.”

In related news, key Senate Democrats urged President Obama to take executive action to admit more Syrian refugees into the United States. “Since it seems that our poorly conceived attempt to arm anti-Assad forces has turned their country into a total war zone, it is morally incumbent upon us to admit 65,000 displaced Syrians into our country,” wrote Senate Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill).

Durbin discounted the risk that terrorists might hide among the refugees saying that “it’s more logical that jihadis will want to stay in the Islamic State than come here. Even if terrorists do come here, though, the damage they might do is likely to be small. We are a big country with over 300 million inhabitants. The few that might be killed by a lone wolf bombing or shooting attack would be only a pin-prick. More Americans are apt to be victims of global climate change than jihadi terrorists.”

Ferguson Rioters Demand Backpay

Hundreds of individuals who came from across the country to participate in the riots in Ferguson, Missouri after a police officer shot cigar thief Michael Brown during a physical altercation, are complaining that they are owed backpay by Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE).

We were promised $5,000 a person per month for keeping that town in the news,” complained Ward Burns, one of 500 protesters bussed in from Boston, Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Nashville, Portland, Tucson, Washington, D.C., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and other cities. “We need to get paid.”

MORE is funded by left-wing billionaire George Soros, who reportedly spent $33 million in the last year to support groups agitating in the streets of Ferguson. “I don’t know why these people haven’t been paid,” Soros said. “I certainly provided enough cash to cover the $2.5 million monthly salaries of the protesters. Maybe the MORE bank account was inadvertently looted during the confusion.”

In related news, violence in Baltimore has soared since street riots in protest of the death of Freddie Gray while in the custody of City Police were initiated a few weeks ago. Some are blaming Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake’s order that police “give protesters space to destroy property.” Others blame police reluctance to venture onto the streets after six of their colleagues were indicted for Gray’s death. The Mayor, though, taking a cue from President Obama, is blaming slavery. “If white slave traders hadn’t brought all those Africans here more than two hundred years ago there wouldn’t be all this trouble now,” she reasoned.

A Satirical Look at Recent News

John Semmens is a retired economist who has written a weekly political satire for The Arizona Conservative since 2005. He says working on his satires is one of the ways he tries to honor the liberties our Founding Fathers tried to protect. 

Please do us a favor. If you uses material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit and DO NOT change the context. Thank you.

 

McCain Angers ACU with False Claims about Conservatism

By Michelle Moons, Breitbart.com

Senator John McCain (R-AZ)’s campaign team is getting called out by the very organization whose rating it cited on Twitter.  Team McCain advertised his 91 percent rating in 2014 from conservative group ACU as the Washington insider heads into a tough 2016 campaign season.  What it doesn’t mention is his abysmal 2013 rating of 52 percent or his history of higher ratings going into re-election fights.

The American Conservative Union (ACU), host of the hugely popular Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), rates Congressional officeholders year over year.

McCain’s lifetime ACU based on 32 years in office is 82.13 percent.  Looking back over the past decade, the numbers vary widely, and spiked during his 2010 primary challenge.

2006:   65 percent

2007:   80 percent

2008:   63 percent

2009:   96 percent

2010:   100 Percent (as he faced primary challenger J.D. Hayworth)

2011:   80 percent

2012:   92 percent

2013:   52 percent

2014:   91 percent

McCain certainly seems concerned.  He’s taken to Twitter to boost his image:

The ACU replied to McCain’s tweet with the following:

Arizonans have wearied of McCain.  What many Arizonans remember is the promise he made in his infamous “build the danged fence” border security campaign ad.

Republicans in his own state officially censured him in 2014, the year he claims a lofty conservative rating.  Since the censure reports have surfaced that McCain and his allies have launched a political cleansing of their Arizona leadership, ousting one conservative Republican after another.  Politico reported that after the censure, McCain’s team sought to, “unseat conservative activists who hold obscure, but influential, local party offices.”

Just before announcing his re-election effort, worried emails began pouring from the McCain camp.  “I’m going to be the target of a wide array of powerful groups,” he said in a plea for his own re-election.  That letter was quickly followed with a worried message from his wife, emphasizing fear-invoking dangers in the world and a plea to keep her husband in office.

Arizona State Senator Kelli Ward opened an exploratory committee in March that will help her determine whether she has the political and financial path available to challenge McCain in what she has called a battle on the scale of David vs. Goliath.

U.S. Representative Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) has been quiet about whether he intends to challenge McCain, but that remains a possibility.  Salmon told the Hill he has yet to announce whether he’s in or out or will even run for re-election to his seat in the House. GOP party leaders have indicated Salmon could delay his decision until the fall.

Center for Arizona Policy: A Good and Balanced Law

By Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy

Many of you likely watched the scene unfold in Indiana last month where supporters of religious freedom sought to pass a fairly simple law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

The scene was eerily similar to what played out here in Arizona with the CAP-supported SB 1062. Ignoring the facts, opponents of religious freedom falsely claimed that the bill would allow individuals to have a license to do pretty much anything, all in the name of their free exercise of religion. Or in other words, they wrongly tried to say religious freedom would become the equivalent of Monopoly’s “Get Out of Jail Free Card.”

Yet what was lost in the debate, both here in Arizona and in Indiana is the reality of how these laws actually operate in a court-setting and in real life. They don’t provide a license to do whatever illegal activity somebody wants to do. Rather, they provide the court with a well-established and longstanding legal balancing test for analyzing competing interests.

To provide some background, Arizona has had a state-version of RFRA since 1999, and a nearly identical federal law has been in place since 1993. More than 20 states also have state RFRAs.

In a nutshell, RFRA ensures the government cannot force someone to violate their religious convictions unless the government meets a strict legal test. For the strict legal test, the government must show it has a really good reason for the law and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that objective. If the government does that, then the RFRA defense fails and the government law or action stands.

Although Indiana’s original version of RFRA was heavily amended after big business bullied the governor and legislature, the remaining law is still set to take effect on July 1, 2015.

This brings us to a recent story out of Indiana and a perfect example of how RFRA works. Calling his newly formed church the First Church of Cannabis, founder Bill Levin plans to break the law and openly smoke marijuana. If he is cited or arrested, he says he will claim Indiana’s RFRA for protection.

Unfortunately for Mr. Levin, this same ploy was attempted in Arizona already, and Arizona’s RFRA operated just like it’s supposed to.

In 2005, Danny Hardesty was arrested for possession of marijuana, and in court he claimed that the use of marijuana was a sacrament of his church, the Church of Cognizance. This case reached the Arizona Supreme Court in 2009, and in a unanimous ruling the Court ruled against Hardesty.

Even assuming Hardesty had a truly sincere religious belief to smoke marijuana, the Court found that the government has a good reason to prohibit marijuana use (the fact that it poses a real threat to individual health and social welfare, in addition to the public safety concern posed by unlimited use, particularly by those driving motor vehicles), and that “no less restrictive alternative [ ] would serve the State’s compelling public safety interests and still excuse the conduct for which Hardesty was tried and convicted.”

So there you go, RFRA is not a “Get Out of Jail Free Card,” and it does not provide a license to do whatever illegal activity someone wants. Rather, it is a time-tested and just law that allows for courts to acknowledge when the government overreaches and burdens someone’s free exercise of religion, and to balance that against the reasons for the government action.

Please watch for the launch of the 3rd edition of The Policy Pages later this fall, which will include a brief devoted solely to explaining how laws like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act work.

The Pillars of Modern American Conservatism

By Alfred Regnery
First Things

Over the past half century, conservatism has become the dominant political philosophy in the United States. Newspaper and television political news stories more often than not will mention the word conservative. Almost every Republican running for office—whether for school board or U.S. senator—will try to establish his place on the political spectrum based on how conservative he is. Even Democrats sometimes distinguish among members of their own party in terms of conservatism.

Although conservatism as we know it today is a relatively new movement—it emerged after World War II and only became a political force in the 1960s—it is based on ideas that are as old as Western civilization itself. The intellectual foundations on which this movement has been built stretch back to antiquity, were further developed during the Middle Ages and in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century England, and were ultimately formulated into a coherent political philosophy at the time of the founding of the United States. In a real sense, conservatism is Western civilization.

The basic foundations of American conservatism can be boiled down to four fundamental concepts. We might call them the four pillars of modern conservatism:

The first pillar of conservatism is liberty, or freedom. Conservatives believe that individuals possess the right to life, liberty, and property, and freedom from the restrictions of arbitrary force. They exercise these rights through the use of their natural free will. That means the ability to follow your own dreams, to do what you want to (so long as you don’t harm others) and reap the rewards (or face the penalties). Above all, it means freedom from oppression by government—and the protection of government against oppression. It means political liberty, the freedom to speak your mind on matters of public policy. It means religious liberty—to worship as you please, or not to worship at all. It also means economic liberty, the freedom to own property and to allocate your own resources in a free market.

Conservatism is based on the idea that the pursuit of virtue is the purpose of our existence and that liberty is an essential component of the pursuit of virtue. Adherence to virtue is also a necessary condition of the pursuit of freedom. In other words, freedom must be pursued for the common good, and when it is abused for the benefit of one group at the expense of others, such abuse must be checked. Still, confronted with a choice of more security or more liberty, conservatives will usually opt for more liberty.

The second pillar of conservative philosophy is tradition and order. Conservatism is also about conserving the values that have been established over centuries and that have led to an orderly society. Conservatives believe in human nature; they believe in the ability of man to build a society that respects rights and that has the capacity to repel the forces of evil. Order means a systematic and harmonious arrangement, both within one’s own character and within the commonwealth. It signifies the performance of certain duties and the enjoyment of certain rights within a community.

Order is perhaps more easily understood by looking at its opposite: disorder. A disordered existence is a confused and miserable existence. If a society falls into general disorder, many of its members will cease to exist at all. And if the members of a society are disordered in spirit, the outward order of society cannot long endure. Disorder describes well everything that conservatism is not.

The third pillar is the rule of law. Conservatism is based on the belief that it is crucial to have a legal system that is predictable, that allows people to know what the rules are and enforce those rules equally for all. This means that both governors and the governed are subject to the law. The rule of law promotes prosperity and protects liberty. Put simply, a government of laws and not of men is the only way to secure justice.

The fourth pillar is belief in God. Belief in God means adherence to the broad concepts of religious faith—such things as justice, virtue, fairness, charity, community, and duty. These are the concepts on which conservatives base their philosophy.

Conservative belief is tethered to the idea that there is an allegiance to God that transcends politics and that sets a standard for politics. For conservatives, there must be an authority greater than man, greater than any ruler, king, or government: no state can demand our absolute obedience or attempt to control every aspect of our lives. There must be a moral order, conservatives believe, that undergirds political order. This pillar of conservatism does not mean mixing up faith and politics, and it certainly does not mean settling religious disputes politically. It also does not mean that conservatives have a monopoly on faith, or even that all conservatives are necessarily believers.

Each of the four pillars is closely related to all the others. Liberty, for example, is considered a gift of God and must be protected by the rule of law. The rule of law itself is dependent on the natural law—a transcendent law reflected in every orderly and civilized society, demarcating good and evil. Tradition and order are best reflected by our common law—a law developed over centuries by reasonable people in their everyday lives, which sets the rules for social order consistent with the past. And tradition is an important dimension of belief in God. What could demonstrate tradition and order more fully, for example, than the Old Testament and the history of the Jewish people, or the doctrines of the Christian Church?

Conservative Coalition Eliminates Huckabee, Santorum, Perry, Among Others

Editor’s Note: The following is a satire written for the purpose of providing a concrete strategy for the conservative movement to assure that the Republican Party not only does not field another lackluster, losing candidate in the 2016 presidential election, but instead nominates a highly electable candidate with the right qualifications:

October 1, 2015

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Conservative Coalition

Today the Conservative Coalition trimmed a current governor and two former governors, a former senator and a billionaire from the Republican presidential nominee sweepstakes.

Gone from contention for the GOP’s presidential nomination are ex-governors Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, former New York Cong. Peter King and Donald Trump.

A still badly overcrowded Republican field remains in contention amidst plans to steadily pare it down in the months to come.

Remaining Conservative Coalition candidates are Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Marco Rubio, Dr. Benjamin Carson, Carly Fiorina, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

Former Gov. Jeb Bush, current New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, and former New York Gov. George Pataki did not meet, nor did they express any interest in, participating in the Conservative Coalition competition.

U.S. Senator Rand Paul chose not to participate in the Conservative Coalition.

Now in its first go-round, the Conservative Coalition is an effort to narrow down the conservative field of candidates in time to ward off growing strength by a candidate who turns off the GOP’s conservative base. This is the plan to prevent another losing candidacy in the mold of weak candidates Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney, all of whom failed to ignite the party base in their losing and unimpressive campaigns.

Conservative Coalition participants agreed to the winnowing down process in the interests of allowing a competition within the greater competition to assure the emergence of one strong conservative candidate with the best chance of winning the party nomination and ultimately the presidential election.

The next elimination date is December 1, 2015, when the coalition field will be cut down to four. After that, any candidate generating single digits in a state primary agrees to drop out.

The final decision to narrow down to one conservative candidate will occur March 1, 2016. Criteria will include a weighted combination of reputable national polling results, primary victories, and fundraising.

Some 40 additional GOP candidates, largely unknown, were also eliminated in today’s Conservative Coalition announcement.

The Conservative Coalition will issue the results of the next cut-down on December 1. Please consider supporting the Conservative Coalition and participating in the strategy to select a winning, conservative candidate with the right values and plans for America.

Failure to Disclose $26 Million in Bribes an “Oversight” Says CEO

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

JohnRecent revelations that the Clinton Foundation neglected to report over $26 million in payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups was characterized as “a mere oversight” by Foundation Chief Executive Officer Donna Shalala.

The Foundation has raised more than $2 billion dollars over the years its been in existence,” Shalala pointed out. “The $26 million everyone is hyperventilating over is relative pocket change amounting to barely 1% of the total. It’s on a par with a Congressman failing to report a free vacation from a lobbyist or a waiter forgetting to report all his tip income to the IRS. It’s no big deal.”

Others aren’t so sure it isn’t a big deal. Peter Schweizer, author of the book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, wondered “why a Nigerian newspaper paid former president Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech. And if it was all legit, why was this payment among the $26 million the Foundation ‘forgot’ to report?”

As everyone knows, the Clintons were flat broke when Bill’s term as president was over,” Shalala said in response. “Why should anyone begrudge him earning a little money from sharing his wisdom on the talk circuit? Isn’t it time that the harassment and persecution of one of America’s great families come to an end?”

Bush Defends Warrantless Government Surveillance

While one GOP presidential candidate filibustered legislation extending the National Security Agency’s (NSA) authority to spy on Americans, another alleges that “there’s not a shred of evidence that this surveillance has violated anyone’s civil liberties.”

GOP presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken) spoke for 10 hours on the floor of the Senate contending that NSA’s warrantless violations of privacy are unconstitutional. “The Fourth Amendment was intended to protect us from unreasonable searches,” Rand argued. “It calls for government to obtain a warrant from a judge based on ‘probable cause.’ The gathering of massive amounts of private information without such warrants flies in the teeth of the Amendment’s prohibition. We should be abolishing this intrusion, not extending it.”

Prospective rival for the Republican nomination, former Florida Governor JEB Bush disagreed, calling the NSA “a virtual guardian angel watching over and protecting us. I just can’t buy the argument that we have anything to fear from our own government. They’re on our side. We need to give them all the power and tools they say they need to keep us safe.”

Bush said that “the fact that the only people killed so far based on information gathered by the NSA are enemies of our government ought to reassure everyone that as long as they behave themselves they have nothing to fear. So the government knows who you phone, email and tweet. So what, as long as you’re not doing anything wrong why should you care? I don’t find the so-called scare phrase ‘Big Brother is watching you’ particularly frightening. The whole idea behind the NSA originated with my big brother and he’s a swell guy. We should be glad that he helped develop a program to watch over us.”

Hillary Defends Benghazi Lies

Evidence that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was informed that the assault on the Benghazi Consulate and murder of Ambassador Stevens was a planned terrorist attack before she went public with the misleading cover story of a video protest gone bad failed to dislodge her from defending it.

Sure, we knew within hours of the Ambassador’s death that the attack had been planned at least 10 days in advance, but for us to have publicly acknowledged this would have put the country into even greater danger,” Clinton maintained. “Remember, this attack occurred just two months ahead of a presidential election. Our first priority was to counteract the domestic insurgency being led by Mitt Romney. Staving off this attempt to overthrow our government was more important than adhering to some quaint notions of honesty.”

Clinton characterized the bogus video-inspired-uprising story as akin to President Roosevelt’s feigning surprise at Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. “Imagine the damage that would have been done to his government if he hadn’t seized control of the narrative,” she hypothesized. “By diverting attention away from our lack of preparedness and onto Japan’s treachery he was able to rally the American people and save his government. Why shouldn’t we have emulated a man most historians agree was one of our greatest presidents?”

In related news, Clinton’s presidential campaign manager disputed press claims that her motorcade reached speeds in excess of 95 mph on the way to a fund raiser in Iowa. “While the media vehicles following the motorcade may have sped, we did not,” Robbie Mook asserted, attributing the quick transit time to “our use of new technology allowing us to travel using a ‘worm hole’ through hyperspace. The confusion afflicting those still confined to normal three-dimensional space is understandable.”

Candidate Says “Everything Will Be Free When I’m President”

Self-described socialist and candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders promised voters that “everything will be free when I’m president.”

In a country as rich as ours it is shameful that mere lack of money should block anyone from having all the good things of life,” Sanders said. “No one should be stigmatized by having to grovel to qualify for food stamps or be denied entry into college because they can’t afford it or don’t have good high school grades. Anyone who wants to eat should simply be permitted to take food from a grocery store or restaurant. Anyone who wants to go to college should be allowed in, no questions asked.”

Payment for all these freebies will come from a confiscatory tax on excess assets and income. “Only pure arrogance drives the notion that people who are smarter and harder-working should get more than those less well-endowed by nature or nurture,” the Senator contended. “Just because you are lucky enough to inherit intelligence or learn to be enterprising from the good example of your parents doesn’t mean you earned it. A person born to stupid and shiftless parents isn’t at fault for his lack of effort. Why then should his rewards be contingent on the exertions he doesn’t make?”

Every human being is entitled to an equal share of the Earth’s bounty,” Sanders declared. “Ensuring an equitable distribution is government’s responsibility. Voters can count on me to fulfill this responsibility.”

Pay Hike Needed to Boost Congress’ Morale

Several Democrats, including Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md), made the case for higher compensation this week citing “the low morale among those of us in the legislature who can only salivate at the sums being hauled in by ex-presidents and others for trifling amounts of work. As members of a body of 435 we won’t have the same name recognition. We won’t be invited to pontificate on sundry topics for piles of cash.”

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla) seconded Hoyer’s remarks saying “we need to get a bigger piece of the pie now! We pass laws doling out billions to important constituencies, yet we get dinged for accepting gratuities in exchange. It’s just not fair.”

Hastings went on to complain that “the $174,000 annual salary is barely four times the median household income in this country. It’s humiliating for members of the ruling class to have to scrape by on such a pittance. Plus, if our salaries were higher those hoping to influence policy would be encouraged to up the amounts they pay for our efforts to deliver the goods.”

Hoyer also warned of “a possible exodus of the best and brightest from public service if we don’t take action to increase the rewards. The loss of human capital from the departure of legislators who have served for decades would be catastrophic. Congress would likely degenerate into a body staffed by short-term citizen-legislators instead of long-term professionals who dedicate their lives to wielding power for the common good.”

Kerry Calls for Stricter Government Regulation of Internet

In a speech in South Korea US Secretary of State John Kerry called for government to play a bigger role in what goes on the Internet. Kerry advised that “we take a lesson from what’s going on in North Korea. Sure, there are a lot of things wrong with the way Kim is governing his country, but that doesn’t mean everything he’s doing is a mistake.”

A key positive in Kim’s policies is the government’s larger role in filtering what the citizens of North Korea can see and hear from the Internet,” the Secretary maintained. “Antisocial content that could undermine his people’s contentment is severely dealt with. Positive messages aimed at raising the people’s sense of well-being are encouraged. This helps boost the people’s faith in their government.”

There’s some good lessons we in the West can learn from Kim’s model,” Kerry argued. “Granted, we wouldn’t want to resort to executing every dissident, but there are less bloodthirsty methods of enforcing compliance with the values and practices that will help stamp out the evils of racism, hate speech, and sedition that infest the unregulated Internet that currently prevails in the United States.”

Kerry concluded his remarks with “a wish that the independent Federal Communication Commission will not let President Obama down by allowing an unwarranted respect for freedom of speech to cloud their judgment.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

John Semmens is a retired economist who has written a weekly political satire for The Arizona Conservative since 2005. He says working on his satires is one of the ways he tries to honor the liberties our Founding Fathers tried to protect. 

Please do us a favor. If you uses material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit and DO NOT change the context. Thank you

Homosexual Group Wants to Deny Children Their Mother or Their Father

Equality Arizona is beginning a new effort called Project Jigsaw: Connecting Every Child with a Loving Family. The purpose is to “create an environment where all couples, regardless of sexual orientation or gender, have the opportunity to provide a stable, loving home for a child.” Through adoption.

Those are the talking points.

Here is the truth. There is a lot more to it than Equality Arizona is saying. It’s the quality of the home environment that counts the most. It means everything to children in their formative years.

Adopting children into the homes of either two men or two women is not in childrens’ best interests. Sure, we understand some same-sex couples want to raise children, but let’s ask the children who have already been through this experience.

They are telling us it was not a good way to grow up. Far from it. Katy Faust says so. Dawn Stefanowicz says so. Meg says so. Heather Barwick says so.

Read what Dawn said:

My biggest concern is that children are not being discussed in this same-sex marriage debate. Yet, won’t the next step for some gay activists be to ask for legal adoption of children if same-sex marriage is legalized? I have considered some of the potential physical and psychological health risks for children raised in this situation. I was at high risk of exposure to contagious STDs due to sexual molestation, my father’s high-risk sexual behaviors, and multiple partners. Even when my father was in what looked like monogamous relationships, he continued cruising for anonymous sex.

Governor Doug Ducey also made some noise recently about just putting children in any loving home. He and others are making a big mistake if they don’t take a deep look at the history, the social science and the personal testimonies on this.

The average homosexual relationship lasts 18 months — hardly a “loving home” or conducive to the stability young boys and girls need.

We have more than enough fatherless children in America. Our prisons bear the result of that. No two women can offset the absence of dad. No two men can offset the absence of a nurturing mom. The kids are not all right.

And we just saw another example of domestic violence with two female pro basketball players who beat the snot out of each other and then quickly got married to try to assuage law enforcement.

Homosexuals also engage in far more risky behaviors than married male-female couples. Like drug abuse. And alcohol abuse. AIDS, of course, is much more prevalent among homosexuals.

A majority of male homosexuals were sexually abused as children. Many girls also struggle with same-sex attraction because of the unhealthy home environments they were raised in.

So now you want to take people with deep-seeded personal issues and mollify them with all kinds of rights and complicate their problems by giving them custody of children?

It makes no common sense. Arizona, Governor Ducey, CPS, adoption agencies, do not repeat the mistakes with young, sensitive, impressionable children. It is not like you are operating in the dark with no credible information to base your decisions on. We know the results in advance if you go down this road. Stop. Think about it. Forget political correctness.

One more question for the governor and any other elected official: is it worth scoring political points at the expense of children whose lives will be put at risk.

No.

Every child needs a mom AND a dad. No alternative can substitute for this fact. Children raised in the homes of married mom and dad do better in every physical, emotional, social, and educational level. Every one. This is not debatable.

Feds Warn Lenders Not to Deny Loans to Welfare Recipients

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

JohnThe Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) warned financial institutions that they could be prosecuted if they deny home loans to persons subsisting on welfare benefits.

CFPB Director Richard Cordray asserted that “placing ability to repay ahead of need is contrary to federal regulations. Just because a person cannot support himself or herself doesn’t mean he or she should be excluded from the benefits of home ownership. Every person has an inalienable right to own a home. Lenders have a moral obligation to help people achieve this right.”

For banks to argue that the risks of default and foreclosure should preclude certain persons from obtaining loans places profit over social justice,” Cordray said. “Those who attempt to implement such injustice will face consequences. Fines or even imprisonment await anyone who would defy us in this matter.”

Cordray went on to question “whether requiring loans to be repaid even makes sense. Housing costs would be lower across-the-board if the burden of repayment could be lifted from those unable to afford it. Banks have billions of dollars and could easily absorb the losses from non-performing loans. If they should become insolvent the Federal Reserve would, as it has in the past, just create more money to bail them out.”

In related news, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is considering eliminating in-person interviews for Food Stamp applicants. Secretary Tom Vilsack explained that “forcing applicants to meet face-to-face is unnecessarily humiliating for them. I mean, having to look a government official in the eye and ask for help is intimidating. It might deter some from even seeking aid and try to make it on their own. By allowing applicants to simply phone-in a request for Food Stamps we can better maximize the volume of aid we provide.”

Global Warming Activists Demand Media Stop Calling Unbelievers “Skeptics”

The Citizen Engagement Laboratory (CEL) wants news outlets to stop using the term “skeptics” for those who question the global climate change meme. Instead, those who fail to adhere to the accepted view are to be universally referred to as “deniers.”

CEL Director Ronald Deibert complained that “using the word ‘skeptic’ makes opposition to our theory of global climate change sound reasonable. It implies that their assertion that evidence is needed to prove that mankind is the source of climate change deserves a hearing. It implies that the science of global warming is not settled, that differing interpretations of the data are permissible. Is this something we should allow?”

If we can eliminate the term ‘skeptic’ and uniformly replace it with ‘denier’ we can cast these doubters into the ranks of those who don’t deserve to be heard,” Deibert declared. “’Denier’ connotes an air of unjustified disbelief. No one need pay attention to the rantings of ‘deniers’ like those who deny that the Holocaust ever took place. Why should those who deny the reality of man-made climate change be treated any better?”

Deibert says he fears that “if we allow unacceptable views to continue to pollute the debate it will be that much more difficult to gain broad public acquiescence for the sacrifices we all must make to combat the threat. The slightest smidgen of doubt could derail the taxes and regulations necessary to avert disaster.”

Dean Claims Jesus More Leftist than Democratic Party

This week, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean claimed that “Jesus was more to the left than the Democratic Party. Look, Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple. We Democrats are content to merely tax and regulate them.”

If you listen closely to Jesus’ words about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, it seems clear that all the money properly belongs to the government,” Dean maintained. “Democrats haven’t gone that far. We still permit people to keep some of the money they earn.”

You know, Jesus didn’t work a steady job,” Dean observed. “While he was traipsing about the desert he was living off of handouts. Yet, the so-called ‘religious right’ assails those who accept handouts as a way of life today as shiftless and parasitic. Maybe it is they who are out-of-sync with Jesus’ message.”

In related news, President Obama castigated churches, saying that “those who focus more on abortion and gay marriage than eradicating poverty are out-of-step with Jesus’ teachings. Jesus urged people to give away their wealth. If Congress would adopt more progressive taxation the government could help make this happen.”

Can we be so sure Jesus would have condemned abortion or gay rights?” Obama wondered. “It seems to me that Jesus cared a lot about women. Why wouldn’t he care about their reproductive health? And didn’t Jesus spend a lot of time in the company of the apostles—all men? He never married as would have been normal for a Jew in those days. Can we be sure that Jesus himself was not gay?”

Obama Calls for Change in How the Media Reports

Citing the “especially grievous slant that FOX gives to the news,” President Obama called for “better policing of the public airways to prevent this intellectual pollution.”

When I see how FOX is constantly undermining what I am trying to do for America by pointing out every flaw and defect of my policies I feel sorry for America,” the President said. “How can our people be joyful if their TVs are parading so-called failures in front of them in their own living rooms?”

The abuse of freedom of the press and freedom of speech for the purpose of destroying faith in government is seditious,” Obama contended. “We should not sit by and let this go out of some reverence for the outmoded ideas of America’s founders. New times require new rules if we are to promote the general welfare.”

An idea that is starting to gain some traction inside the Administration is to employ the Federal Communications Commission to “fact check” all news broadcasts. “We owe it to the American people to ensure that the news they receive is accurate,” said FCC Chairman Thomas Wheeler. “No one has the right to inject inaccurate information or disloyal opinions into the nation’s communication system. The FCC has a wide range of tools it can and should use to clean up what is broadcast, transmitted, or posted to the web. My biggest regret is that we let things go too far and had to be reminded by the President to do our duty.”

Senator Says NFL Priorities “Screwed Up”

The announcement that the New England Patriots and Quarterback Tom Brady would be penalized for cheating drove Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) into a frenzy.

I find it stunning that the NFL cares more about how much air is in a football than it cares about a racist franchise name,” Reid raved. “No one need have known about the under-inflated balls. Covertly tipping the scales is simply business-as-usual. By going public with this scandal the NFL has ‘shot itself in the foot,’ and to what end?”

The much more serious offense is the refusal of the Washington team to change its name,” Reid argued. “Correct opinion concurs that the name ‘Redskins’ is an insult to Native Americans. For the team owners to persist in swimming against the tide of history in this matter can only lead to bad results.”

Potential “bad results” that Reid claims to foresee include “massive lawsuits filed by aggrieved Native Americans, government seizing the team from the owners, and street riots like we’ve seen in Baltimore.”

Bush Would Use Obama Immigration Order to Extort Legislation from Congress

Potential candidate for president and former Governor of Florida JEB Bush told FOX News’ Megyn Kelly that “unlike some other GOP presidential contenders, I would not move to immediately undo President Obama’s executive action granting special privileges to illegal immigrants. Instead, I would refuse to revoke it until Congress passed appropriate enabling legislation. In any case, the American voter can count on me to see that legalizing those in this country illegally will go forward with or without legislation.”

Bush acknowledged the shaky legality of Obama’s executive action, but averred that “doing the right thing is more important than confining policy to narrowly circumscribed authority. I could not, in good conscience, do nothing simply because there is no statutory authority for the action I deem morally necessary.”

The candidate said he hoped “my willingness to go beyond what the law allows will help set me apart from those who would allow themselves to be limited by the constraints of immoral laws. The American people need a leader who is not afraid to stake out new ground and to chart a path that others can follow. Congress will be invited to come along if they cooperate, but I will not allow them to apply the brakes to what needs to be done.”

In related news, JEB characterized his endorsement of big brother George’s Iraq War as “basic self-preservation. When we were growing up George always used to bully me if I crossed him. It didn’t matter whether he was right or wrong. If he didn’t get what he wanted he’d beat me up.”

While it would seem that the era of big brother George beating up little brother JEB must have long passed, the younger Bush alleges that “emotional scarring led to my knee-jerk statement in support of my brother’s invasion of Iraq. I’m just hoping that every little brother who votes will understand my reaction and forgive my fumbling of this issue. For the record, knowing what we know now, it’s clear that Syria is the place we should invade.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

John Semmens is a retired economist who has written a weekly political satire for The Arizona Conservative since 2005. He says working on his satires is one of the ways he tries to honor the liberties our Founding Fathers tried to protect. 

Please do us a favor. If you uses material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit and DO NOT change the context. Thank you.