Sanders Campaign Breach Called ‘Most Serious Threat Ever’

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

JohnDue to a temporary lapse of a “firewall” in the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) database, the Sanders campaign was able to access confidential information on the Clinton campaign. Discovery of the breach has led the DNC to block further access by the Sanders campaign.

While blocking Sanders’ people from accessing data on registered Democratic voters is regarded as a serious setback to the Senator’s chance of winning the Party’s presidential nomination, the Clinton campaign is not satisfied the penalty is severe enough.

Sanders’ covert spying into the strategy of Secretary Clinton’s campaign is the most serious threat ever to this country’s future,” complained campaign manager Robbie Mook. “Such flagrant dishonesty is not adequately punished by the ban on access announced by the DNC. The DNC should take a lesson from what Major League Baseball did to Pete Rose for an infraction of far lesser consequence. Senator Sanders deserves to be permanently banned from the Democratic Party’s nomination process. For God’s sake, he isn’t even a registered Democrat. He’s a Socialist. He never should’ve been allowed to run in our Party’s primary.”

Sanders’ campaign spokesman Michael Briggs characterized the Clinton campaign’s reaction as “self-serving hypocrisy. Has there ever been a candidate more dishonest than Hillary Clinton? Her lies are legendary. She has used her position in government to extract money from some of the most sordid and evil individuals and regimes on the planet. Her policy blunders as Secretary of State have gotten thousands of people killed. Please, give me a break.”

Briggs also assailed the DNC’s penalty as “excessively harsh. Look, a low-level employee took an unauthorized peek at a few files. That person has been fired. For the DNC to cut us off from voter registration data is the equivalent of handicapping a marathon runner with a blindfold. It, like the weekend debate schedule, is part of the DNC’s pattern of blatant favoritism toward Mrs. Clinton. It stinks.”

Obama Admin Defends Gitmo Releases

Reports that nearly all of the terrorists the Obama Administration has released have rejoined the jihad against the West left the Administration unfazed. In fact, that only 191 of 196 of the individuals released have joined the ranks of ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and the like was touted as “relatively successful.”

I’ve always believed that it is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man,” said Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. “If we’re keeping score here, we see that we only let 191 guilty men go free in order to free five innocent men. So, it looks like we are still far ahead of the game even if the next 300 we release immediately enlist to fight with the Islamic State in Syria.”

In line with this thinking, Carter announced a plan to release another 17 Gitmo detainees within the next 30 days, citing “their good behavior” as a rationale. “None of these men have committed acts of terror since they’ve been here,” Carter pointed out. “They’ve all put in more time as peaceable prisoners than they previously did as wanton killers. They’ve earned a second chance.”

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark) vehemently disagreed with the Administration’s action calling it “dangerously naive. First of all, Blackstone’s original quote was that it was better to let ten guilty go free than to convict one innocent person. So, Carter’s got his numbers wrong. Second, none of those in Gitmo can seriously be considered ‘innocent.’ All were captured while engaged in waging war against the United States. Third, the only reason why any of them have been ‘peaceable’ is that as prisoners they haven’t had an opportunity to shoot or bomb anyone. There is no evidence they have renounced hostility toward America or ‘unbelievers.’”

In related news, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla), chair of the Democratic National Committee suggested that the latest batch of Gitmo prisoners to be released be invited to attend President Obama’s State-of-the-Union speech in January. “By giving these long-suffering individuals a seat of honor at one of our nation’s most important political events we can help heal the wounds our persecution of them has opened,” she argued.

Bergdahl to Face Court-Martial

This week, the US Army announced that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will stand trial on charges of desertion and “misbehaving before the enemy.” Bergdahl was returned to the US in exchange for the release of five terrorists in 2014. Bergdahl spent five years with the Taliban after leaving his military post in Afghanistan in 2009.

At the time of the exchange, President Obama welcomed Bergdahl home saying that he had “served with honor and distinction.” Press Secretary Josh Earnest denied that the Army’s decision to court-martial him invalidated the President’s earlier praise of the man, saying that “in our country a person is innocent until proven guilty. A trial is merely a way of sorting out a complicated situation.”

Even if Bergdahl is found guilty that doesn’t prove his actions weren’t honorable,” Earnest continued. “He could have had honorable motives for deserting his post and going over to the Taliban. Robert E. Lee deserted his post and led the Confederate Army against US troops in the Civil War. Yet, many people contend he was an honorable man and that his service in that war was distinguished.”

Earnest also declared the “misbehaving” charge “overblown. The Army is largely comprised of young men. Young men are known to be boisterous. Hi jinks and misbehavior among such a group is not surprising. To single one out for persecution seems excessive to me.”

ACLU, NAACP Decry Court Decision on Abortion

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding an Arizona law banning abortions performed because of the sex or race of the baby was assailed by spokesmen for the law’s opponents as “a backward step toward slavery and oppression.”

NCAAP spokesperson Shakeel Infante maintained that “forcing an African-American woman to bear a baby she doesn’t want negates the promise of freedom we are striving to implement in this country. Motherhood has burdens. Forcing those burdens on an unwilling woman is slavery, pure and simple.”

ACLU spokesperson Alexa Kolbi-Molinas agreed and added that “not only does this ruling enslave Black women, it oppresses all women. A key reason for aborting a fetus based on its sex is the knowledge that females face a lifetime of discrimination in our society. A woman’s efforts to spare her child from that fate should not be callously discarded out of a perverted dedication to unrealistic ideals.”

The successful litigant—Alliance Defending Freedom—hailed the ruling. ADF legal counsel Steve Aden said he was “glad to see that even a notoriously liberal 9th circuit court recognized that killing a child because of its sex or race is an indefensible grounds for an abortion. It’s a small, but perhaps significant step toward a more humane treatment of the most vulnerable humans.”

The NAACP and ACLU have vowed to appeal the verdict to the US Supreme Court. “I can’t believe that this will stand,” Kolbi-Molinas said. “Roe v. Wade established the right of every woman to obtain an abortion at any time for any reason. That is the law of the land. The 9th Circuit was out-of-bounds in deviating from that standard.”

In related news, a federal judge in Ohio blocked the state from taking action against an abortion clinic for illegally dumping fetuses in a local landfill on the grounds that “this enforcement action is politically motivated. Other businesses are not blocked from disposing of non-hazardous waste in landfills. For Planned Parenthood to be singled out is discriminatory and illegal.”

UN Officials Aghast at Unwarranted Reaction to Muslim Violence

The UN’s Adama Dieng, special adviser on the prevention of genocide, and Jennifer Welsh, special adviser on the responsibility to protect civilians warned against the unwarranted reactions of non-Muslims to recent terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California.

Every religion has its own idiosyncratic beliefs and behaviors,” Dieng pointed out. “What may seem bizarre, incomprehensible and inexcusable to one faith may be the epitome of devout observance to another. For Muslims it is important to show ones faith by taking up arms against unbelievers. For Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or whatever, to object evinces a shameful intolerance.”

Welsh concurred and added “demanding that Muslims refrain from waging holy war on unbelievers would be like demanding that Catholics give up their wine and wafer rites or that Jews give up their matzohs. Such infringements would unjustifiably meddle in each religion’s sacred values. If we truly wish to be tolerant we must accept each religion as its practitioners see fit to exercise it. I’m not saying that non-Muslims must sit by idly while Muslims try to kill them. They can, if they choose, fight back. But they should not disrespect Muslims for merely adhering to the requirements of their faith.”

In related news, the Islamic State (IS) issued a fatwa declaring that children born with disabilities must be put to death. According to IS’s interpretation of Sharia law, “birth deformities reflect Allah’s disapproval of the child. Killing the child is the proper response to Allah’s divine message.” IS also announced it will conquer Rome, murder the Pope, and enslave Christian women.

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.


Leave a Reply