By John Semmens
Obama Gives Himself an A+ for Performance
Despite characterizing himself as a “hard grader,” President Obama rated his performance for the recently concluded 2014 an “A+.” “My critics want to harp on their pet issues to claim my Administration was a failure, but let’s look at what I was able to accomplish,” he asserted.
“Republicans are slapping each other on the back for taking more seats in Congress than their Party has had since 1928, but it was my agenda that Congress enacted with the Cromnibus bill in November,” the President boasted.
“I broke new ground in how the country is governed by stepping in to enact the policies Congress refused to legislate,” Obama bragged. “For all the talk about this being outside my legitimate authority, Congress has done nothing and will do nothing to overturn what I’ve done.”
“Largely through the efforts of my Attorney General, the issue of racial justice has been brought to society’s attention,” Obama declared. “Cops shooting Black men has given rise to street action aimed at evening the score. Millions of dollars in merchandise have been liberated and redistributed, bringing us another step closer to material equality. Commercial profiteers have been chastised for exploiting minorities.”
“On the foreign policy front, I ended Bush’s war of aggression in Afghanistan and have released many innocent jihadis from imprisonment in Gitmo,” the President crowed. “Terrorist atrocities have been mostly limited to a few beheadings and massacres that have been confined to foreigners living in far away places. The world is safer than it has ever been.”
“All-in-all, it’s been a great year for me,” Obama concluded. “Historians are going to look back on 2014 as the key turning point for the transformation of this country. I’m going to be rated the best among all those who have held the office of president.”
Missing from the President’s list of triumphs was Obamacare, which the latest Jonathan Gruber tape revealed, was forecast to be unaffordable and bound to deny coverage. In the tape, Gruber says he advised the President that “mandating universal coverage for all the items on his ‘must have’ list makes the program unaffordable. However, this can be offset by denying coverage for procedures that are expensive and of low social value.”
Gruber contended that “the tradeoff of mandating government funding of abortions for every woman who wants one, while denying costly therapies for the elderly has synergistic effects. The money saved by restricting the care available to the old and decrepit can be used to finance aborting potential future criminals.”
“Culling the human herd of these low value cohorts will be a heroic achievement that should rank the Obama Administration as the greatest in American history,” Gruber concluded in his advice to the President.
Muslim Terrorism Excused
Armed Muslim terrorists slew a dozen unarmed members of the editorial staff of the satirical paper Charlie Hebdo in a raid on the paper’s Paris office this week. Though the gunman proclaimed these murders as retribution for the paper’s mockery of Islamic extremism, leading liberal luminaries have reassured everyone that the attack had nothing to do with “real” Islam.
The New York Times dismissed a female survivor’s recounting of being spared and advised to convert and obey the Quran as “unreliable testimony. Given the traumatic circumstances these witnesses couldn’t be expected to clearly remember events.” The NYT‘s editors contrasted “the hysterical recall of this woman with the calm reassurances from our last two presidents that Islam is a religion of peace.”
Jimmy Carter’s former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski blamed the victims for what he termed “their extraordinarily provocative satires. They were unnecessarily nasty and could easily goad even the most peaceful of Muslims into a murderous rage.” Brzezinski also warned against anyone using the phrase “jihadist terrorist” as these words “could incite even more violence from normally peaceful Muslims.”
Meanwhile, President Obama dispatched Attorney General Eric Holder to France as “an emergency measure to head off an anticipated Islamophobic response. We cannot allow our emotions to get the better of us in this time of tragedy. Sad as what happened in Paris might be, we must keep things in perspective. Ten times as many Muslims lost their lives in a stampede in Mecca. We shouldn’t forget their suffering by a single minded focus on the lesser loss at Charlie Hebdo.” The stampede to which Obama was referring occurred at the annual ritualistic stoning of the devil in Mecca, where 244 Muslims were trampled to death and hundreds more were hurt.
Shortly after conferring with Holder, French President Francois Hollande tried to ease public fears by affirming that the killings “had nothing to do with the Muslim religion. For us to insinuate that Islam played any role would only invite further acts of violence. It will be safer to think of this as a random act.”
In a bid to insulate itself from potential reprisals, the newspaper USA Today published a screed by Imam Anjem Choudary justifying the massacre. “Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone,” he wrote. “The authors of these insults cannot say they haven’t been warned. They cannot hope that a misguided faith in freedom of speech will protect them from righteous punishment. Muslims do not believe in freedom of expression. True believers are obligated to silence all blasphemy. If anyone is to be blamed it is the French Government for not shutting down Charlie Hebdo. This left Muslims with no other option than to mete out justice by their own hands.”
The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson praised France’s strict gun control laws for moderating the carnage: “The fact that the victims were unarmed prevented a shoot out that could’ve claimed even more lives. As it was, the gunmen were able to calmly execute the offending editors and cartoonists without any collateral damage.”
In related news, Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi called upon Muslim leaders “to turn away from interpretations of the Quran that justify violence as a means of propagating our beliefs. Embracing violence inspires acts of unspeakable brutality and puts us at odds with civilized behavior. If we are to win others over to our faith it must be by setting an example of humane treatment of one another regardless of religious differences.” ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi called Sisi’s view “misbegotten blasphemy” and alleged that “it is now every Muslim’s solemn obligation to slay this heretic.”
Hebdo Attackers “Smeared” by Child Porn Revelations
Radical imam Anjem Choudary characterized investigators’ disclosure that Cherif Kouachi and Amedy Coulibaly—murderers of the Hebdo cartoonists—were frequent visitors to websites featuring child pornography as “a smear of their reputations.”
French detectives found five child porn photos on Coulibaly’s laptop and 37 on Kouachi’s PC. Kouachi’s “favorites” folder included lurid pictures of young boys and girls involved in sexual acts with adults.
“Just because Western culture declares relationships between adult men and pre-teens to be illicit doesn’t make it so,” Choudary complained. “The Prophet’s (may peace be upon him) favorite wife married him when she was only six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine. To hold that young Muslim men seeking to emulate the perfect man are deviant is an insult.”
In related news, celebrations hailing the Hebdo gunmen as “heroes” have taken place in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey and the Islamic State. Pir Muhammad Chishti, a Muslim cleric in Pakistan, insisted that “they weren’t terrorists—they did this for all Muslims, killing the criminals responsible for insulting the Messenger of Allah.”
President Issues Statement Commemorating 42nd Anniversary of Roe vs Wade
President Obama hailed the 42nd anniversary of 1973’s Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion at any time for any reason throughout a woman’s pregnancy.
“Since 1973 over 50 million unwanted births have been prevented,” Obama pointed out. “That’s 50 million mothers spared the toils and troubles of rearing children they did not want. That’s 50 million individuals spared the indignity of being an unwanted child.”
The President also took this anniversary as an opportunity to call for “continued vigilance against those who would have us backtrack on this vital human right.” Two instances of “backtracking” as the President sees it are HR36 (the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act) and HR7 (No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act).
As Obama sees it “the evil of HR36 is that it would elevate an undue concern for the momentary pain suffered by a late term aborted fetus to a level that could neutralize the right given to all women by the 1973 Supreme Court decision.”
“The equally pernicious HR7 would relieve taxpayers from bearing their fair share of the burden of financing abortions,” the President added. “Once a right has been decreed it is everyone’s responsibility to support its full implementation. No woman should have to pay an out-of-pocket expense in order to exercise her right to an abortion. No person should be allowed to cite discredited moral objections in an effort to avoid paying for it.”
In related news, Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis) have introduced a bill aimed at “preventing states from getting out of step with national policy on abortion.” “Abortion is too crucial an issue for us to allow individual states to deviate from the path set by our President,” Blumenthal argued. “If the Supreme Court has ruled that any woman is entitled to an abortion for any reason how can we sit back and allow states to chip away at that right? Contentions that restrictions are intended to spare the fetus pain have no standing. The Court didn’t provide for an exception in the case of pain to the fetus. We must not allow states to try to sneak restrictions on abortion into their laws via an illegitimate concern for fetuses’ so-called rights.”
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.”
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.”
Amnesty “Loophole” May Allow Illegals to Vote
Secretaries 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.”
Beheadings in Libya Said to Vindicate Obama’s Warning
The Islamic State’s claim that the beheading of 21 Egyptian Christians was justified as vengeance for the Crusades was cited by US Presidential Press Secretary Josh Earnest “as a total vindication of the President’s speech at the National Prayer Breakfast two weeks ago.”
“That a cycle of violence initiated by Christians centuries ago would come back to haunt practitioners of that faith today should not have been unexpected,” Earnest maintained. “The Crusaders killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims. The ISIL reprisals in Libya were modest and restrained in comparison. Once again, the President’s wisdom and insight have clarified what others have either failed to see or have attempted to distort.”
Earnest also chided those who have lampooned deputy spokesperson for the US Department of State, Marie Harf’s suggestion that the long run remedy for dealing with Islamic terrorism is to give them jobs. “Even if we ignore the possibility that a job might remove the incentive for violence, it should be obvious that the hours a person is working for a wage are hours that are unavailable for engaging in jihad,” Earnest argued.
Whether the Obama Administration’s plan to offer would-be jihadis jobs has any chance of success was thrown into doubt by reports from Uruguay that Gitmo detainees released to that country are refusing to accept employment. Abu Wa’el, one of the former detainees, went on TV to reject the idea that he and his comrades should join the workforce. “We are fighters for Allah,” he boasted. “We cannot waste our time laboring like kafirs. In a just world they would be serving us as our price for letting them live.”
Wa’el demands that “the Uruguayan government should bear the cost of our upkeep so that we can remain free to work toward the ultimate victory of Islam.” President of Uruguay Pepe Mujica is said to be ruing what he thought would be a humanitarian gesture of gaining these men their release from an American prison. “Their evil intent is moderated only by their sloth,” Mujica lamented. “I now fear we will never dislodge this wretched refuse from our shores.”
In related news, CNN host Carol Costello asserted that “right wing extremists are more dangerous than ISIS. As bad as ISIS might be perceived, there is no risk that they will topple our government. Despite their rhetoric, even they must understand that anyone who would succeed President Obama would be much less sympathetic to their cause. Right wingers, on the other hand, wouldn’t think twice about bringing down the Obama Administration. Clearly, they are the greater threat to our government.”
President Takes Defiant Stand on Amnesty
President Obama announced that “we have expanded my authorities,” and bragged that “my enemies are powerless to stop me from going forward with what is right for America.”
One of the “enemies” the President cited with scorn “is that Texas judge who thinks a court order can prevail against me. If President Jackson could defy the Supreme Court why should I have to heed a mere district judge? I am Commander-in-Chief of the world’s most powerful army. The nation’s largest police force—the FBI—works for me. What resources does Judge Hanen control?”
Obama warned that “those who contradict my directives must know that they will face consequences for their disobedience. The excuse that my directives do not comply with existing statutes will not get anyone off the hook. Those who work for the federal government put their jobs at risk. Those who don’t can still be harassed by the swarms of officers I can send to eat out their substance.”
The President also dared Congress to “pass a law aimed at reining in my expanded authorities and I will veto it. My veto will not be overridden because a sufficient number of congressmen agree with the revisions I am making to existing laws. We are in concert that adherence to out-dated processes should not stand in the way of doing what is morally right. History will show that the bold leadership of one man is a simpler and more efficient way to run the country.”
In related news, the Administration cited the President’s newly expanded authorities in the disbursement of $3 billion to health insurers to help cover losses under the Obamacare program. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew explained that “an adjustment to the Affordable Care Act was necessitated by Congress’ failure to fully indemnify insurers against losses under the program.” Lew dismissed the objection that only Congress is empowered to appropriate federal money as “overly formalistic. Slavish devotion to arcane procedures shouldn’t outweigh the responsibility to do the right thing. Fortunately, we have a president who understands this.”
Dems Label Inquiry into Hillary’s Emails “Witch Hunt”
The revelation that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of an insecure private email account for top secret communications has even liberal commentators concerned.
On MSNBC’s TV news show Morning Joe, Lawrence O’Donnell, a self-described “practical European socialist,” observed that “e-mail system was set up obviously to defy the Freedom of Information Act.” Co-Host, Mika Brzezinski agreed saying “this wasn’t honest.”
On the other hand, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf attempted to rebuff criticism by repeating Clinton’s infamous “what difference does it make at this point?” remark the then Secretary of State made in her appearance before a Congressional committee investigating the murder of US Ambassador Chris Stevens in Libya in 2012. “Even if she did have classified information on this computer there is nothing we can do now to undo any damage that theoretically might have been done,” Harf declared. “So we might as well drop the issue.”
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md) echoed Harf’s view calling House Committee on Benghazi Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy’s (R-SC) efforts to subpoena Clinton’s emails “a witch hunt and an invasion of privacy. As I understand it, Secretary Clinton used this email for everything—including planning the wedding of her daughter. Exposing such private and intimate details of this great family’s personal lives repeats the wrongs done by Kenneth Starr’s prurient interest in former President Clinton’s sex life. Isn’t it time we ended the persecution?”
Cummings also warned that “prying into these emails could have a chilling effect on the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising. A lot of those making million dollar donations would prefer that their identities remain concealed. They don’t want some nosy Republicans sniffing out their names. Fear that this could happen acts as a disincentive to other prospective donors and stunts the rewards the Clintons can reap from their public service.”
Complicating the issue is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2011 directive forbidding Department employees from using their personal email systems for government business because “personal email is more vulnerable to being hacked by foreign adversaries.” US Ambassador to Kenya Scott Gration was removed from office by Ms. Clinton for violating this directive.
IRS Insists Giving Tax Refunds to Illegal Aliens Is “the Least We Can Do”
The IRS has announced plans to follow up President Obama’s illegal grant of amnesty to persons in this country illegally with a program that will permit illegal aliens to receive tax refunds for taxes they never paid.
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen defended the move as “a necessary component of the President’s vision for America’s future. The vast majority of these immigrants are poor. They will need substantial help if the President’s dream of transforming our culture is to become a reality. Diverting some of America’s excess wealth to these people via tax refunds is one way of making this happen.”
Koskinen’s view was bolstered by President Obama’s speech celebrating the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s Selma march. In the speech Obama said “giving amnestied illegal immigrants the same rights as citizens is a way of honoring Dr. King’s message of brotherhood and equality. President Lincoln freed the slaves from bondage, but a century of Jim Crow laws, discrimination and poverty continued to oppress African-Americans.”
“Let’s not make the same mistake today,” Obama said. “I have opened the door to freedom for Latin American people oppressed by corrupt governments south of our border. Let’s not make these liberated millions live in the shadows of second-class status for a hundred years. Let’s accelerate their integration into our society by giving them the sustenance they need and the full rights of citizenship so they can be active participants in selecting the rulers who will govern us all.”
“In light of the President’s recent remarks, I think everyone can agree that our plan to give them tax refunds is the least we can do,” Koskinen concluded.
In related news, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the federal government made nearly $125 billion in improper payments during fiscal year 2014. These are payments made for services not rendered, merchandise not received, and to recipients not eligible to receive the money. Nearly $18 billion in improper payments were made through the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)–the very mechanism by which the IRS proposes to pay tax refunds to amnestied illegal aliens.
Feds Fund “Diet Choker” Technology
With the aid of a $148,000 federal grant, engineers at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) have developed what they call a “diet choker.” The device is a necklace that detects what and when a person is eating. This information is then communicated by phone.
Lead researcher Majid Sarrafzadeh called the device “a breakthrough for healthy eating. If it detects excessive quantities are consumed or poor food choices are made it can be programmed to call the person’s cell phone to remind them that their choice is an unhealthy one.”
“If individuals prove insufficiently motivated to alter their behavior with this reminder, the device can also be programmed to alert a dietary enforcement authority,” Sarrafzadeh said. “That way, if the individual’s will power is weak, external intervention can be introduced to control what is eaten. The end result will be a happier and healthier America.”
First Lady Michelle Obama lauded the invention as “ingenious. We’ve been trying to educate people on the proper way to eat, but this choker offers a much more robust interface between dietary experts and individual consumers. If the device could be programmed to give real time feedback—say a mild electric shock when inappropriate foods or gluttonous quantities are ingested—we’ll have a powerful new weapon against obesity.”
Obama Exempts White House from Freedom of Information Act
Contending that “constant prying by the enemies of this Administration are impeding my ability to smoothly rule this country,” President Obama issued a decree exempting the White House Office of Administration from further compliance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) spokesperson Anne Weismann characterized the move as “completely out of step with the President’s supposed commitment to transparency.”
Office of Administration Director Beth Jones defended the move as “a necessary precaution against information falling into the wrong hands. This country is at war with reactionary elements who wouldn’t hesitate to abuse the freedom the law allows to embarrass and discredit the Administration. Well, President Obama isn’t about to let these rogue elements have free rein to scrutinize the inner workings of the government.”
Jones denied that the cancellation of access for persons to hostile to the President contradicts his pledge of transparency. “The windows on a home are transparent, but the owners are well-advised to draw the blinds to prevent peeping Toms from invading their privacy,” Jones asserted. “All we are doing here is drawing the blinds. The President’s friends will still be able to enjoy whatever access he deems necessary to their roles in defense of his policies.”
The Obama Administration has been the most aggressive in US history in its efforts to clamp down on information about what’s going on behind closed doors. It has prosecuted more whistle blowers and sentenced them to longer prison terms than all other presidents combined. This latest move is merely another example of its determination to conduct its business outside the view of the voters.
In related news, the Department of Justice rebuffed a subpoena for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails on the grounds that “mere suspicion that the Secretary may have used her private server as a means of concealing what she was doing is not proof. Until we see proof that she actually concealed something via this stratagem we see no need to pry into her affairs.”
ICE Releases Another 30,000 Illegal Alien Criminals
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that during 2014 it released another 30,000 illegal aliens with criminal records. This follows the 36,000 it released in 2013. The crimes for which these persons were responsible include homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, aggravated assault and more than 16,000 incidents of drunk or drugged driving. The released individuals are now free to move about the country.
In testimony before Congress, ICE Director Sarah Saldana characterized this action as “the best option we had available to us given the parameters established by President Obama. Is putting criminals back on the street bad? Yes, but what else could we do? If we deported them they’d just be roaming the streets of Mexico or some other Latin American nation.”
“The people of Latin America have already suffered enough,” Saldana argued. “Their lives are marked by profound poverty leading to malnutrition, illness, and shortened lives. Rather than further intensify this suffering, it is the President’s view that our more prosperous society can more easily bear the burden of coping with these criminal elements. We have many government programs providing sustenance for those residing in the United States. We have free medical care for those unable to afford it. And most Americans have better means to protect themselves against crime. They can insure their valuables, install burglar alarms, and can carry concealed weapons—something no Latin American government permits.”
“It should be obvious that global welfare will, on balance, be greater if the United States absorbs more of the depredations inflicted by the criminals in the population than if we selfishly try to isolate ourselves from the migration of underprivileged peoples seeking a fairer allocation of humanity’s collective wealth,” she concluded.
In related news, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee blocked legislation that would prevent illegal immigrants from collecting billion of dollars in refundable tax credits to which they are not legally entitled. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich) contested the idea that these illegal payments might be wrong. “A more important question than whether these payments are or aren’t illegal is whether they are needed,” Stabenow declared. “Illegal immigrants are among the poorest of our citizens. Their moral claim on this money should override any persnickety concerns about legality.”
Mayor Suggests that Chicago Airports Be Renamed
In an unexpectedly difficult reelection campaign, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel sought to rally support by promising to rename the City’s two airports in honor of President and Michelle Obama. The two airports are currently named in honor of World War II Navy pilot Edward “Butch” O’Hare and the 1942 Battle of Midway—an upset US victory over Japan that many historians view as the turning point of the war in the Pacific.
“I don’t mean to denigrate these earlier historic events, but they pale in significance to the impact that President Obama has had on this country,” Emanuel explained. “O’Hare was just one of thousands of pilots who served in the war and Midway was just one battle among dozens. President Obama is America’s first minority president. His innovative approach to governing by executive action has transformed the way we do business without having to go through the cumbersome process of amending our Constitution.”
“And let’s not forget what we all owe to the First Lady,” Emanuel added. “From her soapbox she has broadcast a message of healthier eating that reverberates across the nation. People’s lives are being saved on a daily basis. Surely, this merits greater accolades than whatever Butch O’Hare did—if in fact, he did anything worthy of note. I, for one, am unaware of what that might have been.”
In related news, Emanuel pulled out of a previously scheduled joint appearance with challenger Jesus “Chuy” Garcia saying “I’m the one with name recognition. I’m the one with the huge funding advantage. Why should I help boost my opposition by appearing on the same stage with him?”
Rising Sales of US Constitution Put Department of Homeland Security on Alert
A surge of book sales that pushed the US Constitution into the top ten best seller list of the Conservative Book Club has caused federal officials to put the Department of Homeland Security on “full alert.”
“This is just the type of abnormal behavior that should trigger a high state of vigilance,” Secretary Jeh Johnson declared. “We expect a few loud-mouthed right-wing politicians to repeatedly harp on whether some action taken by the government is constitutional. But we can’t afford to overlook tens of thousands of ordinary citizens reading such seditious literature.”
“Outside of some historical interest, we can see no reason for people to cozy up to this document,” Johnson explained. “Our Courts are the mechanism for determining whether the Constitution has any bearing on modern life. Increased meddling by persons who aren’t properly trained for interpreting the document is cause for concern. Consequently, I’m ordering all our personnel to be on the lookout for any anti-government agitation inspired by uneducated interpretations of this historic relic.”
In related news, Ohio Judge Catherine Barber barred a defendant from bringing up the Constitution or the constitutionality of the law under which he is charged with a crime because “it would only serve to confuse jurors. They need to follow my instructions, not wander off into their own egocentric comprehension of this extraneous historical document.”
Dems Assail Work Requirements for Able-bodied Welfare Recipients
Enforcement of a work requirement by Republican Governor Paul LePage’s administration has led to 9,000 former recipients being declared ineligible to receive food stamps. Under the work requirement, able-bodied food stamp recipients were asked to put in 20 hours of work per week or 24 hours of volunteer services per month.
State Rep. Scott Hamann (D-South Portland) called the work requirement “inhumane” and compared it to “indentured servitude.” “The Governor is taking the state out of the mainstream,” Hamann argued. “Other states have sought an exemption from the work requirement, but LePage is charting a course that sends a message telling people they must work in order to eat. In my view, this is a step backward.”
Maine Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Mary Mayhew defended the Governor’s approach. “Entrenching people in a life of dependency is not a way to get them out of poverty,” Mayhew said. “It’s one thing for a person to be physically unable to support themselves. It is quite another for a person to refuse to contribute effort to sustaining himself.”
Hamann belittled “the contention that self-reliance is an appropriate ethos for a modern society. Not everyone is equally endowed with a strong work ethic or the ambition to succeed. Some inherit laziness and stupidity through no fault of their own. We shouldn’t be holding the losers in the genetic lottery to the same standards as the winners. Those who are lucky enough to be born energetic and ambitious have an obligation to society to help carry the weight of those less fortunate than themselves.”
In Kansas, a bill to ban welfare benefits from being spent on body piercings, massages, spas, tobacco, nail salons, lingerie, arcades, cruise ships or visits to psychics was denounced by state Rep. Carolyn Bridges (D-Wichta) as “an unacceptable infringement on people’s freedom to spend their own money as they see fit. As a society we have determined that these people are entitled to public support. By endeavoring to limit the uses to which they can apply thus support we are degrading their perception of self-worth and making them second class citizens. This is appalling. Freedom belongs to everyone. Poverty shouldn’t be used to limit a person’s choices.”
In stark contrast to what’s going on in Maine and Kansas, the nearly bankrupt State of California is looking to make illegal aliens fully eligible for state welfare benefits. “This nation was built by immigrants, how can we not cut them a piece of the pie?” asked state Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens). Lara dismissed the state’s budgetary deficit as “an excuse, not a reason for excluding newcomers from enjoying the fruits of citizenship.”
Iranian Ayatollah Calls Obama “Lying Devil”
Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, characterized US President Barack Obama’s statements about the agreement negotiated between the two countries as “deceptive” and evidence of “devilish” intentions.
“Obama’s assertion that Iran has agreed to ramp down its pursuit of nuclear weapons in exchange for a phasing out of economic sanctions is a lie,” Khamenei said. “What we have agreed to is this. First, all sanctions must be immediately ended. Once this happens we agree to refrain from engaging in any nuclear attacks until, in our judgment, circumstances for a favorable outcome warrant it. Most likely, circumstances won’t be favorable for at least a few years.”
US Secretary of State John Kerry sought to minimize any perceived discrepancy between the two sides, saying that “Khamenei’s statement is within the bounds of the framework we’ve been constructing. We could quibble over which comes first—the end of sanctions or Iran’s self-constraint as a nuclear power—or we could make the first concession as a step toward building good will.”
“Right now, Iran is conceding that there will be at least a few years before they launch any nuclear strikes,” Kerry pointed out. “This should ensure that nothing drastic happens during President Obama’s remaining term. After that it will be up to his successor to devise a strategy for dealing with Iran.”
In related news, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf dismissed warnings from former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Schultz about the nuclear agreement the Obama Administration negotiated with Iran as “lots of big words that few people will understand.”
Kissinger and Schultz noted that the so-called agreement lacks any provisions for enforcement. Neither does it address Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism—a behavior that will become a bigger problem once sanctions are lifted and Iran has more funds at hand to aid these groups.
Harf insisted that “these concerns are irrelevant since Iran will not agree to inspections and reserves the sovereign right to use its resources as it deems best. For us to raise these issues would complicate the negotiations and make any agreement unlikely. We feel that it is better to have half a loaf than none.”
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.”
House Speaker Pleads for Hillary to Turn Over Computer Server
A new slew of allegations has emerged implying that the Clinton Foundation may have accepted bribes in exchange for Hillary to use her Secretary of State status to influence government policy. An example of possible influence peddling was her support for Russia’s acquisition of a major stake in American uranium mining.
“It looks like she violated the law, and the idea that she was going to use her own server and do official business on it goes against every transparency issue that the President likes to tout,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) observed. “She should turn that server and all those documents over to the Inspector General, at the State Department.”
Boehner said he is undecided on whether he will ask the House to subpoena the server. “On the one hand, I think the American people have a right to know the facts,” Boehner said. “On the other hand, compelling the handover of this equipment might create the impression that the Clintons are criminals. They’re good people and I am reluctant to repay their long years of public service by using tactics that would be applied to ordinary suspects in a criminal case.”
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest acknowledged that “the former Secretary appears not to have honored her agreement with the President to keep everything above board. I mean, she explicitly forswore accepting donations from foreign governments while she served as Secretary of State. Nevertheless, I can’t see any point in subpoenaing her server. She’s already assured us that it has been wiped clean. Since any potential evidence is now gone it would be pointless to continue to pursue a fruitless inquiry.”
Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, while carefully avoiding any explicit acknowledgment of guilt, attempted to make lemonade out of the latest allegations by asserting that “the supposed incompatibility of what’s good for the Clintons and what’s good for America could be resolved by reinstalling the former First Family in the White House. If the Clintons were in charge of all of America they’d have an incentive to try to carry out policies that would enrich all of America. It is their exile from power that necessitates their aggressive pursuit of self interest. Faced with the insecurities of living as private citizens they are subject to the same temptations of greed that have dragged down so many others.”
Baltimore Mayor Apologizes for Calling Rioters “Thugs”
Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, whose infamous order to police to “give protesters space to destroy,” sheepishly apologized to residents who participated in looting stores, burning buildings, and assaulting passersby for using the term “thugs” to describe their behavior.
“My use of the word ‘thugs’ implied that these people were engaged in criminal acts,” she said. “I have since been informed that stealing toilet paper, trashing the businesses of owners who had nothing to do with the death of Mr. Gray, and beating up white people foolish enough to venture into the streets were acts of righteous rage.”
The Mayor maintained that “my first instinct to allow people to vent their anger as they saw fit was the correct one. While it may be true that none of the individual victims of the rioting were directly responsible for the crowd’s rage, by being white alone, they were collectively guilty for centuries of Black oppression. I should not have besmirched those who showed the initiative to go outside the customary constraints concocted by white civilization by using racially derogatory terms like ‘thug’ or ‘criminal.’ That I did shows that even those of us most advanced members of the government can be brainwashed by social norms we ought to reject.”
In related news, President Obama justified his refusal to visit riot-torn Baltimore because “to do so would endorse the idea that the City is in crisis when all we’re really seeing is a rough implementation of a redistribution of wealth that has been long overdue.”
Hillary Calls for Restoring Faith in Government
Former Secretary of State and current candidate for president Hillary Clinton bemoaned “the erosion of people’s faith in government” and alleged that “it undermines the ability of those of us who are trying to lead.”
Clinton brushed aside widely perceived impressions that government has done a bad job by pointing out the early history of Christianity’s failures. “Jesus’ performance compares quite unfavorably with what modern government has been able to deliver,” she said. “His people—the Christians—faced centuries of persecution. They were crucified. They were torn apart and devoured by wild animals for the amusement of spectators in the arenas of Rome and elsewhere.”
“Contrast that with what modern government has done for its people,” Clinton advised. “We’ve given people the means to survive—subsidized housing, subsidized food. Why, today a single mother with two children qualifies for $35,000 in government benefits. No one is crucified. No one is thrown to the lions. Government has delivered the goods. It should have more than earned the faith of the people.”
“The fact that all these government benefits can be had without the burdens of toil demonstrates who the true miracle worker is,” Clinton concluded. “I only hope that voters realize this when they go to the polls.”
Educational Standards Demanding Hard Work Called Discriminatory
California’s Pacific Educational Group (PEG) denounced educational standards that require students to study and work hard in order to graduate as “discrimination against Black students.”
PEG co-chair Kenneth K. Knowlton asserted that “Blacks are less likely to respond to fundamental ideas like working hard to achieve success, or being on time for school or work. The notion that such attitudes ought to be instilled in every student is a racist endeavor that seeks to submerge this vital subculture.”
“What’s more, the contention that hard work is a key to success is belied by reality,” Knowlton maintained. “A significant segment of the Black subculture has learned to survive on government benefit programs that do not require hard work. Adapting to these programs is a viable low-energy route to reasonably comfortable subsistence in our society. In terms of return on investment or effort it is very efficient. A school’s attempt to divert students from this efficient path does them a disservice.”
A statistic bolstering Knowlton’s claims was obtained from a Department of Agriculture study indicating that 40% of the people on Food Stamps are obese—a finding that Knowlton contended “debunks the old-fashioned thinking that warns of the privation awaiting those who don’t put forth the effort to support themselves.”
In related news, British academic Adam Swift charged that “parents who read to their children are giving them an unfair advantage over children whose parents are unable or unwilling to read to their children. Evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t – the difference in their life chances – is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t. For the sake of equality of opportunity we ought to figure out a way to interdict this type of selfish behavior.”
Swift lamented the improbability for success “as long as children are entrusted to the care of their own parents. If all children could be separated from their parents at an early age and raised by childcare professionals, a more uniform experience would be more easily ensured. All or none could be read to as seems most conducive to the collective well-being of society.”
Feds Warn Lenders Not to Deny Loans to Welfare Recipients
The 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.”
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?”
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.”
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 Minority 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.”
New AG Seeks to Federalize All Elections
Contending that “it is shameful that we allow each state to determine its own qualifications for voters,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch has proposed new rules that would concentrate all authority over elections under the jurisdiction of her US Department of Justice.
“I know that the Constitution gave states the right to run their own elections, but it also gave Congress the right to alter state regulations if it so chooses,” Lynch pointed out. Lynch said she is “especially aggrieved that states get to determine who is and isn’t mentally competent to cast a ballot. By what right does any state presume to deny the right to vote based on a contention that a person is too demented? Does a person lose his civil right to participate in selecting who will govern him just because he can’t understand the issues or his choices? This seems to be a clear violation of the American with Disabilities Act.”
Lynch asserted that “anyone who wants to vote should be allowed to vote. If that person needs help filling out a ballot, well, that’s what we pay social workers for. The legislation I am proposing would permit these trained professionals to assist and, if necessary act as a proxy for those in their care, to cast ballots in any election.”
Whether Lynch’s bill will gain much traction in the Republican-controlled Congress seems dubious. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) expressed skepticism that “ensuring the mentally incompetents’ access to the ballot box would improve election outcomes. I think the idea of self-government presumes that voters can act rationally. I don’t think it means that we trust social workers to cast ballots on behalf of those unable to comprehend the process.”
The AG says she doesn’t view Congressional opposition as an insuperable obstacle. “Drafting a bill is merely a courtesy,” Lynch declared. “We’re giving them an opportunity to be part of the process. If they fail to grasp this opportunity the President is prepared to proceed on his own authority as the nation’s Commander-in-Chief.”
In related news, candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination Hillary Clinton called for “the end of all restrictions on voting. A person should be able to vote whenever and wherever they want. Rules requiring registration, or short time frames when ballots may be cast, or limited locations where ballots may be cast lead to lower participation rates. There ought to be a free voter ‘app’ on every cell phone the government hands out.”
Senator Wants RICO Prosecution of “Climate Change Deniers”
Arguing that “the threat of global climate change is the greatest crisis we have ever faced,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has called for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to employ the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act against those who dispute the threat.
“Can we really afford to engage in debate when the world is literally melting right before our eyes?” Whitehouse wanted to know. “Those who try to insert feigned skepticism as a barrier to action are worse than jihadi terrorists. They are shills for the corrupt industries that profiteer off Americans’ selfish addictions to comfort and mobility. They must not be allowed to hide their evil designs behind the First Amendment.”
“Aggressive action by the DOJ to freeze and seize assets will ensure that funds that could’ve been used to finance deniers’ propaganda can be redeployed for the collective benefit of the global community,” the Senator argued. “It will also give pause to anyone contemplating opposition to the steps necessary to combat climate change. Having one’s life ruined by government agents and prosecutors is a great deterrent.”
Whitehouse brushed aside concerns that crushing political opponents was outside the original intent of the RICO statute. “Arguing ‘original intent’ is a sterile exercise,” he maintained. “Repurposing a statute to meet a new threat shows creativity in evolving new ways of ruling the country. If we want vigorous government we must be flexible in how we interpret old laws.”
Police Shut Down Kids’ Lemonade Stand
Police in Overton, Texas ordered two sisters, Zoey (aged 7) and Andria Green (aged 8) to “cease and desist” selling lemonade in their efforts to raise money to buy a Father’s Day gift for their dad.
“Selling anything in Texas without a permit is illegal,” explained rousting officer Doug Stamper. “It doesn’t matter that neighborhood lemonade stands have been a time-honored way for kids to make a buck. Under the law, they need to buy a permit if they want to sell lemonade.”
The cost of the required permit is $150. Few kids would have the funds to afford it. Few kid-run lemonade stands could net enough to cover the cost of purchasing a permit.
“Every dollar these kids make is stolen from legitimate businesses that pay for permits and collect sales taxes that they remit to the government,” Stamper added. “If the loss of this legitimate revenue weren’t substantial the businesses wouldn’t have bothered to lobby for the law we’re enforcing here today.”
Stamper went on to contrast “the fundamentally selfish motive of these two girls” with “the loftier purposes to which the local government puts the revenues garnered from permit fees and taxes. A couple of kids operating a rogue business may look cute, but it’s a ‘knife between the ribs’ of legitimate businesses and the government elected to protect their interests.”
Release of Illegal Alien Criminals Called “Humanitarian”
The Obama Administration’s release of illegal immigrants who went on to commit more than 100 murders was defended on “humanitarian” grounds by ICE Director Sarah Saldana.
“These individuals all faced prison in their home countries,” Saldana said. “These foreign prisons are not like our prisons. There’s no exercise equipment and no satellite TV. Sanitation and hygiene are of the lowest sort imaginable. Sending these people to those Hellholes would have been inhumane.”
The inhumanity of the murders subsequently committed against Americans by the release of these foreign criminals was labeled “a tolerable risk” by the ICE Director. “Compared to the countries they came from, the United States has a lower crime rate,” she pointed out. “On top of that, police in the US have a better chance of apprehending suspects. The very fact that we know of the 120 murders they’ve perpetrated since their release proves that. So, from a global perspective, the burden of criminal predation has been more equitably distributed than it otherwise would’ve been if we had simply bused these foreign felons across the border.”
Saldana rejected criticisms that she characterized as “selfish and parochial. The contention that our first duty is to protect Americans is mistaken. As President Obama has made clear, we are citizens of the world first. We cannot shrug off our obligation to promote the greater good of the whole. The damage these miscreants would have done in their Third World home countries would have been far greater.”
Study Shows Belgian Patients Euthanized without their Consent
Belgium passed its Euthanasia Act in 2002. A study published in this month’s Journal of Medical Ethics by Raphael Cohen-Almagor revealed that despite the law’s requirement that patients voluntarily give their consent to the procedure, many are euthanized without giving consent. The decision to euthanize was not discussed with the patient in nearly 80% of the cases of patients over 80 years old.
Dr. Pierre Tueur estimated that “I have probably performed more than 300 of these procedures on patients incapable of giving informed consent. In cases where the patient is unconscious, demented, or unreasonably frightened of death, I feel it would be against the patient’s best interest for him to be burdened by such a decision.”
Tueur maintained that the “voluntary” requirement of the law was met “when the person checks himself into the hospital. He comes to us seeking our professional expertise. When it becomes clear to us that further life would be too painful or unworthy it is our professional obligation to mercifully end it.”
“Individuals who have become more of a burden than a benefit to the collective well-being of society have a moral duty to exit,” Tueur argued. “Moral obtuseness of the individual does not negate this duty. Those of us who have been trained in the science of medicine must step forward to ensure this duty is fulfilled.”
Supreme Court Rewrites Obamacare
Acknowledging that the original Affordable Care Act “was so poorly written as to be utterly infeasible in its implementation,” Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts took “the liberty of rewriting it to correct its deficiencies.”
“If we were to confine ourselves to the plain language of the statute, subsidies would be available to only those states that established their own health care exchanges,” Roberts wrote. “In hindsight, relying upon the statutory text would doom the plan because only a minority of states established the required exchanges. Rather than allow Congress’ inability to accurately forecast state behavior to undermine this signature accomplishment of President Obama’s transformative agenda for America I am, herewith, reinterpreting the statutory language.”
Roberts brushed aside substantial evidence that the language restricting subsidies to states setting up their own exchanges was intentional, saying that “obviously, this traditional reliance on the ‘carrot’ of federal money failed to elicit the expected response. Since ‘plan A’ didn’t work we need to institute a ‘plan B.’ This Court’s reinterpretation takes its place along side of the dozens of reinterpretations that the Obama Administration has previously made to correct flaws in the original law.”
Neither did the apparent discrepancy between his majority opinion in favor of upholding Obamacare and his dissent against the Court’s decision declaring a nationwide right to same-sex marriage cause the Justice any difficulty. “There was no federal statute needing repair in the same-sex marriage case,” Roberts pointed out. “There are 50 different state laws. The Court has no Constitutional authority to rewrite 50 state laws. Its powers are limited to rewriting the laws crafted by Congress at the national level.”
President Obama praised the Court’s decision “for putting the good of the people ahead of a rigid reliance upon the so-called ‘separation of powers’ that right-wing enemies of social justice would use to hamstring progress. So Congress made a few mistakes in how it wrote the law. Why should we let that prevent us from making improvements? Isn’t everyone working together for the common good better than each branch of government jealously guarding the ‘turf’ laid out for it in the Constitution?”
Following the announcement of the decision, stock prices for the nation’s largest health insurance corporations saw a $3 billion boost in a single day. “This decision ensures that the flow of federal subsidies to these firms will be uninterrupted,” Press Secretary Josh Earnest boasted. “Republicans masquerade as the Party of big business, but it is Democrat-backed legislation that delivers the cash that feeds their bottom line.”
In related health news, the Obama Administration is pressuring doctors to discuss global warming with their patients. U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy reminded that “President Obama has declared global warming to be the greatest danger to health that humanity faces. Doctors are not merely private citizens. They are licensed by government. They have an obligation to convey the government’s views to their patients. Failure to do so should have consequences.”
Judge Blocks Ban on Dismemberment Abortions
In Kansas, Shawnee County District Court Judge Larry Hendricks issued an order blocking that state’s ban on abortions carried out by tearing the baby limb-from-limb while still in the womb. The Judge’s order came in response to a lawsuit filed by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Dr. Herbert Hodes and Dr. Traci Nauser—a father-daughter team of abortionists.
“To allow this law to go into effect while the matter is being litigated would deprive the plaintiffs of their livelihood,” Hendricks said. “It would inflict irreparable harm and injury to their recognized right to ply their trade.” Hendricks contrasted this “recognized right” with “the speculative contention that the fetuses subjected to this procedure might endure excruciating pain or other significant losses.”
“In 1973, the highest authority in the land decreed that women have a right to obtain an abortion,” Hendricks observed. “It is bad enough that subordinate jurisdictions have repeatedly tried to legislate restrictions to this right, but to permit any limits during litigation would elevate the lesser authority over the supreme authority.”
Hendricks dismissed arguments that women in dire need of this procedure could, in the interim, travel to less restrictive states as “cruel and unduly burdensome on the patients and economically devastating to the plaintiffs. Why should a woman be inconvenienced in any way in the exercise of this fundamental right? Why should two doctors have to lose a single dollar of income while awaiting a court’s decision to void this law?”
Dr. Hodes called Hendricks’ ruling “a victory for women against the insidious invasion of their bodies by unwanted tissue.”
In related news, a group of Satan worshippers are suing the State of Missouri over its abortion restrictions. Specifically, they are contesting the state requirement that women be informed of the fetus’ ability to feel pain at 22 weeks. “We do not recognize the fetus as a separate living entity,” declared Sybil Hagman, attorney for the “Jane Doe” plaintiff. “A state law asserting that the fetus might suffer pain directly contradicts our plaintiff’s religious beliefs. It violates her freedom of religion.” Hagman offered to drop the lawsuit if Satan worshippers were exempted from this provision of the law.
A Vote for Hillary Is a Vote to Preserve Obamacare
Seeking to build on the momentum of last week’s Supreme Court decision upholding the Obama Administration’s executive “tweaking” of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), presidential candidate Hillary Clinton sought to reassure voters that they could count on her to preserve this law.
Clinton warned that “if the country elects a Republican as president this important advance toward universal health care could well be reversed.” She further urged voters to “ignore the siren song of individual choice that so many in the GOP are singing. Individual choice allows the ill-informed to neglect to obtain the type of coverage that experts all agree is necessary.”
The candidate contrasted the GOP’s vision of “each person doing whatever he thinks best for himself and his family” with Democrats’ “more socially responsible approach of everyone doing what society has determined is best for the collective whole. What’s good for the health of one individual may not be good for the health of the people. Stark as it may seem, sometimes the interest of the individual must be sacrificed for society’s benefit. That’s why we have to trust experts to perform the triage necessary to ensure that society’s interest is placed ahead of individual selfishness.”
As currently structured, the ACA shifts the burden toward making the young and healthy subsidize the older and less healthy. These subsidies will encourage the recipients to increase their demand for services and put further financial pressure on the system. Clinton promised to address this problem by incorporating a “value of remaining life” metric into the expert-guided triage process. “If an individual’s ‘value of remaining life’ is less than the amount required to preserve that life, the best interest of society will be allowed to prevail,” she said. “The health care system will ensure that dignified and painless exit options are provided for those whose continued presence is an unsustainable cost to society.”
In related news, the IRS has warned small employers that they will be fined up to $36,500 per employee, per year if they give these employees any aid in paying the high premiums or deductibles of their individual Obamacare policies. “Under the rules we have established, these employers must pay all or none of their employees’ health insurance costs,” said Secretary Sylvia Burwell. “We can’t let each individual or business make up some hybrid plan of their own.”
Universities Strive to Stamp out Politically Incorrect Speech
The academic luminaries of the University of California and the University of Wisconsin are in the forefront of efforts to eradicate hurtful speech. Professors have been alerted to be on the lookout for phrases that the school’s have characterized as “microaggressions” that demean a person’s sense of self worth. Students or fellow faculty members using such phrases are to be reported to the school administration for disciplinary action.
Sane persons might be surprised to learn what some of these forbidden phrases are. In California, use of the phrase “America is the land of opportunity” or “everyone in this society can succeed, if they work hard enough” will get you into trouble. In Wisconsin, outlawed phrases include “I believe the most qualified person should get the job” and “there is only one race, the human race.”
Wisconsin Chancellor Bernie Patterson explained that “these seemingly innocuous words can be very hurtful. Saying that the most qualified person should get the job is anti-democratic. It implies that the one best should prevail over the larger number of less qualified persons. This is elitism.”
“Likewise, lumping everyone into a single ‘human race’ would completely destroy the basis for affirmative action,” he added. “In fact, elevating the less qualified on the basis of race is the very foundation of affirmative action. But our objections go even deeper than this. Is it proper to use qualifications and performance to make any decisions? The whole idea of excellence and merit puts values derived from western societies ahead of values indigenous to other cultures. Can we justify a standard that mindlessly condemns mediocrity and idleness as inferior when the ratio of effort to reward in our society reveals these strategies to be very efficient for less capable individuals?”
Patterson went on to argue that “distributing grades and university honors to all impartially, without regard to performance, effort, or ability would be more egalitarian. If we really believe in social justice this is the ideal toward which we should be working.”
Left Rallies to Defense of Planned Parenthood
Video evidence that Planned Parenthood traffics in organs taken from the babies it kills has sparked a wave of revulsion across the country. This gory profiteering clashes with the organization’s attempts to portray itself as a champion of women’s health.
While Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and ten other Republican senators have requested that the DOJ investigate Planned Parenthood’s body snatching business, leading Democrats want an investigation of the organization that released the videos to the media.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) called the videos “a reprehensible invasion of privacy” and demanded that the Center for Medical Progress (the organization that made and released the videos) be investigated. “The right-wing assault on Planned Parenthood has gone on too long,” Pelosi contended. “The perpetrators of this latest atrocity need to be brought to justice.”
Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Yvette Clarke (D-NY) have written to US Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking her to open investigations into the Center for Medical Progress. “It appears that persons working for CMP misrepresented themselves to Planned Parenthood’s leadership,” their letter read. “Instead of being legitimate purchasers of human body parts, these CMP employees cruelly duped Doctor Mary Gatter and Doctor Deborah Nucatola into trusting them with the organization’s private information.”
Presidential Press Secretary Josh Earnest characterized the GOP’s request for an investigation of Planned Parenthood as “a witch hunt” and scoffed at the idea the Administration would even consider questioning the government’s financial support of Planned Parenthood (over $500 million in fiscal 2014). “The President has made it quite clear that, in his view, Planned Parenthood is doing God’s work,” Earnest said. “We shouldn’t permit bleeding heart emotionalism over how the tissues of terminated fetuses are disposed of knock this great organization off course. Would the GOP really be happier if the body parts were simply thrown in the trash? After all, doesn’t salvaging some revenue from selling fetal tissue reduce the amount that the government has to pay to sustain Planned Parenthood?. Shouldn’t the GOP’s fiscal ‘hawks’ be with us on this issue?”
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned that “we must not let squeamishness over the details of how Planned Parenthood goes about its business detract from the heroic history of this great organization and the essential services they have performed for so many years.” Clinton went on to decry the covertly obtained videos as “a massive invasion of privacy—the very right which 1973’s Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision sought to establish. And why shouldn’t Dr. Gatter have a Lamborghini. She’s worked very hard to build up the business end of the organization.”
Kerry Insists that “Death to America” Is Just Rhetoric
In his continuing quest to sell Congress on what House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) labeled a “diplomatic masterpiece,” Secretary of State John Kerry tried to reassure the House Foreign Affairs Committee that Iran’s vow to take down the United States is “mere rhetoric for domestic consumption.”
“Surely, members of Congress are aware that from time to time it is necessary to espouse policies that we have no real intention of implementing,” Kerry said. “I’ve lost count of the number of times that various spokesmen for the GOP have pledged to repeal Obamacare or to build a border fence. Yet, neither of these promises have gone beyond mere rhetoric. Obviously, the purpose of such rhetoric is to placate their domestic supporters. I suggest we view the infamous ‘death to America’ slogan shouted by mobs in Iran in a similar light.”
Ali Hosseini Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, took issue with Kerry’s “ignorant and misguided assertion. Unlike Americans, we are not impotent mouthers of vacuous platitudes. Our battle with America will not end until the evil that it represents is exterminated. The lifting of sanctions recently approved by the United Nations is an important step toward our ultimate victory.”
In addition, Iran’s General Hossein Salami expressed confidence that “we will strike a blow that will be more shocking and more devastating than the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. Unlike the Japanese, we will not confine ourselves to strictly military targets. Our slaughter of the most vulnerable women and children will land a crushing and demoralizing blow from which the United States cannot recover.”
Obama Denounces Murder and Organ Harvesting
In the midst of a series of covertly obtained and publicly released videos of Planned Parenthood’s murder of human babies and sale of their organs, President Obama has come out strongly against the practice of killing albinos and selling their organs in Africa, telling a group of African leaders “this cruel tradition has got to stop.”
Meanwhile, the “cruel tradition” practiced by Planned Parenthood still escapes notice at the White House. Press Secretary Josh Earnest has explained that “the President refuses to watch the defamatory videos being peddled by the Center for Medical Progress” and “saw no contradiction between his stance on what is going on in Africa compared to what is going on in this country.”
“In Africa, the tissues being harvested from albino cadavers are used in superstitious rituals,” Earnest explained. “The tissues being harvested from infant cadavers at Planned Parenthood are being used for scientific research. Perhaps if we were less squeamish about this more parts could have been extracted and more research undertaken. Maybe Christopher Reeve could’ve been saved or Michael J. Fox’s Parkinsons’ symptoms eased if more fetal cadavers at more advanced stages had been available for organ harvesting.”
“Unfortunately, restrictions on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions have reduced the quantity of viable organs that have been available for post mortem extraction,” Earnest lamented. “Suppressing the supply of fetal tissue, as so many state legislatures have done by restricting the window of opportunity during which fetuses may be aborted, thwarts science’s efforts to convert the wretched refuse of unwanted lives into medical therapies that could be used to save the lives of more worthy persons.”
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) rallied to President Obama’s side on this issue contending that “efforts to punish Planned Parenthood by cutting federal funding show that the GOP has lost its moral compass. They’re putting the interests of unwanted potential people ahead of the interests of real people—our wives, our sisters, our daughters, our granddaughters—people who will vote to determine who will and won’t retain their seats in government. The only saving grace is that these Republicans will be the instrument of their own political demise.”
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) also waded into the controversy and called efforts to defund Planned Parenthood “a vicious attack on women’s health. The GOP would like to pose as a champion of the defenseless fetuses. At best, only half of these fetuses could have become women. But all of those getting abortions are women. Cutting funding to Planned Parenthood would force their customers to seek other places to perform their abortions—places whose commitment to progressive values may not be as clear and firm as Planned Parenthood’s.”
In related news, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) vowed that he would not allow efforts to revoke or reduce Planned Parenthood’s federal subsidies to imperil the operation of the government. “Tragic as the loss of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives at the hands of this depraved organization may be, we must not permit our emotions to overrule our heads,” he declared. “Tens of millions depend on government for their subsistence—both welfare recipients and federal employees. And a long list of corporations depend on government contracts to meet their payrolls and pay their investors. The greater good of this greater number has to take priority over the interests of the smaller number of potential persons terminated and dissected by Planned Parenthood.”
Carson, BLM Clash on Issues
GOP presidential hopeful Dr. Ben Carson and leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement clashed following Carson’s assertion that BLM is “creating strife.” As Carson sees it, “Blacks have been led down a dead-end road to dependency and murder via abortion by Democrat policies.”
“The message that Democrats are sending by their support for the welfare state is that Blacks can’t make it on their own efforts,” Carson argued. “This is ridiculous. Blacks are as capable as whites if they apply their God-given talents to the world around them.”
The candidate was even more critical of Democrats’ unwavering support for taxpayer financed abortions, which he called “the leading cause of death in the Black community. More Black children are killed by abortion than by gang wars or cops.”
BLM co-founder Alicia Garza rejected Carson’s view. “The issue isn’t whether Blacks are capable of making their own way, but whether they should have to,” Garza said. “For centuries white plantation owners who were capable of supporting themselves depended on the labors of Black slaves. The government benefits Blacks are now receiving are a small down payment on the reparations owed for that debt.”
“And Carson’s characterization of abortion as the leading cause of death for Blacks completely misses the point,” Garza continued. “All the Black babies terminated by abortion free Black women from the oppression of unwanted motherhood. These are women taking charge of their reproductive processes. These are women liberating themselves from burdens they choose not to bear. For Carson to compare these acts of self-liberation to cops shooting Blacks is shameful.”
Obama Vetoes Planned Parenthood Defunding
Efforts by the legislatures of Louisiana and Alabama to reduce public funds allocated to Planned Parenthood this week were vetoed by President Obama. The President dismissed arguments that videos revealing PP’s participation in illegal trafficking in used baby parts warranted the states’ actions.
“I learned in law school that the rule in our country is ‘innocent until proven guilty,’” Obama recalled. “Attorney General Lynch hasn’t deemed there is enough evidence to justify an investigation, much less a prosecution, trial, and verdict. These states’ attempts to inflict punishment before the judicial process has been given a fair chance to work does not live up to our standards.”
The President also ventured an opinion that “there may be nothing to this whole so-called scandal. I watch TV news every night and I don’t recall seeing any of these alleged incriminating videos. Surely, these ratings-hungry media outlets would be all over this story if it were legitimate.”
Obama appeared to be undaunted by the unprecedented action of a president vetoing a state law, citing his own authority as a constitutional scholar. “There is a clause in the US Constitution authorizing the federal government to do whatever is ‘necessary and proper.’ What could be more necessary and proper than to prevent a state legislature from penalizing an organization before it is convicted of a crime?”
David Daleiden, head of The Center for Medical Progress—the organization that released the videos, characterized the President’s stance as “willful blindness dedicated to preserving a cruel and criminal enterprise” and wondered “whether the $25 million the principal officers of Planned Parenthood have donated to the Democratic Party may have played a role in shaping his response to this organization’s continuing atrocities.”
Planned Parenthood Threatens to Sue
Planned Parenthood’s executive vice president Dawn Laguens said the organization is weighing whether to sue the Center for Medical Progress, the group behind the release of videos showing that Planned Parenthood is engaged in murdering, dismembering, and selling aborted babies.
“Since these videos were made secretly without Planned Parenthood’s explicit consent they constitute an egregious invasion of privacy,” Laguens maintained. “Invasion of privacy is a crime. That makes the videos the ‘fruit from the poisoned tree’ and inadmissible as evidence against Planned Parenthood for any alleged crimes depicted in the videos.”
Laguens also contested the idea that there are any grounds for prosecuting Planned Parenthood for the acts shown in the videos. She cited a letter to Congress from Jim Esquea, Assistant Secretary for Legislation for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, asserting that “dismembering fetal tissue and selling it with or without the permission of the mother is completely legal.”
Though the videos might not be admissible in any future prosecution of Planned Parenthood, Laguens contended that “they could be used as evidence in a civil suit against the Center for Medical Progress. Not only have the reputations of the well-regarded leaders of this great American institution been besmirched, but the privacy of the specimens has also been breached. Faces and naked bodies that were meant to be kept strictly private have been blandished all over the Internet. This amounts to the promulgation of child pornography—the very crime for which former Subway spokesman Jared Fogle has been convicted.”
While Laguens acknowledged that “there probably isn’t much money to be had in the form of court-awarded damages from the Center for Medical Progress, but making an example of them could be crucial to the financial success of Planned Parenthood going forward. On the one hand, crushing this small organization may dissuade others from pursuing similar stunts aimed at derailing Planned Parenthood’s historic mission. On the other, our friends in government will be better armed to fend off attempts to cut Planned Parenthood’s access to public funds if the instigators of this scandal are being sued.”
In related news, Planned Parenthood has launched a series of political attack ads targeting members of Congress who voted to cut its federal funding. “Those seeking to parlay these scurrilous videos into a mechanism for advancing their anti-abortion agenda will pay a price for their sins,” Laguens bragged. “We’re urging voters to terminate the political careers of those pushing this war on women’s reproductive rights.”
Clinton Likens Planned Parenthood Critics to Terrorists
Seeking to divert attention from her admittedly unwise and likely illegal handling of classified material through her unsecured private email account, Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton sought to draw a parallel between advocates of defunding Planned Parenthood and Islamic terrorists.
“Both groups relegate women to second class status,” Clinton claimed. “Both deny women the right to control their reproductive heath. Both would force women to be vessels for carrying unwanted children into the world. Both espouse out-of-date ideas about how the world should work.”
GOP presidential contender Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla) characterized Clinton’s claims “as twisted and malevolent an inversion of morality as we are likely to see from a purportedly sane person. Islamic terrorists are cutting off the heads of those who oppose their barbarism. Planned Parenthood is cutting off the heads of children and selling them as raw material for medical research. Lumping those who want to stop taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood’s diabolical profiteering from the murder and dismemberment of innocent babies with Islamic murderers is as evil a slander as any ever perpetrated by the Nazis.”
Unfazed by Rubio’s counter, Clinton pointed out that “all of the babies aborted are unwanted. Planned Parenthood is merely aiding both the women who don’t want them and the babies themselves to avoid a life of burdens and suffering. Defraying some of the costs of this noble endeavor by recovering and selling parts that otherwise would simply be trashed helps reduce the amount of public funds we must appropriate for the organization to carry on this vital work.”
In related news, Planned Parenthood announced that a study it commissioned exonerated the organization from all charges of wrongdoing related to the videos revealing some of its chief officials discussing the sale of baby parts. “In none of these videos do we see any money changing hands,” Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said. “What we see is the Center for Medical Progress getting Planned Parenthood personnel drunk and eliciting giggling boasts about some of the humorous aspects of the business. While some might find such behavior distasteful, both our attorneys and representatives from the US Attorney General’s office have assured me that it is not criminal.”
Democrat Says Drop Benghazi Investigation
Member of the House Select Committee on Benghazi Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) is calling for an end to the investigation. As Schiff sees it, “the hearings can serve no useful purpose. Closing them down will save the taxpayers’ money.”
Schiff, who has attended only one of the Committee’s 45 sessions, reasoned that “even if it is incontrovertibly proven that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was responsible for the lapses that resulted in the death of Ambassador Stevens and several others there is no remedy Congress can implement. The dead cannot be brought back to life. And Mrs. Clinton has already resigned the post.”
The Congressman pooh-poohed the possibility that criminal liability might be shown. “Bad judgment is not a felony,” Schiff argued. “Selecting a local Muslim cadre to provide security may have been stupid. Blocking a rescue attempt may have been cowardly. Concocting a false cover story may have been dishonest, but such actions are routine tools of diplomacy.”
Bryan Pagliano, the man who set up Mrs. Clinton’s private email account announced that he will avail himself of the US Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination if he is required to appear before the Committee. Schiff cited this as “further proof that there is no smoking gun to be found by continuing the investigation.”
“At best, Congress might urge the Attorney General to press ahead with a criminal investigation, but does anyone sincerely believe a serious investigation would be undertaken?” Schiff jibed. “Isn’t it more likely that Attorney General Lynch would either decline to take up the matter or simply issue a finding of insufficient evidence? And let’s not forget that President Obama could just pardon Mrs. Clinton and spare the country further agony.”
Kerry Sees Lessons from WWII for Fight against Global Warming
US Secretary of State John Kerry told attendees at the Global Leadership in the Arctic conference in Alaska that global warming presents a threat every bit as severe as World War II did 75 years ago.
“World War II was the most disastrous event of the twentieth century,” Kerry said. “Over 50 million people died as a result. Global warming could easily top that toll. That is why it is imperative that the leaders of the world steel themselves for the hard choices they will have to make to combat this threat.”
An example of the kind of hard choice leaders have to steel themselves to make is “the possible internment of potentially dangerous segments of the population. Students of history recall that US President Franklin Roosevelt took the hard step of imprisoning Americans of Japanese descent. It is not too difficult to envision a future president taking a similar step to imprison global warming deniers in order to prevent them from impeding the actions necessary to stave off undesirable climate change.”
“Maybe a stint in an internment camp will aid in reeducating these misguided individuals,” Kerry hoped. “But we must be prepared for sterner measures if mere internment fails to do the job. The United States undertook some harsh actions to ensure that World War II could be won. We may have to undertake similarly harsh actions to ensure that the fight against global warming is won.”
Tearing Babies Apart Called “Humane”
In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Priscilla Smith, a Director and Senior Fellow at the Program for the Study of Reproductive Justice at Yale Law School, maintained that dismemberment abortions are “humane.” The procedure entails gripping the child with medical instruments, twisting off limbs one-by-one until the baby bleeds to death and then crushing the head.
Asked by Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va) whether such a “humane” procedure would be an appropriate method of executing convicted murderers, Ms. Smith said “no. Even if the condemned individual were sedated tearing him apart would be horrifically barbaric and messy. Rather than having arms and legs of just a few inches in length the parts would be much larger, as would the quantity of blood spilled.”
Smith also emphasized “the fact is that the law does not permit the dismemberment of prisoners as this would be cruel and unusual—a punishment forbidden by our Constitution. In contrast, there are no legal prohibitions of the dismemberment of unwanted fetuses.”
Mid-East Refugees Reject Billionaire’s Offer
An Egyptian billionaire’s offer to buy a Mediterranean island for refugees from the war-torn Middle East region to inhabit and build a new country was not well received by the intended beneficiaries.
“Building a new country is too much work,” complained Muhammad Moosheer. “Why can’t we go to countries that will give us food and houses? Why should we be denied the benefits that America or Germany grant to their people?”
US President Obama agreed, calling the job of building a new country from the ground up “daunting. Frankly, the idea makes no sense. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel. We have the resources necessary to rescue and sustain these refugees. They shouldn’t have to undertake the arduous task of providing for themselves.”
To bolster his argument, President Obama cited statistics indicating that three-fourths of the immigrants to the United States from the Middle East are now receiving welfare from the federal government. “We have shown that it is possible to obtain decent housing, sustenance, and even many of the perks of life without having to sell yourself into wage-slavery,” he boasted. “The refugees should follow the path blazed by their fellow Muslims.”
In related news, Muslim refugees in Macedonia rioted over aid packages sent by the Red Cross. “We will not accept this unclean Christian food,” shouted refugee leader, Iman Jakash. “We demand Muslim aid.” Whether there will be any Muslim aid forthcoming seems doubtful. Saudi Arabia refuses to feed these co-religionists, but has offered to fund the construction of 200 mosques in Germany provided the refugees are admitted to that country. “Simply feeding these refugees does nothing to ensure the spreading of the faith,” said Abdul Fahraud, spokesman for the Saudi Office of Religious Affairs. “Ensuring that they will have houses of worship in which to pray and associate with kindred believers is a much more vital endeavor for the spread of Islam.”
McConnell Rejects House Plea for Majority Rule on Iran Deal
A plea from 57 House Republicans to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken) to allow the Senate majority to vote on the Iran treaty fell on deaf ears. At issue is McConnell’s refusal to bypass the filibuster of the Senate minority that is blocking a vote on the measure.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), spokesman for the 57 GOP House members emphasized that “voting on a matter as consequential as the Iran deal should take precedence over the preservation of a mere Senate rule.”
Although the Senate rule authorizing filibusters has no Constitutional or statutory basis, McConnell firmly rejected Smith’s arguments. “The United States Senate is the world’s greatest deliberative body,” McConnell claimed. “It didn’t get that way by simply yielding to majority sentiment. Preserving this historic role is more important than what happens on this one issue.”
It’s not as if this “historic role” hasn’t undergone occasional modifications. The threshold for shutting down a filibuster used to be two-thirds. Segregationists used the two-thirds rule to block numerous civil rights laws over many decades. In 1975, the ratio of votes required to end a filibuster was reduced to three-fifths. During former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s tenure the ratio was reduced to a simple majority on one occasion.
McConnell was also unfazed by polls showing more than a two-thirds majority of Americans oppose the Iran deal, saying that “the views held by voters cannot be expected to carry as much weight as the views of members of the Senate. Just doing what the majority wants is tantamount to mob rule. I will not acquiesce to such a desecration of the principles upon which our government operates.”
Smith was unimpressed by McConnell’s arguments and pointed out that “under our Constitution treaties are supposed to be affirmatively endorsed by two-thirds of the Senate. The Iran deal inverts that requirement. Shouldn’t Senator McConnell and all members of Congress, for that matter, put this Constitutional requirement ahead of the made-up procedures of the Senate no matter how hoary they may be?”
In related news, the Obama Administration declined to disclose the estimated number of Americans killed by Iran and its terror proxies since, according to Secretary of State John Kerry, “the only purpose this would serve is to potentially derail implementation of the deal we worked so hard to obtain. Rather than stir up points of disagreement, it’s better to let bygones be bygones.”
“Free Stuff” Gaffe Said to Doom Bush’s Candidacy
Republican presidential candidate Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush faced a firestorm of criticism from the welfare lobby for asserting that his message of opportunity would win more Black votes than Democrats’ promises of more “free stuff.”
Democratic presidential race front runner former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gloated over what she maintained “effectively ends his run for the nation’s top job. Bush’s pledge to preserve people’s opportunity to work their way up the ladder offers them nothing they couldn’t get on their own. What we offer is something in addition to what people can earn for themselves. Democrats are the Party that guarantees that the government will take care of everyone. Republicans are the Party that would force everyone get a job and support themselves.”
Not to be outdone by his presidential rival, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders promised to “carve up the capitalist turkey and dish out shares to everyone. Why should the masses restrain themselves from expropriating the bourgeoisie? We have the numbers and, therefore, the power to vote for the redistribution of the nation’s wealth. We have only ourselves to blame if we fail to exercise that power.”
Sanders sought to distinguish himself from his “intellectual mentor” Vladimir Lenin by eschewing the prescribed “liquidation” of the capitalist class. “I am a peaceful man,” Sanders proclaimed. “Stripped of their property, the capitalist oppressors would be powerless. My more humane approach would allow them to take their place at the back of the line and receive their fair share of the redistributed wealth.”
Afghan Sex Slaves “Internal Matter,” Says Administration
Reports that US military personnel in Afghanistan have been ordered to ignore Afghan troops’ “bachi bazi”—the ritual kidnapping, imprisonment and rape of child sex slaves was defended by the Obama Administration as “a necessary compromise in the war on terror.”
“The practice of holding and abusing under-aged boys as sex slaves is an ancient tradition in Afghanistan,” US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter observed. “It is not our place to interfere.”
The Secretary drew a parallel with this country’s alliance with the Soviet Union during World War II. “The Soviet Union was an oppressive tyranny run by a paranoid psychopath,” Carter recounted. “Millions were sent to the gulag for trivial or non-existent offenses. Thousands were executed for imaginary crimes. By any measure, this was far worse than the rape of a few hundred little boys by our Afghan allies.”
“Abiding Stalin’s lesser evil in order to gain his nation’s help in fighting Hitler’s greater evil was a necessary strategic decision,” Carter contended. “Likewise, abiding the peculiar cultural practices of our Afghan allies in the war against the Taliban terrorists is a price we must be willing to pay. The squeamishness of our troops cannot be permitted to interfere with our broader strategic objectives in the region.”
Carter justified the dismissal of Sgt. Charles Martland from the Army for his actions calling attention to the child rapes. “Our troops in the region have their orders,” Carter said. “By raising an unapproved alarm over the Afghan Army’s behavior, Sgt Martland disobeyed those orders. Discipline is a fundamental component of military cohesion. Just as US troops were ordered to ignore Soviet troops’ rape of German women in the closing days of WWII, Martland was ordered to ignore the Afghan troops’ rapes. Discharging him was our only option.”
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif) labeled this “strategic compromise ‘pathetic.’ We shouldn’t be repeating history’s past mistakes. Making the world safe for pedophiles is not a cause worthy of one drop of an American soldier’s blood. We should either stand for human freedom or withdraw from this fight.”
In related news, Carter denounced Russia’s intervention in Syria saying that “sending troops to battle ISIL in the region conflicts with President Obama’s more nuanced approach. Russia’s decision to just kill the Islamic State fighters contradicts the President’s efforts to assist these forces to help overthrow the Assad dictatorship.”
Consensus for War with Russia Building
Russian intervention against opponents of the Assad government in Syria appears to have sparked a rising tide of bipartisan support for US countermeasures. Initially, Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina called for the US to resist the Russian initiative by force if necessary.
Determined not to be outflanked, Democratic presidential contender, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed Fiorina by urging President Obama to establish a “no fly zone” over the rebel positions in order “to protect our investment in the anti-Assad rebels.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Az) reminded everyone that “I’m the only one who has met with these rebels. Though by our standards they may not be good people, they are fighting for freedom as they see it.” McCain argued for “a subtler approach. Rather than an overt ‘no fly zone’ why don’t we just arm the rebels with Stinger missiles they could use to shoot down the Russian jets that are bombing them?”
In Congress, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif) endorsed the idea that “we’ve got to do something to counter the Russian intervention. For us to sit by idly while the President’s carefully crafted Middle East policy is disrupted will do incalculable damage to our nation’s credibility as the world’s leading superpower.”
Thus far, the only high-profile objection to going to war with Russia has come from GOP presidential contender Donald Trump who has suggested that “the Russians bombing the Islamic barbarians doesn’t seem so bad. To me, Putin seems the lesser evil. I can’t see fighting him to save fanatics who would behead you if they could.”
In related news, Jürgen Todenhöfer, a German journalist who spent 10 days living behind ISIS lines in Syria, reports that “the terrorists are eager to carry out the largest religious cleansing operation in human history. If they get their hands on nuclear weapons they will have no hesitation in using them to unleash a nuclear tsunami against the West. This is no ‘junior varsity team.’ They are dangerous and determined.”
Candidates Call for More Regulation of Wall Street
In a bid to outflank her socialist rival contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for more stringent government regulation of big businesses. Under her proposed policy, the federal government would order firms that were “too large and too risky to be managed effectively to reorganize, downsize, or break apart.”
That the federal government, which has not been managed effectively for many decades would possess the necessary expertise to assess the effectiveness of diverse business operations might seem dubious. Nevertheless, Clinton maintained that “the government has the right and the obligation to oversee how the nation’s collective wealth is managed. Stewardship over corporate assets is a privilege that can be revoked if it it misused or abused. Our government is a government of, by, and for the people. Any institution or organization within our society that does not serve the people, as determined by their elected officials, can be altered or abolished.”
Not to be outdone, Sanders characterized Clinton as a “faux socialist. She talks a good game on the campaign trail, but her record has been one of selling influence to the highest bidder. Why else would Wall Street be among the biggest donors to her candidacy and to her money-laundering Clinton Foundation? I will expropriate these corporate parasites and ensure that the government runs these businesses for the benefit of all.”
Evidence from Clinton’s unsecured private email account would seem to bolster Sanders’ claim. As it turns out, Clinton’s Department of State subordinate Cheryl Mills appears to have illegally passed classified information to the Clinton Foundation in order to assist its fund-raising activities among foreign governments.
Dems Demand Apology to Planned Parenthood
Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md), Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn), and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) issued a letter demanding that House Republicans apologize to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards for their “shameful treatment of her during the committee’s hearing investigating the organization last week.”
The letter characterized the questioning of Ms. Richards “four hours of pure torture” and contended that “it is as clear a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment that we have ever witnessed. The injustice of it all was egregious. Terminating pregnancies is not a crime. Selling recovered tissue is not a crime. Yet, Ms, Richards was grilled as if she were a common criminal.”
The letter also condemned the Center for Medical Progress videos that sparked the Congressional investigation as “a deceptive entrapment scheme. The representatives from this organization posed as legitimate tissue purchasers in order to lure Planned Parenthood personnel into making unguarded statements that many would interpret as callous and greedy. Such underhanded tactics merit our disgust and revulsion. We should not condone this kind of behavior. To reward it by conducting a witch hunt will only encourage more of it.”
Chairman of the Oversight Committee, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) defended the hearings and said “the four hours of questioning Ms. Richards faced was mild in comparison with the dismemberment inflicted on the unborn at the hands of Planned Parenthood. I am far more disgusted by the murder of children and the selling of their bodies than I am that this heinous organization was caught on video admitting these atrocities. I will not apologize for shining a light on this holocaust.”
Germany Struggles to Make Immigrants Feel Welcome
Germany is taking some extraordinary steps to try to accommodate an estimated 1.5 million Muslim immigrants that will enter the country this year.
In a number of locations German students have been assigned to perform domestic chores—including doing laundry, preparing meals and cleaning up after the immigrants. These tasks have been made more arduous and risky by the obnoxious behavior of some of the beneficiaries, which includes throwing their trash out the windows of the apartments provided for them and raping the females entering the premises to clean.
Inhabitants of small towns being inundated by swarms of migrants have been advised by the German government to move if they don’t like it. Refugee Coordinator Detlef Placzek waved off any possible objections, blithely asserting that “the decision to welcome these people comes from the highest level. It is every German’s duty to obey the decrees ordered by their government.”
Twenty migrants have shown their “gratitude” by filing a lawsuit. Abu Sirh, spokesman for the litigants, complained that “the Berlin State Office for Health and Social Affairs has been too slow in delivering the expected bundle of welfare benefits. To make us wait more than a week before receiving what we came so far to get is intolerable. We are Allah’s chosen people. It is the kafirs‘ obligation to serve us.”
Sirh blamed the delay in the distribution of benefits for a spate of prostitution among the daughters and wives of some of the migrants. “Without the benefits promised to us, many men have been forced to rent out their daughters and wives to get money to buy cigarettes and other necessities,” Sirh charged.
In a bizarre bid to placate these religious fanatics, the German government has lifted the ban on the publication of Hitler’s anti-semitic screed Mein Kampf. Spokesman for the Merkel government Heine Douchefangen asked his countrymen “to be more accepting of the culture of the newcomers. This book is a perennial best seller in the places the immigrants come from. Making it available in our book stores will help them feel more at home.”
Clinton Blames Stevens for Own Death
In testimony before the House Committee on Benghazi former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laid the blame for the Benghazi debacle squarely on slain Ambassador Christopher Stevens. “He was the person on-the-ground in Libya, I was thousands of miles away,” she pointed out. “He should have taken better care of his own safety.”
Clinton brushed off evidence of emails from Stevens expressing concerns about inadequate security for diplomatic personnel in Libya, alleging that “I never saw any of those 600 emails” and that “Ambassador Stevens didn’t even have my private email address, which, I think, showed a lack of initiative on his part.”
The former Secretary also speculated that Stevens’ emails “may have been a joke. Chris was legendary for his sense of humor. Inasmuch as he was an integral actor in a scheme to smuggle weapons through Libya and into Syria it is understandable that the Department personnel who did receive his emails on this matter may have dismissed them as just another demonstration of his rapier wit.”
As to why she didn’t support sending a rescue team in response to requests for aide during the attack, Clinton asserted that the absence of the key code word “cornhole” in the desperate messages from those under attack raised doubts as to the source of the pleas. “Without this code word we had no way of authenticating who was asking for intervention,” Clinton said. “It could have been a ruse deployed by our enemies.”
“Tragic as the deaths of the four Americans killed in the raid on the Consular compound may have been to the families involved, we shouldn’t lose sight of the greater tragedy avoided by the actions we took that day and in the immediate aftermath,” she continued. “September 11, 2012 was less than two months prior to an election that would determine who would lead this country for the next four years. The dissimulation that the Administration’s enemies are so worked up about now was essential for fending off the bigger threat represented by Mitt Romney and the Republicans who sought to topple our government.”
Finally, Clinton challenged the need for further investigation, claiming that “I already took responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. That should have ended the matter. Continuing to probe into those long-ago events is an unprecedented violation of common courtesy. Once a government official acknowledges responsibility there is no need to further belabor the issue. It’s time to move on.”
French Mathematicians Question Global Climate Hysteria
A recent report authored by a team of mathematicians from the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA challenged what it concluded is “a costly and pointless crusade against a naturally variable climate. The forces driving change are huge and beyond human control. The contribution to climate change that can be traced to human activity is tiny. The measures touted to combat climate change would be both expensive and ineffectual.”
Global climate expert Al Gore denounced the report as “detrimental to our efforts to unite humanity in this crucial battle to save the planet. I’m not a math whiz, but I know if we do nothing we can’t accomplish anything. Rather than sit by while the world burns wouldn’t it be better to try everything we can?”
Gore brushed aside the fact that the planet has endured climates far warmer before the human species ever rubbed two sticks together, asserting that “just because we can’t have an effect on the major factors behind climate change doesn’t mean we shouldn’t go all out to control the minor factors. That way, whether we end up sweating or shivering we’ll know that it isn’t our fault. The value of such knowledge would be priceless.”
Gaёlle Tournié, one of the authors of the report, professed “it is difficult for me to decide whether Monsieur Gore is insane or idiotic. That he would gladly bankrupt humanity in an essentially futile endeavor to achieve a minuscule impact of doubtful success would support either assessment.”
PLO Assails Cruz Hearing on Terrorism
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) took issue with how Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) handled a hearing on Middle East terrorism. The hearing entitled, “Justice Forsaken: How the Federal Government Fails the American Victims of Iranian and Palestinian Terrorism,” featured witnesses describing attacks by Palestinian suicide bombers against innocent victims.
PLO spokesman Haikil Juze complained that “these hearings are one-sided and biased. Contrary to the propaganda spouted by Cruz and his witnesses, Jews are not innocent. The Quran makes that clear. It is every Muslim’s sacred duty to strike down these minions of Satan wherever, whenever, and however they can.”
Juze condemned “Cruz’s failure to mention the provocations committed by the Israelis. First of all, the mere presence of Jews in lands conquered for Allah more than a thousand years ago is an intolerable affront. Second, Jewish whores parade around the streets with their faces and limbs uncovered inducing irresistible lust among innocent Muslim men. Third, the Quran expressly prohibits non-Muslims from owning weapons. Yet, Jews walk the streets with firearms in their hands, over their shoulders, or on their hips. Rage and revenge is our only honorable option. Cruz’s aim to deny us this option violates our religious freedom.”
Presidential Press Secretary Josh Earnest called Cruz’s efforts “unhelpful. The President, who is a great admirer of Lincoln, urged me to convey the message that if he could achieve peace in the region without harming any Jews he would do it, and if he could achieve peace by harming all the Jews he would do it; and if he could achieve peace by harming some and leaving others alone he would also do that.” ”
University Students Rally for Tyranny
The protests at the University of Missouri that resulted in the ouster of President Tim Wolfe and Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin have reinvigorated student movements against freedom of speech across the nation.
Brenda Smith-Lezama, vice president of the Missouri Students Association, took pride in the rising groundswell of support for censorship saying “it’s about time the youth of this nation take a stand against the verbal pollution that hides behind the First Amendment. Social justice shouldn’t be thwarted by slavish devotion to the out-dated idea that everyone has the right to speak his mind regardless of the consequences.”
Smith-Lezama hailed the intimidation of student journalist Tim Tai as “an example of the will of the people triumphing over the sterile notion that the press should be free to oppose progressive values. The people have a right to decide what will be written about. So-called journalists can have no right to independently determine what will or won’t be covered if it contradicts the aims of social justice.”
At Amherst College student activists have given the administration 48 hours to comply with its list of nonnegotiable demands. Alleging that “freedom of speech is part of this nation’s historic legacy of oppression,” the activists demanded that students demonstrating for “free speech” and insulting progressives with banners proclaiming “all lives matter,” be “warned that statements offensive to social justice will not be tolerated” and that “disciplinary action against future offenders be made a school policy.”
At the University of Massachusetts, student protesters vowed “there will be no peace until all university tuition and fees are waived and outstanding student debt is canceled.” Chrissy Dasco, of the Center for Educational Policy and Advocacy, argued that “forcing students to pay for their own college education violates the Constitution’s guarantees of liberty and pursuit of happiness. A person can’t truly be free or happy if he or she is burdened with having to pay for an education. It is the government’s obligation to provide a college education to anyone who deserves it. Even the citizens of North Korea have that right.”
At Claremont McKenna College in California, Dean of Students Mary Spellman resigned in the face of a threatened hunger-strike by students alleging “lack of support for students of color.” The hunger-strikers contend that “the administration’s refusal to assign white students to do the work of minority students reneges on the responsibility of the white race to atone for the hundreds of years of slavery imposed on blacks in America. The only way for the scales of social justice to be balanced is for whites to be forced to labor on behalf of blacks, just as blacks were forced to labor on behalf of whites before the Civil War.”
President Obama praised the rising tide of student activism calling it “a vindication of my faith in the political wisdom and energy of this country’s younger generation. They are breaking free of the traditional constraints of our society and creating new realities with new rules for a new future.”
Sanders Explains Democratic Socialism
Contender for the Democratic presidential nomination Sen. Bernie Sanders (S-Vt) made an effort to define democratic socialism in a speech to Georgetown University students this week.
“Unlike the socialism imposed by Lenin or Mao, democratic socialism allows voters to select who will rule over them,” Sanders said. “With the backing of the electorate, these rulers will redress the inequities stemming from inequalities that are no fault of the individual.”
Sanders asserted “the notion that a person’s hard work might entitle him to a disproportionate share of the world’s wealth is just plain wrong. A person’s ability to work hard is an inheritance that he did not earn. Likewise, a person’s inability to work hard is also an inheritance he did nothing to deserve. Democratic socialism places the well-being of the much larger number of persons unsuited to hard work ahead of the minority unfairly gifted with this ability. It uses democratic means for seizing the outputs of those with greater ability and redistributing them for the benefit of those with greater need.”
“In a family, the parents distribute the benefits of food, clothing, housing, and everything else to all their children,” Sanders argued. “They don’t allow some to prosper while others are neglected. Democratic socialism merely extends the concept of family to everyone under the regime’s jurisdiction. Government assumes the role of the parent and metes out a fair share to all its children.”
Sanders acknowledged the possibility that “some of the state’s children might need to be disciplined for selfish behavior. It will be the government’s job to ascertain the abilities of all and ensure that those who are capable are assigned an appropriate share of the chores of sustaining the national family. The collective good of the whole cannot be allowed to suffer due to shirking by the capable.”
“The success of my campaign will show whether America is ready for democratic socialism,” Sanders said. “My guess is that the needy outnumber the able by a considerable margin. Convincing this huge majority to vote for a system that will empower them to confiscate the surplus produced by the able is my biggest challenge.”
Paris Terror Attack Spurs Call for Gun Control
Despite the fact that France has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, the massacre of over 100 people in Paris by gun and bomb wielding Islamic terrorists has inspired Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill) to call for more stringent gun-control regulations in America.
“I don’t mean to belittle the grief felt by so many after the tragic events in Paris, but I shudder to think how much worse it would have been if the victims had been armed,” Schakowsky said. “Bullets could have been coming from every direction. Police would have been confused over who were the perpetrators.”
“If a similar attack were to take place in America it is likely that a significant number of intended victims would, due to our lax gun-control laws, be carrying concealed weapons,” Schakowsky lamented. “There would have been complete chaos. Who knows how many may have fallen victim to friendly fire.”
“If we want to be a civilized society we must give up the idea of an individual right of self-defense,” the Congresswoman contended. “We must place our trust in collective-defense even if this means that in a given situation an individual may be helpless in a confrontation with an armed assailant. I don’t think it’s asking too much for our citizens to lay down their lives in pursuit of the goal of a more civilized society.”
In related news, US Secretary of State John Kerry denounced the Paris terror attack as “completely unjustified” and contrasted it with the more “legitimate murder” of the editorial staff of Charlie Hebdo earlier this year. “Killing people at a restaurant and theater was just unfocused violence,” Kerry said. “What is the message? Don’t go out to eat? Don’t attend a concert? Killing the editors at the magazine made more sense. People know what to do to stay safe—don’t mock Islam. President Obama has been urging people to not mock Islam for some time now. So, the victims at Charlie Hebdo can’t say they weren’t warned.”
Candidate’s Funding Solicitation Labeled Possible “Phishing Scam”
Contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (S-Vt) effort to solicit donations via an email request hit a snag when the Google gmail software identified the request as a “phishing scam.” Apparently, the Sanders’ campaign promises of “free college” and “low cost prescriptions” were classified as indicators of “possible fraud.”
Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver blamed “Google’s limited understanding of the difference between real scams and legitimate political policies. The crook’s objective is to rob the unwary individual by proffering benefits that can never be attained. Bernie’s objective is to persuade voters to elect him so he can legally confiscate the undeserved wealth of the minority in order to redistribute it to the majority. Those who support Bernie are not targeted victims, but co-participants in the transfer of money.”
Presidential rival Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) disagreed with Weaver’s “attempt to disguise the inherent fraud of socialist economics as a legitimate political policy. Inviting his supporters to participate in securing loot by offering them a share of the ill-gotten gains doesn’t magically transform theft into an ethical action. Voting to help oneself to the earnings of another is still a criminal act. Using the government as an intermediary cannot cleanse it of its immoral character.”
Holiday Surveillance Shows Need for More Executive Action
Despite urging from a variety of left-wing luminaries, discussions in most households over the Thanksgiving holiday did not pan out as hoped. Early summations of conversations picked up from eavesdropping by “smart TVs” revealed that the vast majority leaned toward right-wing views.
“The President asked Americans to talk about gun control,” Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. “They did, but the gist of the sentiment was that more people wanted to arm themselves. Likewise, conversations about immigration evinced a preference for less of it. And practically no one seemed concerned about global climate change. Obviously, American opinion is not where it should be at this stage of the President’s term.”
“Given the short time left until he leaves office, the President’s only recourse is to step up the pace of executive action if we want to make progress on his key priorities,” Earnest surmised. “As Commander-in-Chief of the United States, he believes he has the legal authority to order the confiscation of unneeded firearms, to grant the admission of as many immigrants as he deems warranted, and to institute whatever climate control regulations that may be required.”
Support for autocratic presidential action was rapidly vocalized by a cadre of 24 Senate Democrats led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Conn). “There is no hope of obtaining Congressional approval of legislation to restrict citizens’ access to firearms,” Blumenthal lamented. “Our more cowardly colleagues cite the Second Amendment and the wrath of voters in their home states as excuses for their inaction on this sorely needed regulation.”
Blumenthal urged the President “to save the nation from the impasse of misguided allegiance to an out-dated document and the ignorant prejudices of too many voters. Off-the-record, a clear majority of Congress is with us on the merits. If you could take the heat for overriding these obstacles you would be acting in the best interests of those who have dedicated their careers to governing this nation.”
California Massacre Sparks Diverse Reactions
A paramilitary assault by Syed Rizwan Farooq and his wife Tashfeen Malik on an office Christmas party in San Bernardino, California that left 14 dead and 21 more wounded sowed confusion at the highest levels of the US government. The attackers had apparently planned the event far in advance—accumulating an arsenal of firearms, thousands of rounds of ammo, combat-ready body armor and constructing a number of IEDs over a period of at least several weeks—and posted a pledge of allegiance to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on the day of the attack.
Nonetheless, President Obama professed his complete bafflement at the possible motive for the murders. “We really have no clue as to why these two young people took such drastic action,” Obama said. “We do know that Farooq had some sort of work relationship with many of the victims and was familiar with the work premises where the crime occurred. My best guess is that we are dealing with another instance of workplace violence.”
Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations Nihad Awad blamed US foreign policy for “provoking an essentially defensive reaction from these obviously devout Muslims. When US troops are trespassing on Muslim lands it should not be surprising if Muslims everywhere are spurred into action.”
Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged that “Mr. Awad may have a point. If we bomb ISIS we shouldn’t be surprised if ISIS sympathizers retaliate.” Kerry also suggested that “the target wasn’t exactly random. As I understand it, Mr. Farooq had a number of previous arguments with one of the victims—a Jew who challenged the idea that Islam is a religion of peace. And we shouldn’t overlook the fact that the Christmas party he attacked is an example of the kind of micro-aggressions that Muslims in this country have to face on a regular basis.”
Attorney General Loretta Lynch took up the micro-aggression theme and disclosed that her office currently has “more than a thousand ongoing investigations into anti-Muslim incidents including ‘hate speech’ and ‘bigoted behavior’ of the sort meted out to Ahmed Mohamed,” whose cleverly designed clock that looked like a brief case bomb freaked out school officials in Irving, Texas. As Lynch sees it, “it is only because Muslims are a small minority in this country that these sorts of flagrant injustices can occur. The cure is to admit more Muslim immigrants. As their numbers grow, hate crimes against them should subside—if not due to the fear of losing a multi-million dollar lawsuit as Irving may, then maybe the greater probability that a Muslim may be pushed past the tipping point like Farooq and Malik were.”
In a bid to distinguish themselves from any suspicion of harboring anti-Muslim sentiments, Democratic Reps. Don Beyer of Virginia and Joe Crowley of New York attended Friday prayers at the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center. This northern Virginia mosque was previously favored by the attendance of several of the September 11, 2001 hijackers as well as Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan. California colleague Rep. Jackie Speier didn’t go so far as to attend the mosque services, but refused to participate in a Congressional “moment of silence” for the San Bernardino victims as “it might further enrage the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and foment further violence, possibly against members of Congress like myself.”
In related news, Democrats’ determination to bring as many Muslim immigrants to the United States as they can get away with received a PR setback by Saudi Arabia’s refusal to accept a single refugee from war-torn Syria, claiming that “they are too dangerous” and citing “the brawls and riots perpetrated by refugees allowed into Germany” as “proof they are too uncivilized for our society.”
Hillary Campaign Denounces Benghazi “Smear”
In a recent interview on ABC TV, Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton denied that she ever told the mourning family members of the four Americans murdered in Benghazi in 2012 that she blamed a video for their deaths. Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, those family members unanimously tell a different story.
Tyrone Woods’ father remembered Clinton promising that “the filmmaker who was responsible for the death of your son will be arrested and punished.” Sean Smith’s mother and uncle said Clinton told them the same thing.
Glen Doherty’s sister was especially offended by what she characterized as “a gratuitous falsehood. The video story was all over the media. Mrs. Clinton’s Department of State was pushing that narrative very forcefully. She kept to that story on the day we met to retrieve Glen’s body. We’ve since learned from her email correspondence that she knew from the beginning that the video was a made-up cover story.”
Hillary for President campaign manager Maggie Williams called the families’ contradictory account “a well-orchestrated smear against one of the greatest Americans of our generation. That a handful of relative nobodies would dare to challenge the veracity of Secretary Clinton is shameful. Fortunately, we can trust the media to bury this libel. But even if they don’t, voters will never believe it.”
In related news, several recently released emails from former Secretary of State Clinton’s formerly hidden stash indicate that the Obama Administration’s contention that the Benghazi victims couldn’t be rescued due to lack of time may have been false. Apparently, the Pentagon informed the State Department that it was ready to deploy a rescue mission at an early stage of the 13-hour long terrorist attack. As luck would have it, all the top brass of the Department had “left for the day.” A low-level State Department employee named Jeremy Bash, said he spent hours trying every phone number he could think of, but could not reach the Secretary until after the Ambassador and the others had been killed.
Bergdahl to Face Court-Martial
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.”
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.