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

In his speech at the Democratic Convention President Obama contended that “by so many measures, our country is stronger and more prosperous than it was when we started.” Unfortunately, a number of key statistics seem to contradict that assessment. There are 3 million more people in poverty. Household incomes for those in the bottom 20 percent declined. Nearly 9 million more individuals are receiving food stamps. And 14 million have left the workforce.

Press Secretary Josh Earnest insisted that “these statistics need to be properly interpreted. Before we leap to a hasty conclusion that the president’s policies have been ineffective let’s consider what has really taken place. A mere increase in the number of persons below the poverty line is not a clear indication that they suffering. In our country, people below the poverty line are provided with amenities—like air-conditioned apartments, cable TV, and cell phones—that even the so-called middle class in other countries lack.”

“Why should we worry about earned incomes declining when the benefits offered by government are so generous?” Earnest asked. “Isn’t the fact that people get to consume more important than whether they can afford to pay for it? Isn’t the fact that more Americans are overweight than ever a sign that the increase in food stamps is a success? And don’t get me started on the millions who have left the workforce. Surely being able to live without having a job is a step forward in human civilization. The gains in leisure have got to far outstrip any assumed loss of dignity from becoming dependent on others.”

In related news, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) sought to explain polls showing low levels of support for Hillary among non-college educated men as “evidence of a failure to accept their logical role in the social collective. Men are endowed with greater physical strength than women. Those of them who have not proved their intellectual fitness to lead must expect to bear the burden of toil befitting their strength for the greater good of the whole. Of the two major party candidates only Hillary understands this and can be counted upon to take the steps needed to implement it.”

Democrats Accuse Trump of Treason

The Wikileaks release of 20,000 Democratic National Committee emails show how Party officials rigged the presidential primary campaign to favor Hillary Clinton over Sen Bernie Sanders (S-Vt) confirmed what many have suspected for the last six months. DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (Fla) was quick to initiate a narrative blaming Russia for hacking into the DNC’s server.

“That a foreign government with a long-running enmity to America could so easily break into confidential computer files of the Democratic Party is a matter of serious concern,” she alleged. “The public exposure of our private communications could influence the outcome of the November election. Such an invasion into a political process that is none of their business will not be forgotten.”

GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump called Wasserman-Schultz’s concerns “belated and self-serving. As I recall, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was recently reprimanded by the FBI for ‘extraordinary carelessness’ in her handling of classified government information on a non-secure computer. The odds that that server was hacked are extremely high. Foreign governments and criminals could have gotten a hold of sensitive information that could be used to the detriment of this country.”

While professing no knowledge of who might have done the hacking, Trump suggested that “the Russians or whoever might be responsible should look for the 30,000 emails Hillary says she deleted.” Sen Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) immediately labeled Trump’s suggestion “treason. Encouraging a foreign power to break into potentially classified communications violates the Logan Act.”

Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort called MacCaskill’s remarks “telling. According to Mrs. Clinton, the 30,000 missing emails were all of a personal nature and not part of the business of the State Department. That is how she justified deleting them despite her statutory obligation to turn over all her correspondence. Wouldn’t the publication of those emails by Russia or whoever may have them vindicate Hillary’s dubious contention?”

Clinton Campaign Manager Robbie Mook argued that “the exposure of personal emails could still be an embarrassment. As we have seen from the publication from the DNC hack, emails with derogatory, demeaning, and insensitive content could be just as damaging as actual security breeches. Anything that could contribute to undermining respect for a prospective commander-in-chief is, in my opinion, treasonous.”

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) suggested that Trump’s remarks “disqualify him as a candidate. That he would side with hackers and encourage them to expose a great American’s ‘dirty laundry,’ so to speak raises genuine questions regarding his loyalty to this country. Even if he thinks Secretary Clinton is a rat, she is our rat. Coming together to support one another is every patriot’s obligation. Submerging our differences in pursuit of a unified collective whole is the sacrifice we all must make for the greater good.”

Reid went on to advise that Trump be given fake national security briefings in order to “keep the nation’s most precious secrets from this unworthy individual and to set him up for future campaign gaffes that will ensure his defeat in November.”

Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) seconded Reid’s proposal in a letter to President Obama. “A mindless adherence to the tradition of briefing both major candidates must not be allowed to block a sensible tool for ensuring a favorable outcome at the ballot box,” Cicilline wrote.

In related news, the DNC issued a letter of apology to Sen. Sanders for “shafting you during the primaries,” but urged him to “shake it off. Many athletic contests are marred by errant calls by umpires or referees, but the results are never overturned.” Sanders was advised to “wait until ‘next season’ to mount a campaign to rectify this injustice.”

Clinton Campaign Disses Idea of Press Conferences

One tradition that has been notably absent from Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidency has been press conferences where the media are invited to query the candidate.

“We’ll have a press conference when we want to have a press conference,” Clinton pollster Joel Benenson said on ABC News this past week. “Our candidate is under no legal obligation to answer to the press. We will control what is said to whom and when it will be said. We acknowledge that this may be inconvenient from the media’s perspective, but they’ll just have to bear with it.”

Benenson also pointed out that “it’s not like the media is going to switch sides over this. More than 90% of them are with us on the issues. In a way, the lack of press conferences let’s them off the hook. The effort they’d have to go to in order to appear even-handed has got to be stressful for them. By carefully controlling the exposition of our candidate’s message we can all arrive at our commonly agreed upon destination with a minimum of fuss.”

Trump Places Competence Ahead of Compassion

Vice-President Joe Biden explained the difference between a Clinton and a Trump administration in a raucous speech to the Democratic National Convention, contending that Trump’s catchphrase from his Apprentice reality show “’you’re fired,’ reveals a gaping existential chasm between Democrats and Republicans.”

“Just because a person can’t handle a job doesn’t mean he doesn’t need that job,” Biden pointed out. “Yet, Trump would callously cast employees aside based merely upon performance. Is this the kind of man we want to place at the head of our government?”

“In contrast, our nominee has the compassion to understand that competence is not the most important attribute we should seek from an employee,” Biden said. “The right frame of mind and the commitment to a shared social goal is far more valuable than whether an individual can get a job done. We can always add more employees if those we have on hand lack the skills needed to complete tasks.”

To those concerned that a “compassionate” approach might result in a bloated bureaucracy, Biden asked “would it really be better to cast the so-called ‘dead wood’ out into the street? We are a rich country. We can easily afford keeping loyal civil servants on the payroll. I shudder to think what might have become of me had a harsh demand for performance been applied to me. Democratic voters have spared me the ignominy of finding out. By electing Hillary voters will spare millions of government employees from finding out.”

Democratic VP nominee Urges Voters to Trust Hillary Clinton

Freshly nominated Democratic Party candidate for vice-president Sen Tim Kaine took up the delicate issue of whether voters could afford to trust running mate Hillary Clinton.

“We’ve heard that her use of an insecure non-government computer server for her emails was too risky,” Kaine recounted. “We’ve heard that her neglect of security for the Benghazi Consulate was a dereliction of duty. We’ve heard FBI Director James Comey characterize her handling of classified information as ‘extraordinarily careless.’ We’ve seen that she lied on numerous occasions in efforts to conceal her illegal and dangerous behavior. However, I am asking voters to look past these mistakes and elect her president.”

“Naturally, many will wonder how they can be expected to ignore these seemingly serious shortcomings,” Kaine said. “Well, let’s look at the biggest decision she’s had to make since sewing up the nomination. Out of all the people she could have chosen as her running mate, she chose me. The brilliance of this one decision should blow away all fear that she can’t be trusted to wisely govern. She had the integrity to bypass the obvious choice of naming rival Bernie Sanders as her VP. She had the guts not to latch on to the easy option of putting two-time VP Joe Biden on the ticket. She picked me. Since I know what a swell guy I am and what a great job I could do as president should the need arise, I am persuaded that voters can put their trust in her as president.”

John Kerry Reaches New Height of Idiocy

Secretary of State John Kerry reached a new height of idiocy this past week by suggesting air conditioners were just as dangerous as ISIS. The remarks came in Vienna where Kerry was representing the US in negotiations aimed at reducing emissions that contribute to global warming.

“Granted, the terror attacks carried out by these misguided individuals are splashy,” Kerry observed. “Dozens die and even more are maimed and injured, but the fact is that these effects are small-scale and of limited duration and consequence. We easily overlook some of the offsetting benefits. The people killed cease to be carbon emitters. This has a salutary impact on global temperatures.”

“In contrast, air-conditioning is much vaster in scope and impact,” Kerry explained. “It’s a habit too many people have fallen into out of a selfish pursuit of their own comfort. Breaking this cycle is of greater urgency than our efforts to mitigate terror attacks.”

Despite the professed greater threat posed by air conditioning, the Secretary brushed aside suggestions that AC units at the State Department be turned off as an example to others. “The comfort of those of us charged with the responsibility to lead this country cannot be sacrificed in a quixotic attempt to model exemplary behavior,” Kerry said. “Discomfort needs to be apportioned according to the importance, or lack thereof, of those being asked to endure it.”

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 use material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit and DO NOT change the context. Thank you.

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

President Obama took issue with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s portrayal of a country in crisis, calling it “dangerously skewed from reality.”

“By highlighting a few incidents of terrorist attacks Mr. Trump overlooks the fact that only a small minority of people die at the hands of these misguided individuals,” Obama asserted. “The reality is that the vast majority of people in this country still die of old age. A more sensible approach was voiced by French Prime Minister Manuel Valls who calmly advised that we learn to live with these attacks.”

“Trump’s call for ‘law and order’ undermines my Administration’s efforts to seek a more equitable balance in our penal system,” the President complained. “His narrow focus on apprehending and punishing perpetrators of crimes would have a racially disparate impact on minorities. It completely ignores the crimes committed against Blacks during slavery that went unpunished and lets the descendants of those criminals escape retribution. Ideally, this retribution should come from the government, but can we really blame those tired of waiting for the government to take action?”

“Then there’s all his harping about the suffering of the middle class,” Obama added. “The middle class doesn’t appreciate how good they have it. Most of the people around the world have far worse lives. They live in ramshackle buildings, often have too little to eat, and live under corrupt dictators. Opening our borders to them is an act of compassion and social justice. Sharing in the wealth that our country has been blessed with is their human right. Those who vote for Trump will be voting to deny them this right.”

“Fortunately, voters will have an opportunity to continue the progress I have made during my time in office by electing Secretary Hillary Clinton this November,” the President urged. “Not only has she pledged to stay the course, there is also the very real possibility that she will enable me to carry on the revolution by appointing me to a seat on the Supreme Court. The journey doesn’t have to end. It can live beyond January if voters make the right choice this Fall.”

In related news, a release of 20,000 hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee by Wikileaks detailed how supposedly impartial Party officials worked to stifle Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign against insider-favorite Hillary Clinton. DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz defended the biased process, arguing that “the fate of the nation is too important to leave to chance. We could not sit by idly and permit a nobody like Sanders to derail the most qualified person in our history from her destiny to rule America.”

Nearly Half of TSA Employees Cited for Misconduct

According to a report from the House Homeland Security Commission, nearly half of the TSA’s 60,000 employees have been cited for misconduct in recent years. The trend is not encouraging either. Citations have increased by 28% over the last two years. The top five offenses include unaccounted for absences, failure to follow instructions, improper screening & security, neglect of duty, and disruptive behavior.

TSA Administrator Peter Neffenger sought to downplay the issue by pointing out that “despite unmanned posts, inappropriate groping petty theft, and abusive behavior by our employees no flights have been hijacked on my watch.. To me, these glitches seem a tolerable price to pay for improved safety.”

Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency, wasn’t totally reassured by Neffenger’s perspective. “Maybe we’ve just been lucky,” Perry suggested. “I recall a recent test showing a success rate of 95% for weapons escaping the TSA’s detection. There is little evidence to support the notion that the TSA is effective or necessary.”

LA Times Op Ed Says Hillary Win Only Way to Avert Coup

Fear that Trump might be elected president prompted hysteria from leftist loon James Kirchick in an op ed he wrote in this week’s LA Times. “If voters don’t put Hillary in the White House our only option may be a military coup against a President Trump,” Kirchick warns.

Kirchick contends that such a first ever violent overthrow of an election outcome in this country “would be defensive in nature. Trump is outside the mainstream of the governing coalition that has run this country for the last 25 years. Even if he wins a majority of votes his ascension to office could be construed as a coup itself. Undoing his coup would restore the country to normalcy.”

“The foresight of President Obama in purging the military of disloyal elements over the last seven years has laid the groundwork for this fail-safe option should voters make the disastrous decision to hand power over to a madman like Trump,” Kirchick gloated. “Polls may show that the majority of the rank-and-file troops lean toward Trump, but the men who command them have been thoroughly vetted and can be counted on to rise to the occasion if events warrant it.”

“Naturally, such an overt deviation from precedent would have to be a last resort,” Kirchick wrote. “Barring a sufficient number of legitimate votes to ensure her election, a more discreet covert manipulation of the ballots would be preferred. Nevertheless, the outcome is too crucial for us to shy away from any remedy.”

In related news, GQ writer Bethlehem Shoals tweeted that he “would like to beat Patricia Smith to death” after this mother of one of the Americans murdered in Benghazi spoke to the Republican convention. Shoals was incensed that Mrs. Smith blamed then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for irresponsibly neglecting consulate security, callously obstructing rescue efforts, and lying to cover it up.

Miami Police Explain Shooting Unarmed Man

Charles Kinsey, a behavioral therapist trying to aid an autistic patient was shot by Miami police this week. In the incident, Kinsey was lying on the ground with is hands up. Nevertheless, he was still shot in the leg by one of the responding officers.

John Rivera, the President of the Dade County Police Benevolent Association attempted to explain this egregious example of unnecessary and excessive force, calling it “an unfortunate accident. First of all, the police received an anonymous tip that there was a suicidal man with a gun in that area. Right away, the responding officers are thinking ‘we have to shoot this guy before he kills himself or someone else.’ The situation was obviously tense.”

“Then they saw Mr. Kinsey lying on the street with his hands up yelling something about a truck and ‘don’t shoot,’” Rivera said. “Fearing that Mr. Kinsey’s life was in danger, one of the officers shot at the other man and hit Mr. Kinsey. Bad as his aim was, the discharge of his weapon brought the confrontation to an end without loss of life.”

The fact that the “gun” held by the autistic man turned out to be a toy truck did not faze Rivera, who pointed out that “just last week a terrorist in France killed 80 people with a truck. So, I think we can all sympathize with the officer’s reactions here when he heard Mr. Kinsey say the word ‘truck.’ Luckily, his poor marksmanship probably prevented a worse outcome. Surely, dopey and inept are preferable to deadly.”

Federal Courts Dictate State Election Rules

In the past week the federal courts intervened in tthree cases to overrule state election laws. In Michigan U.S. District Judge Gershwin Drain voided a state law banning straight ticket voting. In Wisconsin, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman ordered state officials to accept voters’ signed affidavits in lieu of photo IDs. In Texas, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voided a state law requiring voters to show any one of seven different photo IDs before being given a ballot at the polls.

In his ruling, Drain called the Michigan law “an unconscionable burden on voters. Jettisoning the convenience of making a single decision and requiring voters to enter a vote for each office imposes unwarranted toil and inconvenience on voters. It also has a disproportionate impact on less informed and less intelligent voters. Our democracy guarantees everyone the right to vote regardless of whether they understand what they’re doing.”

In her ruling, Adelman asserted that “showing up on election day is all that a state may require of someone seeking to exercise his right to vote. The claim that obtaining a photo ID is easy doesn’t mean that effort isn’t needed to get one. Mere laziness should not disqualify a person from casting a ballot.”

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the Texas Democratic Party’s contention that requiring voters to identify themselves could discourage some from voting. “It’s supposed to be a secret ballot,” said Democratic Party lawyer Gerry Herbert. “Photo IDs pierce this guarantee and subject voters to unwelcome scrutiny. In a perfect world anyone who shows up at the polls should be given a ballot, no questions asked. This court ruling gets us one step closer to that goal.”

Herbert called the risk that some might fraudulently vote more than once “overblown. First, the individual payback for going to the effort to vote multiple times is vanishingly small. Second, are we sure that a person willing to make this effort is a bad thing? Enthusiasm and initiative ought to count for something. Major league baseball and American Idol allow multiple votes. Has the country been harmed by that?”

In related news, the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations vowed “to register a million new Muslim voters to combat the candidacy of Donald Trump. Muslim rights to spread Islam to every corner of the Earth are at stake.” Spokesman Osama Abu Irshaid characterized voting as “the peaceful alternative to bombing unbelievers into submission.”

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 use material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit and DO NOT change the context. Thank you.

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

Amidst polls showing her lead over GOP rival Donald Trump dwindling, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned voters against “the most divisive and unfit candidate in our nation’s history.”

A key consideration from Clinton’s perspective is the fact that “Republican voters passed over 16 worthy representatives of the GOP brand and latched onto a man outside the mainstream of government. Trump hasn’t been a participant in any of the processes for governing a city, state, or nation. He has no record to run on.”

Hillary contrasted Trump’s lack of governing experience with her own “30-year career at the center of events at the state and national level. How can we trust a man who has never taken one step in the shoes of those of us who have governed to know what to do with the awesome power to rule?”

“On top of his lack of the appropriate experience we have his naive approach to the issues of the day,” she continued. “At every turn he would divide us from each other. He demands we close our borders to those who desperately want to come to America. He would single out and oppress the religious beliefs and practices of those striving to fulfill the prescriptions of Islam. He would force ‘law and order’ on those who see themselves as victims of a moral code with which they disagree.”

The candidate also touted her recent “exoneration” by the FBI as another point of distinction from her opponent. “I have undergone the most thorough examination by our nation’s premier law enforcement agency and been found not-guilty,” she boasted. “The worst they could say about me was that I was extraordinarily careless with my emails. Millions of Americans have had difficulties with emails. Many have had their bank accounts drained and their identities stolen. I avoided these consequences. So, I think I’m doing better than average.”

In related news, Clinton reminded voters that “the president can use the IRS to punish political enemies. Do we really want to put this weapon in the hands of a person like Donald Trump?”

Congressman Calls “Law and Order” Unfair to Minorities

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) lambasted Trump’s claim to be the “law and order” candidate, calling it “a cruel and insensitive attempt to place the values of white Americans over those of us who are black. It is racism that forces blacks to commit crimes to support themselves and their families. The kind of enforcement that Trump would impose threatens the livelihoods of a significant segment of the minority community.”

Clyburn may have a point. According to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, blacks are responsible for the majority of robberies and murders in the 75 most populated U.S. counties. Clearly, heightened law enforcement would have a disparate effect on this segment of the population.

Ironically, minority police officers are more likely than white officers to use firearms in confrontations with suspects—a phenomenon that Clyburn asserts “shows that even brothers in uniform have been brainwashed to kill their own kind in obedience to the ‘law and order’ mantra. That it is this bad with a black man as president casts an ominous light over a potential Trump administration.”

Whether Clyburn’s charge that blacks are ill-served by law enforcement is dubious. Black criminals are a minority in the black population. The vast majority of their victims are other blacks. The number of blacks slain by police is a small fraction of the number of blacks murdered by black criminals. In an overwhelming majority of instances blacks who are shot by police were criminals engaged in attacks on the police.

Justice Inadvertently Boosts Trump Candidacy

This week Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg waded into the political domain and unintentionally bolstered the chances for Donald Trump to win the presidency. Calling him a “faker with a big ego,” the 83-year-old Justice threatened to move to New Zealand if Trump wins in November.

Alarmed that Ginsburg’s outburst could work in Trump’s favor, the Washington Post’s editors criticized “her abandonment of the veneer of judicial impartiality. The acceptance of the Court’s authority to strike down legislation enacted by the people’s representatives relies on a perception of unbiased application of basic legal and constitutional rules. Taking sides in an electoral contest undermines this perception.”

The editors of the New York Times concurred with those at the Post and expressed a fear that “Justice Ginsburg might have to recuse herself from any future cases in which Trump is a party. This would nullify a reliably liberal vote on the Court from deciding cases in a way that advances the progressive transformation underway since the Roosevelt Administration.”

Stung by this criticism from papers she considered “allies in the struggle for social justice,” Ginsburg says she regretted her remarks. “The only saving grace is that my ill-advised ‘burp’ will be lost in the cacophony of rhetoric and news going forward and will be forgotten before the next Court session convenes in October.”

Not all on the left were critical of Ginsburg’s efforts to sway the election outcome. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) praised “Justice Ginsburg’s great courage. The idea that the courts ought to stay out of politics is an artifact of the Founders’ maniacal insistence on separation of powers. President Obama has managed to sidestep this antiquated notion by using Executive Orders to bypass congressional obstruction. The courts have done a wonderful job of neutralizing errant legislation by looking to a higher law than a 200-year-old piece of paper. It is essential that this momentum be continued. Electing Hillary is the best way to ensure that.”

AG Says Lying Under Oath “Could Be Okay”

During testimony before the House Judiciary Committee this week, Attorney General Loretta Lynch refused to make “a blanket condemnation of lying under oath.” The issue was raised by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “continuously changing and inconsistent testimony on a number of issues before this Committee over several years.”

Lynch contended that “each case has to be examined on its individual merits. It depends on who is testifying and whether a more important objective than mere truth is at hand. There is an old saying that ‘a diplomat is a patriot sent abroad to lie for his country.’ Our Secretary of State is this nation’s head diplomat. I believe that a certain leeway needs to be granted to that person for the good of the country.”

“I can see some leeway for lies told to foreign governments in order to protect America’s strategic interests,” Chaffetz acknowledged. “But is lying to Congress included? Is lying to cover up ‘extraordinary carelessness’ with classified information acceptable? Is lying about security deficiencies at Benghazi that led to the death of our ambassador okay with you?”

“I’m not going to get into a debate about hypothetical scenarios,” Lynch replied. “As the nation’s chief law enforcement officer I use my judgment on whether to bring charges against anyone. It’s called prosecutorial discretion. Congress must use its own judgment and discretion to deploy the powers granted to it by the Constitution if and when it deems warranted by the circumstances of each case.”

Obama, Gingrich Grapple with Islamic Terror Issue

The Bastille Day attack that killed 80 and injured 200 in Nice, France sparked a passionate plea from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for better security against Islamic terrorism.

Gingrich said he has “no problems with Muslims who respect the rights of others becoming American citizens and moving in next door, but followers of sharia who believe they have a right or duty to wage war on unbelievers have no place in our country. They ought to be deported.”

He also called for “greater scrutiny of what’s going on in Mosques in America. Many of them seem to serve as recruiting centers for would-be terrorists. Hateful doctrines are preached to incite attacks on innocent civilians like we have seen in France and in this country in Orlando and San Bernardino. On top of this, caches of weapons are frequently concealed on their premises.”

President Obama characterized Gingrich’s comments as “repugnant. There is no place in our country for such hostility toward the religious beliefs of others. No Muslim should have to fear that his beliefs will expose him to any greater scrutiny than any other religion. The right to practice one’s religion free from interference by government is guaranteed by the First Amendment.”

Gingrich remained uncowed by the president’s criticism. “I’ll tell you what’s repugnant,” he replied, “the president’s repeated refusal to defend the people of this nation from attacks carried out by fanatical Islamists. Despite the evidence from their own mouths, Obama professes himself mystified as to the motives of these killers. This is willful blindness or worse.”

“No one in this country, not me, not Donald Trump, not the Republican Party, is making a case for preventing Muslims from praying or promulgating their beliefs in a peaceful manner,” Gingrich pointed out. “The president’s efforts to stigmatize opposition to murder as anti-Muslim prejudice is reprehensible. The right of every American to believe or not believe any religion is trampled by the violence carried out by Islamic terrorists. That is the First Amendment right that the government and the president have an obligation to defend. Thus far, Obama has fallen far short of fulfilling this duty.”

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 use material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit and DO NOT change the context. Thank you.