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

Assorted media spokespersons have pointed the finger of blame at President Trump for incidents of violence that have endangered members of their profession in various locations since he became president. Jim VandeHei, founder of the news website Axios, asserted that Trump is directly “putting reporters at real risk of retribution or violence.” New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg wondered “how long before someone is seriously hurt, or worse?” Jeffrey Toobin, a writer for the New Yorker warned “Someone is going to do something awful to a journalist.”

Well, someone is doing some awful things to journalists, but it is mostly not Trump supporters. The lion’s share of the violence has come from leftists protesting Trump. Nonetheless, the media still insist Trump is at fault because, as Rutenberg maintained, “these protests wouldn’t be happening if Trump hadn’t stolen the election from Secretary Clinton. There might have been some anti-Clinton demonstrations, but it is unlikely that the kind of behavior we have seen from the Antifa movement—masked men throwing rocks and bottles, brandishing cudgels, and smashing property would have been so prevalent.”

“We have to ask ourselves whether the civil disruption that has emerged in the wake of Trump’s victory isn’t sufficient reason to reverse the election results via more peaceful mechanisms,” Toobin suggested. “Removing Trump through impeachment or the 25th Amendment may be necessary if we are to dampen down the kind of street violence that threatens the domestic tranquility our Constitution was established to ensure.”

53 Democrats Denounce Sessions’ Policy on Sanctuary Cities

Fifty-three Democratic members of the House and Senate signed a letter of protest against Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ plan to withhold federal law-enforcement aid from cities that flout US immigration laws.

Signer Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill) complained that “Sessions is only making a bad situation worse. Even with the federal aid Chicago is a virtual combat zone with dozens of shootings every week. He should be backing gun-control legislation, not insisting on the enforcement of immigration laws that would end up deporting felons who are in the country illegally.”

Sessions called the letter “an endorsement of illegality. We have laws that prescribe the approved procedures for persons to enter this country. If these senators and representatives have objections to these laws the proper way for them to respond is to work to repeal them, not to support local governments that defy these laws. The number of incidents where cities have shielded illegal aliens from this law only to see these people go on to commit heinous crimes ought to have given pause to their rash demand that we continue to tolerate the ill-considered practice of coddling these threats to the safety of law-abiding citizens.”

Durbin countered Sessions by pointing out that “not all the crimes committed by those given sanctuary can be accurately described as heinous. Many are mere crimes against property. In other instances the victims survive the attempted murder or assault. Even when they don’t survive, the toll taken by those shielded by sanctuary is small compared to the carnage perpetrated by native citizens.”

Pelosi Calls for Crackdown on “Dangerous Speech”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) demanded that “we be more selective in what kind of remarks people are allowed to make in public. I’m generally in favor of freedom of speech, but some statements and points of view are so far outside the bounds of respectable opinion that they present a clear and present danger.”

She went on to elaborate by analogy, saying “you can’t shout ‘wolf’ in a crowded theater because everyone knows there is no wolf. If we don’t suppress these bogus cries then one day when there really is a wolf no one will believe it. At that point people will be attacked without recourse. Our only option then will be to have FEMA distribute food and blankets to the victims.”

While the Minority Leader’s statement struck many as “confused and possibly demented” a spokesperson for the long-time member of congress explained that “what she was trying to say is that statements by President Trump and his supporters are inherently dangerous. Questioning policies of his predecessors undermines people’s faith in their government. Questioning the media’s coverage of the Trump Administration undermines people’s faith in the news. If these two pillars of our way of life are knocked down it would be the equivalent of exposing us all to being devoured by wolves.”

Germany to Remain Neutral in Possible US-NK War

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany has told the US Government “not to count on Germany’s support in any potential armed conflict with North Korea.”

“I don’t see how Germany would gain from allying itself with the United States in such a conflict,” Merkel said. “North Korea is far away and poses no direct threat to us. The United States’ military would most likely crush the under-fed North Korean Army with ease. If the unimaginable happens and North Korea somehow wins, our stance of neutrality will reduce the incentive for them to turn on us.”

The Chancellor also admitted to an emotional component stemming from World War II, saying that “it wasn’t Koreans who mercilessly bombed every city in Germany, sank virtually our entire navy, shot down virtually every aircraft in the Luftwaffe, and sent millions of troops into my country in 1945. It was the United States and its allies. Germans have far more reason for antipathy toward America than they do toward North Korea. If Germany were to fight anyone, my gut tells me that it ought to be the Americans.”

Merkel also complained that “President Trump’s insistence that we must honor our NATO obligations is an added grievance. No previous American president made such a demand. We haven’t budgeted for these obligations. The wisdom of our frugality has been born out by the lack of any military attacks on our country during the entire time of the NATO alliance. By assuming a position of neutrality we’re hoping that Mr. Trump gets the message that we will not be pressured into fulfilling these unnecessary obligations.”

Study Shows More Registered Voters than Adult Citizens

Data from the U.S. Census Bureau analyzed by Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity Project found that there are 3.5 million more registered voters in America than there are citizens if voting age. More than 40% of these “ghost voters” were found in two California counties—700,000 in Los Angeles County and 800,000 in San Diego County.

Of course, not every citizen eligible to vote actually registers to vote. So, the potential over-registration is even larger than these figures imply. The potential for election fraud would seem to be huge. Nevertheless, Democrats adamantly deny that any significant fraud is taking place. The Brennan Center for Justice contends that it has conclusively proven that allegations of widespread fraud are “baseless.” And the New York Times asserts that “there is essentially no voter fraud in America.”

Given the confidence that Democratic partisans have that there is no election fraud it is puzzling that they hold such animosity toward President Trump’s Election Integrity Panel. If the evidence is so overwhelmingly against the idea that fraud exists wouldn’t the Panel end up confirming their contention?

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla rejected the need for investigation saying “it makes as much sense as the Administration’s suggestion that global warming be the topic of a policy debate. It seems that every informed person but Trump knows that global warming is proven science. Likewise, every properly informed person but Trump knows there is no election fraud. Bucking this consensus is a waste of time and money.”
Padilla explained the apparent over-registration endemic in his state as “an enigmatic anomaly. Even if we could figure out why there are millions of bogus registrations there is no proof that any of these resulted in ballots being cast.”

The absence of “proof” may owe a lot to procedures barring use of photo IDs as a step toward verifying the identity of those casting ballots at the polls or by mail. Even the matching of signatures on mailed ballots with signatures on voter registration forms has been challenged by the ACLU as “disenfranchising.”

ACLU spokesman Bertram Petty said “requiring a voter to prove his or her identity is humiliating. It puts procedural technicalities ahead of the obvious truth that a human being has a natural right to elect those who rule him. To deny a person the right to vote because he doesn’t reside in the district or isn’t a citizen is a violation of his human rights. So, what we are saying is that, in the big picture, all the ID rigamarole is aimed at suppressing the vote.”

In related news, Richard Robert Rawling, a former elections worker in North Carolina, was indicted for altering vote totals by running ballots through the counting machine multiple times during a primary election in March 2016. In his defense, Rawling maintained that “I wasn’t trying to favor any candidate. I was just trying to make sure that the results of the provisional canvass would match the number of approved provisional ballots. Otherwise, I’d have had to fill out a discrepancy report. That would’ve made me look bad and could have cast doubt on the reported election outcome.”

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

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif) has a simple plan for deescalating tensions between the U.S. and North Korea: “give them what they want.” She acknowledged that “we may not know specifically what that is, but surely it has to be a better option than going to war.”

“Look, Korea is a small, far away country,” Waters observed. “From what I understand it is a very poor place. We could probably feed, house, and clothe everyone in it for less than it would cost to bomb them. If we could ensure Kim that all the material needs of his people could easily be met via a generous foreign aid package, what reason would he have for wanting nuclear weapons?”

In support of her recommendation, the Congresswoman cited “the pacifying effects that our domestic welfare program has had upon the poor in our own country. We don’t see any of them trying to get nuclear weapons or threatening to turn America into ashes. I’d say this experience provides the guidance we need to construct a more successful foreign policy.”

Former President Barack Obama’s National Security adviser, Susan Rice, hailed Waters’ suggestion, calling it “a breath of fresh air. As both Presidents Clinton and Obama realized, a nuclear armed North Korea would be in a better position to demand social justice from the West. The disproportionate distribution of wealth that currently exists between our two countries needs to be rectified. The ability of North Korea to do serious damage to the United States is a key element in forcing a long overdue reallocation. That Trump would attempt to turn this leverage into an excuse for a military response that would defend an unjust status quo is a crime against humanity.”

Judge Bars Defendant from Testifying

U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro barred Eric Parker from mentioning the First Amendment after he took the stand to testify in his own defense in a trial stemming from the 2014 Bunkerville standoff in which ranchers confronted Bureau of Land Management officers in a dispute over grazing rights.

“Once a duly authorized law enforcement action is underway the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech no longer apply,” Navarro ruled. “Allowing a jury to hear these words would only serve to undermine the respect for authority that is essential to an orderly enforcement of the decisions made by government officials.”

The Judge also cited “the need to avoid another hung jury in this case. If we allow the defense to raise issues that I have determined aren’t pertinent to the case we could end up in the same quandary where some jurors might elevate their uninformed opinions about freedom of speech and assembly above the instructions from the bench to consider only whether the defendants did or didn’t obey the lawful commands of the Bureau.”

Since one of the “lawful commands” forbade video taping of the confrontation, recordings that the defense contends demonstrate the peaceful intent and behavior of the defendants will not be shown to the jury.

Mysterious Death Ruled “Suicide”

In May of this year, federal prosecutor Beranton Whisenant’s body was found on a Hollywood, Florida beach with a gunshot wound to the head. Three months later, the Hollywood Police Department has ruled the death a suicide. Whisenant worked for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami in its major crimes unit. He was handling several visa and passport fraud cases in the congressional district represented by beleaguered former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Oddly, no weapon was recovered at or near the scene. Chief of Police Tomas Sanchez admitted that “the absence of a weapon near the body would seem suspicious to non-professionals. However, there could be a number of logical explanations. One possibility is that rising sea levels caused by global warming could have washed the firearm away. Another is that Mr. Whisenant swam out a ways before he shot himself and the gun is still out there somewhere.”

Sanchez brushed off contentions from family members that Whisenant had shown no signs of depression and had even seemed enthusiastic about “reeling in some big fish” in his investigation. “A person can be depressed without anyone knowing,” Sanchez said. “I just heard that vegetarians are more likely to be depressed than meat-eaters. Perhaps Mr. Whisenant was a vegetarian.”

CAIR Defends McMaster

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) rallied to the defense of National Security Council (NSC) adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster this week. McMaster has come under some criticism for purging the NSC of individuals he maintains were “overly focused on an illusory Islamic threat.” These included Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the NSC’s senior director for intelligence programs; Rich Higgins, the NSC’s director for strategic planning; and Derek Harvey, the NSC’s senior director for the Middle East.

Ibrahim Hooper, National Communications Director for CAIR, blamed “agents of the Zionist conspiracy for world domination” for what he characterized as “vicious attacks on an honorable man. President Trump is clearly a tool of this conspiracy. His failure to denounce the Jewish occupation of Muslim lands and his verbal support for the Israeli oppression of non-Jews throughout the Middle East mark him as an enemy of Allah.”
For his part, McMaster justified his purge saying that “we cannot build bridges to the adherents of Islam if they see that we have the apologists for Jewish aggression within our government. By cleansing our councils of these troublesome elements we will win the appreciation and, I hope, the friendship of the Muslim community.”

“What a lot of Trump’s supporters overlook is the strategic advantage of aligning with the much larger contingent of Muslims vs. the much smaller Jewish segment of the global population,” McMaster said. “There are more than a billion Muslims. There are only 12 million Jews. An alliance with the former is numerically superior to an alliance with the latter. President Obama understood this. I would be derelict in my duty if I didn’t do everything in my power to protect that strategic decision from being overturned by an ill-informed outsider.”

Document Dump Casts Doubt on Official Version of Tarmac Meeting

Documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request cast a long shadow of doubt over the official version of events surrounding the “chance meeting” between former President Bill Clinton and Obama Administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch in June 2016.

The official story that the meeting was a random occurrence and that the discussion was an innocent chat about grandchildren and golf was severely damaged by correspondence among Department of Justice personnel. For one, the correspondence was heavily redacted. Redaction is justified when sensitive personal data (like Social Security numbers or home addresses) or classified information might be exposed. There is no legal justification for redacting innocent chatter about grandchildren and golf scores.

On top of this, a lot of the content dealt with the development of “talking points” aimed at putting the proper “spin” on the meeting for public consumption. In this correspondence, AG Lynch used an alias. Why the DOJ would need to invest so much time and effort to develop talking points about an innocent meeting or why the AG would need to use a fake name remains unanswered, as does FBI Director James Comey’s inclusion in the loop.

A week after this “chance meeting” and following the correspondence, Comey announced that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted for her “extremely careless handling of classified information.” Comey insisted that his untruthful denial that any such correspondence existed “was due to my embarrassment at being inadvertently ‘cced’ on such an intimately private conversation” and that “no one can prove the correspondence had anything to do with my decision.”

At this point, perhaps the biggest mystery is why the Trump Administration DOJ redacted so much of the “innocent” content of the correspondence. So far, no one is talking, but the rumor is that AG Jeff Sessions has “recused himself out of respect for the privacy of his predecessor” and allowed holdovers from the Lynch regime to decide what needed to be redacted.

Trump’s “Excessive Expectations” Rile Senator

Chafing at President Trump’s very public display of frustration with the failure of the Senate to pass health insurance reform, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken) blamed “excessive expectations.”

“Frankly, the President is out of his depth on this,” McConnell maintained. “He comes from a business milieu where the emphasis is on action and results. In government the emphasis is on process.”

The Majority Leader offered to “explain the process in terms that even Mr. Trump can understand. In the Senate we have agreements that both Parties abide by. All the repeals of Obamacare that we passed were guaranteed to be vetoed by President Obama. That’s the only reason the Democrats let us pass these repeals. They could have easily filibustered and kept us from getting the 60 votes needed to stop debate. By promising to sign a repeal bill President Trump forced us to come up with another path that would be acceptable to the Democrats. That path required that several Republicans switch their previous votes for repeal to against repeal.”

McConnell expressed his disappointment that “Sen. McCain rising from his virtual deathbed to cast the deciding vote didn’t provide a greater respite from the unreasonable demands of an inexperienced and ill-informed outsider. I would think that the drama of a mortally-wounded hero making a last stand would’ve bought us some time to relax from the onerous burdens of lawmaking for a while.”

The Senator also dismissed the President’s pleas that he get back to work. “What he needs to understand is that he can’t make us do anything we don’t want to do,” McConnell asserted. “And if he keeps insulting and bullying us like he has been to Sen. Blumenthal, well we might find that to be the sort of high crime or misdemeanor requiring his removal from office.”

In contrast to the lack of legislative results in Congress, it was announced that the executive branch under Trump has reduced business regulatory costs by 90% compared to rules issued by the Obama Administration. McConnell warned that “the untimely release of this information will only further aggravate the already antagonistic relationship between the President and the Senate. This does not help his case for remaining in office.”

In related news, the prospect of being impeached is mild compared to the prediction by ex-FBI and CIA operative Phil Mudd that “they are going to kill this guy because he doesn’t support them. His joke about Russia saving us money by sending our spies home is likely the last straw. Remember what happened to Kennedy after he threatened to tear the CIA apart? Well, I think Trump has signed his own death warrant as far as these expert assassins in our government are concerned.”

Clinton’s Pastor Says Hillary’s Loss Worst Injustice Since Christ’s Crucifixion

Methodist minister Bill Shillady compared Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and concluded that “it was the second worst instance of injustice in human history. In both cases we saw exemplary paragons of virtue punished for the sins of others.”

Shillady predicted “a Hell on Earth under the demon that is Donald Trump,” but offered a ray of hope that “the forces of righteousness will triumph in the end. Right now, true believers are working assiduously to unseat the unholy Trump and clear the way for the ascension of God’s chosen candidate.”

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

Fresh off his crucial vote to kill the repeal of Obamacare, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is now working with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to craft what McCain called “a fitting legacy to honor my service to the country and Senate over my lifetime.”

The bill they are drafting is a revival of the so-called “Gang of Eight” measure passed by the Senate in 2013, but rejected by the House. It would give a path to citizenship to most illegal immigrants, greatly increase the number of visas to allow companies to replace American workers with foreigners and greatly increase the number of legal immigrants who would be eligible to enter the country over the next 30 years.

Schumer suggested that “the new law might be dubbed ‘McCainesty’ as way to help people remember the man we are honoring with this crucial reform to our immigration policy. Considering the dire health of Sen. McCain, his good friend Sen. Graham (R-SC) has reluctantly agreed to surrender his long-held claimed right to name the policy change ‘Grahamnesty.’”

McCain compared his proposal with the immigration bill recently unveiled by the Trump Administration, calling it “a glaring contrast between a stance of selfishness and generosity. Trump wants to restrict immigration to protect already rich Americans from having to share our nation’s wealth with those less fortunate. This is not the America I want to leave behind when I’m gone. I want an America that lives up to the Statue of Liberty’s promise to house the homeless, wretched masses yearning to eat free.”

The Senator cited the $1.3 billion in welfare paid to illegal immigrants by Los Angeles County over the last two years as “a down payment on our historic promise. Our new bill will remove barriers to an even greater fulfillment of the dream of a more equitable redistribution of the Earth’s bounty and take us further toward President Obama’s vision of a transformed world.”

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti endorsed the McCain-Schumer initiative as “a demonstration of common sense. In theory, the redistribution could be accomplished by sending our wealth to other countries. It would be more practical, though, to let the beneficiaries come here. Not only will they spend a greater portion of the welfare in the local community, they’ll also be present to cast the votes needed to elect those who will work to continue the transformation.”

Senators Want to Strengthen Independence of Special Counsel

Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-Del) are proposing legislation that would bar anyone from firing or in any way impeding Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed to investigate President Trump and his associates for winning the 2016 presidential election.

“It is critical that special counsels have the independence and resources they need to lead investigations,” Tillis said. “Mueller can’t be independent if he can be fired by anyone in the chain of command in the executive branch of government. He can’t be independent if he must rely on congress for appropriations. He can’t be independent if he must rely on a court or jury to validate his prosecutions.”

Jay Sekulow, one of President Trump’s lawyers, blasted the proposed legislation as “unconstitutional. Ours is a representative government. What Sen. Tillis and Coons are proposing is to create an omnipotent new office within the federal government. They would immunize Mueller from any executive oversight. They would enable him to dip into the treasury for any amount of money he deems necessary.”

Coons rallied to the defense of his senate colleague, pointing out that “the premise that Trump represents the people is belied by the fact that he didn’t win the popular vote. Every member of congress did win the popular vote in his state or district. It is our prerogative to transfer whatever powers we deem appropriate to whom ever we want.

Much of the legislating that is now done in this country is by executive agencies that congress has empowered to make laws. In our view, setting a man with an untarnished record of integrity like Robert Mueller above and outside the normal processes that are suggested in the Constitution is a clear improvement over the governance we see incompetently emerging from the Trump Administration on a daily basis.”

Poll Results Addle Dem Leader

A poll conducted for Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) by her “House Majority PAC” produced consternation and confusion for this top Democrat. For one, the poll found that the political ideologies of voters were 41% conservative, 32% moderate and 19% liberal, with 37% identifying as Independents, 35% as Republicans and 29% as Democrats. For two, among white working class voters 69% favored policies that reward hard work.

“These findings make no sense,” Pelosi argued. “Surely leisure is preferred over hard work. The Democratic Party has enacted measures that have expanded the opportunities for people to leave the workforce and still be able to live comfortably. There’s public housing, food stamps, cell phones—all supplied gratis by laws and regulations we’ve championed. The liberal and Democratic cohorts among voters should be expanding, especially among the undocumented portion of the population.”

The Congresswoman speculated that “perhaps the life of leisure we’ve provided has insidiously sapped the energy and initiative of those whose votes are crucial for our Party to continue to win elections. We think asking the beneficiaries to cast a vote is a small effort, but maybe once we’ve removed the effort required to support oneself from the equation even the minimal task of marking a ballot may seem too arduous.”

“Even worse, our new slogan–‘a better deal: better jobs, better wages, better future’–seems to have backfired,” Pelosi lamented. “In the six months since Trump became president the economic data has been awful. There are more better-paying jobs and lower unemployment than anyone expected. Welfare rolls are shrinking. Fewer are living on food stamps. It’s as if Trump’s view is being vindicated.”

In related news, a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 61% say the Democratic Party “too often sees government as the only way to solve problems.” Unsurprisingly, this view was held by 83% of registered Republicans. Less expected was the finding that 44% of registered Democrats agreed. This perception of the Party as an advocate for statism is probably best encapsulated by Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy’s statement that “there is no anxiety, sadness, or fear that cannot be cured by political action.”

Felons Vying to Be Detroit’s Mayor

Half of the eight candidates for mayor on Detroit’s primary ballot have been previously convicted criminals. Donna Marie Pitts has multiple felony convictions dating back to 1977. Danetta Simpson has a 1996 felony conviction for assault with intent to murder. Articia Bomer was charged in 2008 with carrying a concealed weapon. In 2004, Curtis Christopher Greene was sentenced to 18 months’ probation under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act for dealing marijuana and in 2005 plead guilty to writing a fraudulent check.

Pitts called her conviction stemming from a shoot out at an auto repair shop “an honest disagreement over the bill. Both sides were armed. Sending me to jail was bogus.” She says she is running to “stamp out the kind of discrimination and racism that wrecked my life.”

Simpson got into a dispute with a woman who was living with the father of two of her four children, pulled out a gun and fired a shot that missed hitting the other woman. She contends that she was “wrongfully convicted. No one was hurt. How is that an assault with intent? If I had intended to kill the bitch the bullet would’ve been in her head.” She says she is running to offer voters “someone new and different.”

Bomer was charged in 2008 with carrying a concealed weapon. “Overly suspicious” police approached her while she was sitting in a parked car and found a loaded gun in the vehicle. Bomer denied that it was hers, but was convicted during a bench trial in January 2009 and sentenced to a year of probation. She says she is running on a platform of “preservation, restoration and revitalization.”

Greene contends that “my youthful indiscretions shouldn’t be held against me. I have a seven point plan to rebuild Detroit. It addresses jobs, discriminatory lending and access to meaningful employment for convicted felons. I believe I’m the one to change the city.”
Whether any of the former felons will be able to win over the four other candidates—incumbent Mayor Mike Duggan, state Sen. Coleman A. Young II, Edward Dean and Angelo Brown—that do not have criminal records seems improbable. However, this election is the first since the City went bankrupt under the governance on non-felon Democrats over the last five decades.

In related news, Fayetteville, N.C. Mayoral candidate Quancidine Gribble has been arrested twice in the last two months for stealing and vandalizing a water company’s equipment. Gribble, a philosophy student, community activist and charity leader, contends that “water is a basic human need. No business has the right withhold it from the people. My action to liberate it from their control so it could flow freely to those who need it is simple social justice.”

Trump Threat an “Impeachable Offense”

After the failure of the Senate to repeal Obamacare, a frustrated President Trump’s threat to reverse President Obama’s executive action exempting members of congress from having to live under the same regulations that apply to ordinary citizens forced into Obamacare brought howls of rage from Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT).

“We are members of government,” Murphy fulminated. “For Trump to vindictively throw us into the pit with the common people violates the unwritten rule against one segment of this elite group harming the privileges of another. It would renege on the bipartisanship exhibited by President Obama in even handedly extending the exemption to congressional Democrats and Republicans alike.”

“Trump may think he’s immune from retaliation, but he should think again,” the Senator advised. “The House has the power to impeach and the Senate has the power to convict. The Constitutional grounds for impeachment are vague and unspecified. Let me remind Mr. Trump that Congress has the sole prerogative of determining what constitutes a satisfactory cause for his removal from office.”

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.