McCain Colluded with IRS to Target Conservatives

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

In documents recently released under the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch found that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was actively colluding with the IRS to harm the TEA Party groups that he mendaciously courted in his successful 2010 reelection bid. These groups are believed to have played a significant role in Republicans capturing a majority in Congress.

A Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress enabled the passage of the Affordable Care Act (which came to be known as Obamacare) on a straight party line vote in late 2009. The loss of this majority constituted a serious impediment to the further socialistic agenda President Obama had planned on to transform America. In response, Obama sought a way to hamstring future TEA Party opposition. The scheme he settled on was to have Lois Lerner, the IRS Director of Exempt Organizations, punish conservative groups.

McCain assigned his staff director and chief counsel on the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee, Henry Kerner to liaise with Lerner on this punitive effort. It was Kerner who suggested that the IRS tie down these conservative organizations by conducting “financially ruinous audits.” This is, in fact, the strategy Lerner employed—hitting conservative groups with onerous and unending demands for documents she did not require from liberal groups seeking the same tax-exempt status.

The documents released to Judicial Watch contradict McCain’s repeated assertions that suspicion surrounding his possible involvement were false. “The whole matter was looked into by FBI Director James Comey who found no evidence of any discriminatory treatment and no crime worthy of indictment,” McCain said. “The audits suggested by Henry were within the scope of Ms. Lerner’s authority. The selection of who to audit was up to her. The IRS harassing political opponents with red tape has been a well-established practice since the days of FDR. I am no more guilty of abuse of power than he was.”

ACLU Position on Free Speech “Evolving”

The American Civil Liberties Union is reexamining its long-standing position in favor of freedom of speech. Spokesman Bertram Petty explained that “in the past the biggest threat to freedom of speech came from the government trying to silence advocates of socialist and communist solutions to public problems. Now that socialist and communist principles form an important part of the guidance for government activities in the United States it is no longer clear that freedom of speech to attack policies based on these ideas is worthy of our support.”

“For example, a knee-jerk defense of freedom of speech would compel the ACLU to defend the enemies of progressive values from being shouted down by college students defending their right to not have to tolerate attacks on these values,” Petty said. “Thankfully, most universities are run by enlightened progressives who have cleansed their institutions of incorrect thinking. The ACLU should not be thwarting that progress by insisting on the perpetuation of archaic notions more suited to a bygone era when reactionary views ruled the world.”

“The very idea that everyone’s words are entitled to an airing overlooks the danger that an unbending allegiance to freedom poses to the social advancement prophesied by Karl Marx,” Petty continued. “The emergence of revolutionary expressions of political ideas that lead to the kinds of direct action that unleash the destruction of the property and persons who oppress the masses is the new freedom of expression that our organization should be championing as we enter the end stage of a civilization transitioning to full communism.”

In related news, University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax was ousted from her teaching position for espousing “bourgeois values.” These values included a belief in grading students based on performance without regard to their race. She had previously won an award for teaching excellence, for which Dean Theodore Ruger apologized, saying “that was before we were aware of her nonconforming political opinions.”

Dems Assail Trump Immigration Compromise

After a week of hounding President Trump for continuing former President Obama’s occasional practice of separating the children of illegal immigrants from their parents, they now are howling over his executive order allowing these children to stay with their parents in detention centers.

Aspiring 2020 presidential contender Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif) called Trump’s effort to keep immigrant children with their parents “inhumane. When we demanded that children and parents not be separated it was our hope that both would be released. ICE could give the parents instructions to return for a court hearing on whether they can stay and release them from custody.”

What Harris demands is the infamous “catch and release” option that was frequently used during the later years of the Obama Administration. The flaw in this approach was that hardly any of these illegal immigrants show up for their court date. Nevertheless, Harris professed herself “unconcerned. Wanting a better life shouldn’t be illegal. The benefits available in the countries these immigrants are fleeing are minimal to nonexistent. Their governments expect these people to take care of themselves. Here the government will ensure that they are fed, housed, healthy and educated. Coming here is smart. We shouldn’t be punishing people who make the effort to grab the benefits America has to offer. Welfare shouldn’t be restricted to only those lucky enough to be born here.”

Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) has filed suit against Trump’s executive order claiming “it is illegal. The Ninth Circuit Court already ruled that detaining children for more than 20 days is not permitted. Trump’s order violates that by allowing detention for an indefinite period while the parents’ case is being adjudicated. The only legal option is ‘catch and release.’”

“Adjudication” is only necessary for the 85% of the illegal immigrants who are claiming “refugee” status, i.e., alleging that they face a serious threat to their health and/or safety if they stay in their country of origin. While this claim may be true, the reservoir of persons living in countries that threaten their health and safety is in the billions. Rich as America is, there is no way it can support the hordes that would crash our borders if the Democrats’ open border policy prevails.

While leading Democrats are adamant that these illegal immigrants have a right to live in the United States, they are not so eager to have them live in their neighborhoods. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has already expressed fear that the immigrants bused to his city “may be infested with lice and bed bugs.”

How the Democrats’ posturing on this issue will affect their chances in the November elections remains to be seen. Polls show that only 30% of Democrat voters support the “catch and release” option, while 49% favor the approach laid out in Trump’s executive order. Whether the Party’s media allies will be able to generate propaganda sufficiently persuasive to overcome this deficit is unknown.

Meanwhile in Mexico, presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador declared free migration a human right and vowed to “send tens of millions more north after I am elected to take back the land stolen from us by Yankee aggression in the 1800s.”

In related news, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemned Trump’s immigration policies, calling them “malicious” and praised “the UN’s decision to expel the United States from its Human Rights Commission.” Meanwhile, Khamenei profusely praised the Iranian Guidance Patrol’s vigilance after they viciously beat a handful of burka-clad girls for dancing at their graduation ceremony.

Peter Fonda Goes on Rant

With a new movie coming out this weekend, old actor Peter Fonda tried to generate some publicity by injecting himself into the immigration controversy via a string of tweets.

In one, he suggested that President Trump’s 12-year-old son should be kidnapped and put in a cage with pedophiles. In another, he suggested that Homeland Security Secretary Kristjen Neilsen should be striped naked and whipped by passersby in Lafayette Square. In another, he suggested that hackers should obtain the names and addresses of ICE employees and publish them so activists could terrorize them and their children “to scare the shit out of them.”

Later, Fonda issued an apology for his “inappropriate and vulgar” remarks, blaming the late hour (one to three AM) and “some really bad weed” for his outbursts.

Not everyone was aware that Fonda had apologized and called off his jihad against Trump. A female Congressional intern shouted “f*ck you” to President Trump as he walked to the Capitol to confer with Republicans on the immigration issue. And the actor formerly known as Mr. Roseanne Barr announced plans to taunt the President’s son outside his school.

DC Infested with Psychopaths

A study of psychopathy throughout the United States found that the nation’s highest concentration of these types of people was in Washington DC. California, New Jersey, and New York finished in second, third, and fourth place for percentage of the population qualifying as psychopaths. The study was conducted by Southern Methodist University Assistant Professor Ryan Murphy.

“The District of Columbia is measured to be far more psychopathic than any individual state in the country,” Murphy observed. He speculated that “psychopaths may be drawn to Washington since government offers a robust array of opportunities for individuals to exercise power over others. There are both opportunities for self-enrichment and opportunities to bend others to your will by making laws or regulations that force people to yield to you rather than freely pursue their own well-being.”

Democratic National Committee Chairman Thomas Perez belittled the possibility that the study findings might harm his party’s chances in future elections because “very few voters will be aware of this study. The media won’t publicize it. It is more likely that Professor Murphy will be denied tenure. That would undermine his credibility and discourage any other eggheads from considering any follow-up work on the topic. So, I think our drive to expand and centralize government power in Washington will remain on track.”

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.

Leave a Reply