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

As candidate after candidate insisted that health care is a human right, the entire field of 2020 Democratic presidential contenders found themselves unable to exclude any human being from the enjoyment of this universal right. In a show of hands at a debate every candidate agreed that illegal immigrants would be included in their health plans should he or she succeed in getting elected in November 2020.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass) explained that “human rights aren’t only for American citizens. They are for everyone. Withholding these benefits from anyone would be immoral. To use a man-made demarcation line like a country’s border to deny this right to those born on the other side is just plain selfish. We’re the richest nation in the world. It’s about time we started sharing our good fortune with those poorer than ourselves.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vermont) contended that “I am the only one who has been honest about how to pay for this universal benefit. Even middle-class Americans are fabulously wealthy compared to immigrants streaming across our southern border. We can afford to be generous. Granted, taxes will have to be increased for our middle-class, but they will have the satisfaction of knowing they are contributing to the collective welfare of humankind.”

Google Warns Democrats

Jen Gennai, head of Google’s “Responsible Innovation” team, advised Democrats “to make sure all the anti-corporate rhetoric stays rhetoric. They need to keep in mind that we are with them 100 percent in their goal to oust Trump and will do everything in our power to assure that this effort succeeds.”

“Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google,” Gennai complained. “And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that. Our virtual monopoly over Internet search results can pretty much guarantee that only approved messages dominate and unacceptable ideas are blocked.”

In a separate encounter, in a response to Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-Tex) questions, Google UX director Maggie Stanphill denied the company is politically biased. “We only edit out or ban content that violates our standards,” Stanphill explained. “Everything that meets our standards is fully accessible to every Internet user. The only ones complaining are the extremists who fall outside the bounds of our mainstream values.”

As proof of their lack of bias Google has taken down all the Veritas videos of Google employees admitting the firm uses biased algorithms to censor political conservatives.

Democrats Stand Firm on Abortion & Infanticide

While the bloated field of contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination are unanimous in the belief that no restrictions on abortion can be tolerated, the House of Representatives was rejecting allowing a vote on the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act for the 66th time. This bill would require that doctors render aid to infants who unexpectedly survive an attempted abortion. Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt), Kamala Harris (Calif), Cory Booker (NJ), Elizabeth Warren (Mass), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), and Amy Klobuchar (Minn) all voted against a Senate version of this bill.

Gillibrand called the Born Alive bill “backward and racist. We should be moving toward an unconstrained freedom for every woman to abort an unwanted child at any time and for any reason like the State Legislature of New York did earlier this year. African-Americans account for around 13 percent of the population and nearly 40 percent of the abortions. Restrictions like the Born Alive bill or the Heartbeat bills passed in Georgia and Missouri disproportionately penalize minorities.”

A diametrically opposite opinion was recently expressed by former NFL football player Burgess Owens who contends that “Democrat support for abortion has enabled the murder of millions of Black babies.” President Trump also characterized voting against the Born Alive bill as “supporting the execution of the most vulnerable humans among us” and said that the racially disparate impact of abortion “has taken more Black lives than lynching ever did.”

Meanwhile, in a bizarre twist, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of Housing Julian Castro pledged to support “the right of transsexuals to have abortions. Just because it isn’t currently possible for individuals without a uterus to bear a child shouldn’t mean that we neglect to recognize their right to have an abortion as a matter of principle. If a person identifies as a woman that person must, as a matter of law, be entitled to all the rights extended to cis-gendered women and that includes the right to have an abortion and to have taxpayers pay for that abortion if the trans individual can’t afford to pay.”

Judge Blocks Wall Construction

U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam issued an order permanently blocking President Trump’s plan to use unspent military funds for the construction of a wall on the United States’ southern border.

Gilliam accepted the argument of the Sierra Club’s lawyers that “the wall will do irreparable harm by impeding the natural migration routes used by herds of Latinos making their way from their breeding grounds in the south to their feeding grounds in the north” and labeled the Trump Administration’s claim that the spending was justified by the border crisis “controversial and unproven.”

“The plaintiffs’ argument that the United States is a nation of immigrants is a persuasive rebuttal to the defendant’s contention that unconstrained immigration poses a threat,” the Judge wrote in his ruling. “All of the more than 20 Democrats currently running for president argue in favor of the unrestricted flow of immigrants into this country. The 20 to one ratio in favor of open borders represents a super majority. Given that we live in a democracy this super majority must carry the day.”

Gilliam also cited “the possibility that the wall will slow air flow and worsen global climate must also be taken into consideration. It is bad enough that we have less than 12 years to avert climate catastrophe. We must not go forward with construction that may hasten this outcome by one minute.”

NBA to Abolish “Owner” Terminology

NBA commissioner Adam Silver said the basketball league will stop using the term “owner” to describe the owners of the teams. “We are sensitive to the feelings of the Black millionaires who make up the overwhelming majority of our players,” the Commissioner said. “Given the racist history of America it is deplorable that we have been using this term.”

Silver acknowledged that “we haven’t yet settled on a specific replacement terminology. Some have suggested ‘overseers’ while others favor ‘bloated plutocrats.’ I think we’ll be doing some market research with polls and focus groups to try to find the right language to describe the delicate dance between those who pay the salaries and those who receive them without bruising too many egos.”

Supreme Court Rejects Census Question

This week the US Supreme Court rendered its decision on whether the US Census takers will be allowed to ask respondents whether they are citizens.

Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained the Court’s reasoning: “we aren’t saying that the question is illegal or unconstitutional. We we are saying is that we don’t like the question. As this nation’s final arbiters of everything that’s right and good, Steven, Ruth, Elena, Sonya and I can’t see any reason why such a question should be asked.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas lambasted the majority’s ruling calling it “completely detached from any genuine judicial authority under the Constitution or statutory law. The implementation of the census is the responsibility of the Executive branch. Whether a respondent is a citizen is certainly as relevant to the constitutional purpose of the census as a question asking the respondent’s sex or race. There is no legitimate basis for allowing these other questions while baring the citizenship question. In any case, the authority to decide what questions will be asked is the domain of the Executive branch. The majority’s ruling wrongly crosses the constitution’s separation of powers boundary between the Executive and Judicial branches of our government.”

Pelosi Rails Against Enforcing Immigration Laws

Claiming that “the American people are fed up with President Trump’s obsession with enforcing the laws against illegal immigration,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) suggested that “it’s time that we let an impartial party determine who is allowed into our country.”

“The more I think about our immigration laws the more I wonder what is the purpose?” she said. “What is the point? The laws on the books discriminate against every person in the world except American citizens. This is fundamentally unjust. Who are we to decide where anyone chooses to live? The argument that we can’t afford to take care of everyone in the world puts financial considerations ahead of social justice. Our drive to abolish the cost of living from blocking anyone’s access to the good life must not be confined to an arbitrarily narrow segment of those born in this country.”

Pelosi’s attempt to enact a bill that “would broaden the base of beneficiaries to America’s natural bounties by handing over border enforcement to the United Nations” passed the House, but was rebuffed by the Senate. Instead, the Senate passed a bi-partisan bill that would provide for humanitarian aid and logistical support for illegal immigrants detained near the southern border, but not interfere with the enforcement of existing laws. A disappointed Pelosi allowed moderate Democrats to join Republicans in passing this measure.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) led a cadre of radicals in opposition to this compromise legislation calling it “a cowardly sellout. We shouldn’t be making these concentration camps more comfortable. We should be setting the inmates free and giving them what they came to America for—free housing, free food, free medical care, free education and every other benefit that we can think of. That is the true progressive stance that every Democrat should be taking.”

In related news, Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro called for the decriminalization of illegally crossing the border. Castro explicitly called for the repeal of Section 1325, the portion of immigration law that makes illegal entry a federal misdemeanor. While she didn’t sign on for repeal, Warren denounced “the negative impression that fences and guards are making on these newcomers. I know it may be old fashioned of me, but I think a much better approach would be to greet the weary travelers with bottles of water, gift baskets, and bus tickets. When I was a little girl I remember my mom making cookies for people moving into our neighborhood to help them feel more welcome. When I am president I will issue an executive order making this America’s new policy on immigration.”

Border Drowning Blamed on Trump

Photos of a father and daughter’s bodies on the bank of the Rio Grande River sparked outrage at President Trump. Former Vice President Joe Biden called the photo “gut-wrenching” and another manifestation of “the unconscionable cruelty we’re seeing at our border.”

“We didn’t see this kind of tragedy when Barack and I ran things,” Biden recalled. “As Barack would’ve said if he were still alive ‘this is not who we are.’ One of my responsibilities as vice-president was to be ready 24/7 to strip down and swim to the rescue. You know, I’m really a good swimmer. The Secret Service can attest to that. What voters need to consider is whether they want a president who is a proven swimmer or a guy like Trump who can only ogle women wearing swimsuits.”

Rival for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, seconded Biden’s take, saying that “Trump is responsible for these deaths. He’s visited the border on several occasions, but not once did he ever jump into the river to save a struggling swimmer.” Beto admitted “I can’t say I’m as strong a swimmer as Vice-President Biden, but I can speak Spanish and would be more than willing to shout encouragement to swimmers in a language they could understand. All I ask is that voters keep in mind the fact that neither Trump nor Biden can speak Spanish.”

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.” His work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh program. This post is also available on Facebook.

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

Determined to undo what they called “the wrenching changes inflicted on America by Trump’s tax cuts,” Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) are proposing a “Long-Term Unemployment Act.” Their bill would create a federal program to reduce the number of private sector jobs and provide new government jobs for those who become unemployed. A problem caused by Trump’s policies is that there are currently more jobs than people to fill them.

“The present surplus of jobs is precisely the worst of the wrenching changes we aim to rectify,” Wyden said. “Generations of Americans have gotten used to the periodic respites that a few months of compensated unemployment has provided for them. But under Trump’s policies there are too many open jobs and very little opportunity to enjoy any paid downtime.”

“Our bill would rescind the tax cuts and ratchet down the prosperity to levels that prevailed during the Obama Administration,” Van Hollen chimed in. “The restored higher taxes would then be available to fund the type of government make-works jobs that the Democratic Party has fostered since the days of FDR. It will also help clarify the choice voters will face in the 2020 elections—do they want to be forced to take real jobs that require real work under Trump or do they prefer to return to the good old days of a moderated economy punctuated by occasional rest periods that both Democratic and Republican leaders have presided over since the early 1990s.”

Contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination Sen. Bernie Sanders (S-Vt) called the bill “a very small down payment toward my ‘economic bill of rights.’ Ultimately, we need to sever the provision of an income from the work requirement. Justice mandates that society fulfill every person’s material needs and that those who are willing and able to work undertake the effort necessary to meet those needs. This is the true path to the utopia that the great Karl Marx envisioned for mankind.”

Not wanting to be passed on his left, rival 2020 Democratic contender, former VP Joe Biden told the Poor People’s Forum in Washington that “the first thing I would do as president is eliminate the president’s tax cut.” Biden was unmoved by projections that repeal of the tax cuts would cost the average family $2,000 in higher taxes. “Bribing people with tax cuts appeals to selfish motives,” Biden contended. “We need to revive the selfless sense of everyone’s obligation to promote the collective welfare that prevailed when Obama and I ran things.”

Idiots Slander US

This week the profoundly ignorant Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) asserted that persons illegally entering the United States “are being held in concentration camps.” Among the atrocities inflicted are “widespread boredom and inappropriate menus. Few know that there is a serious shortage of TVs and that meals are prepared without considering the ethnicity of the recipients.”

When critics objected to her characterization, she alleged that “most people don’t know that the government put Japanese people in concentration camps during WWII.” This slander was joined by nattering nincompoop George Takei. The aging Star Trek actor and gay-rights agitator alleged that “I know what concentration camps are. I was inside two of them, in America. And yes, we are operating such camps again.”

A few months after Japan’s unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the US government rounded-up Americans of Japanese descent living on the west coast and held them in internment camps until after a 1944 US Supreme Court decision ruled that while their removal from the west coast was a lawful use of the president’s war powers, their detention was unwarranted. The US eventually paid financial damages amounting to $1.2 billion to former detainees in 1988.

While conditions in these internment camps were spartan they were nothing akin to the concentration camps operated by Nazi Germany. Internees were neither worked to death nor murdered in gas chambers. The policy was to keep families together and treat them humanely. These stark differences failed to blunt Ocasio-Cortez’s slander. Instead, she added her assertion that “only Nazis oppose open borders” and joined other Democrats in Congress to oppose funding that would improve the living conditions in the illegal immigrant detention centers.

Meanwhile, the horror of incarceration at the hands of Germans was once again demonstrated by the revelation that Ali Bashar, the convicted rapist and murderer of a 14-year-old girl, is being held in a facility with access to only 23 TV channels. United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) President Coly Seck has promised “to investigate this potential abuse of prisoners’ human rights.”

Reparations Scam Rapped

Democrats aiming to buy Black votes by promising to force non-blacks to pay them damages for the injustices of slavery were stunned by the opposition of two Blacks testifying at a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

Columnist Coleman Hughes opposed reparations, saying that they “would insult black Americans, further divide the country, and insult descendants of slaves victims without their consent.” His testimony was roundly booed by Democrats attending the hearing, prompting Chairman Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn) to put down his piece of fried chicken long enough to ask the audience to “chill. Granted, this is unorthodox testimony coming from a Black man, but he still has the right to speak.”

Former NFL football player Burgess Owens also spoke against reparations because “it points to a certain race, a certain color and it points to them as evil. It also turns black people into beggars.” Even more shocking was his admission that “I used to be a Democrat until I read some history and found out the misery that that party brought to my race. Democrats are the party that was part of slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, and that has killed over 40% of our black babies—20 million of them.” He concluded by saying “color doesn’t matter. We have become successful in this country like no other because of this great opportunity to live the American dream.”

Presidential contender and supporter of reparations Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) suggested that “Mr. Owens may be suffering from the brain damage afflicting so many who have played football. But, in any case, his judgment is colored by his success as a self-made man. It’s easy for a person of talent to make it on his own, but what of the rest of us who needed a boosted? Is he saying that the special advantages I got as an alleged member of an oppressed ethnic minority were wrong? If I have learned anything from life it is that relying on freedom to let every person pursue his or her own happiness does not guarantee satisfactory results. We need government to put a thumb on the scales when and where warranted to provide the guarantee that freedom can’t ensure.”

Not willing to wait for Congress to take action on reparations, in New York City, Temar Bishop beat and raped a 20-year-old white woman because “she was a white girl. She deserved it because us minorities have been through slavery. This is what they used to do to us.”

Group Sues Over Dossier

The Coolidge Reagan Foundation, which had previously lodged a complaint with the Federal Election Commission contending that the dossier of dirt thrown at Trump was compiled by a foreigner at the behest of the Clinton campaign, and, therefore, a violation of regulations prohibiting accepting anything of value from a foreign source, has now filed a lawsuit.

Federal Election Commission Chairman Ellen Weintraub called the lawsuit “merit-less. They might have had a case if Clinton had won, but now the issue is moot. I mean, what damage has the plaintiff suffered? Regardless of whether Secretary Clinton committed a crime or not, what remedy would make them whole? If a cheater doesn’t win by cheating has the winner actually been cheated?”

“I think one could argue that the Coolidge Reagan Foundation has already achieved substantial benefit from the failure of the dossier scheme,” Weintraub argued. “If Clinton had won she could have wrought considerable damage on this organization via her control over the FBI and IRS. Investigations could’ve been launched that would have intimidated donors and imposed large legal fees on that organization. It is almost certain that lawyers for Secretary Clinton would point this out in their successful defense before my Agency.”

Beto Promises to Let Boys Compete in Girls’ Sports

In a bid to corner the transgender vote, 2020 presidential contender former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Tex) vowed to “break down the doors of girls’ locker rooms across the nation and let boys who identify as girls participate in girls’ sports.”

“I am aware that many parents are uncomfortable with this next step in the evolution of sexual freedom, but we can’t allow prejudice to tie our hands,” the candidate said. “Many boys feel uncomfortable trying to compete with other boys. I know because I was one of them. If I had had the same options as the boys of today are beginning to seize there’s no doubt in my mind that I could’ve won championships and maybe even an athletic scholarship in field hockey—a sport that was strictly limited to cis-gendered girls when I was in high school. Voters can count on me to lead the nation into a more sexually inclusive future.”

In related news, the Beto campaign announced that he will be staying at homeless camps as he campaigns “in order to build a better bond with those most in need of my leadership and to demonstrate my willingness to sacrifice my own comfort when I lack the funding for accommodations more suitable to my status in society.”

Mayor Pete Wants Federal ID Cards for illegals

Democratic presidential contender South Bend, Indiana Mayor Peter Buttigieg has called for the federal government to issue special identification cards to illegal immigrants.

“It’s time that we recognize the tremendous initiative it takes to enter the country in defiance of our laws,” the Mayor maintained. “They have journeyed far, often at great risk and cost to get to our promise land only to face ICE harassment as they attempt to cross the finish line.”

“If I’m elected president I will issue an executive order granting a federal ID card to every one of these brave travelers,” Buttigieg promised. “These cards will entitle the bearers to obtain whatever goods and services they need from any commercial establishment open for business within our borders. Instead of having to hide from immigration enforcers and earn a living by taking demeaning jobs they will be vaulted directly into the middle class and enjoy the lifestyles they envisioned when they set out on their arduous treks to come to America. The instant access to consumer goods will hasten their integration as full-fledged members of our society.”

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.” His work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh program. This post is also available on Facebook.

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

California State Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) has introduced legislation (SB 310) that would put convicted felons on juries. Current law bars ex-cons from serving on juries—a practice that Skinner calls “profoundly undemocratic.”

“I am ashamed that it has taken so long for my Party to realize that routinely excluding victims of the justice system from playing a role in the judicial process is wrong,” the Senator asserted. “Who among us is better suited to assess whether others should be subjected to the brutality of our prison system than individuals who have had to endure it themselves?”

“The criminal element is a segment of the population that should be represented in every phase of our governance,” Skinner insists. “To exclude them denies them a basic human right and deprives us of the benefit of their unique insights in judging whether the accused may have had justifiable cause for the actions for which they are put on trial. While the law-abiding juror might be quick to decide that theft is wrong, a former thief on a jury may not be so hasty. For example, our welfare system extracts money from those who have more than they need in order to aid those who have less. If an accused thief can demonstrate that his need was greater than that of the person he robbed should we be in a hurry to send him to jail simply because he took the initiative to redistribute wealth that the government probably should’ve already done?”

Skinner acknowledged that “violence during the course of a privately undertaken redistribution of wealth may be problematic,” but pointed out that “law-enforcement officers often engage in excessive violence when inserting themselves into social situations involving disputes over the ownership of property or personality clashes between individuals. Perhaps adding felons to juries will yield a more balanced perspective regarding the appropriate boundaries of legitimate uses of force.”

Trump Ignites “Foreign Meddling” Controversy

President Trump’s open-minded response to a hypothetical question posed by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos unleashed a fire-storm of pious denunciations from Democrats and the media. Stephanopoulos asked Trump whether he would listen to any “dirt” on a political opponent if it were offered by a foreign government. Trump said “yes. Suppose, for example, that Norway wanted to tell me something unsettling about a person in our government or running for office. I think I’d listen and maybe pass on this information to the FBI if I thought it warranted their attention.”

Loser of the 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton pounced on Trump’s remarks calling them “the smoking gun that proves he is unfit to be president.” She went on to contrast Trump’s “invitation to foreign meddling” with her own “measured response to the ‘dirt’ on Trump my campaign bought from Christopher Steele. We didn’t broadcast a plea for foreign interference. We worked behind the scenes and, I might add, with the FBI to ensure that the information would be used properly.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) echoed Clinton’s take, pointing out that “when Trump asked the Russians to find Hillary’s lost emails in 2016 he was a private citizen and lacked authority to interact with foreign governments. Hillary, in contrast, was acting with the full cooperation of the Obama Administration in the effort to block the most unqualified candidate for the presidency in our nation’s history. Just because that effort failed doesn’t make Trump’s election legitimate. We can’t allow him to misuse the normal presidential communications with foreign governments as a mask for future illegal interactions with them.”

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) averred that “the mere possibility of accepting political information from a foreign government as President Trump implied he might is simply unthinkable. It strikes at the very heart of our democracy. It was bad enough that the Democrats did this to try to sully Trump’s reputation, but Republicans need to have higher ethical standards even if that means we lose to law-breaking Democrats. I agree with the great Senator Henry Clay that it is better to be right than be president. That way you keep your self respect.”

Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub joined the chorus of objections to Trump’s remarks stating “it is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. Election.” She attempted to distinguish Trump’s hypothetical answer from the 2016 actions of the Clinton campaign by “citing some clear differences. First, while it is true that the Steele dossier was compiled by a former British spy and based on information obtained from the Russian government, the connection to Clinton was not direct. Two American intermediaries were between her campaign and the foreigners. Second, since the Clinton campaign paid several million dollars for this ‘dirt’ it was not a contribution to her campaign per se. It was a straightforward purchase, much like the purchase of an imported cigar from a local smoke shop, for example.”

Trump characterized the outrage over his answer “hysterical hypocrisy. The fact is that it was the Democrats who actively solicited dirt concocted by a foreigner and worked with top FBI officials to use it to undermine my campaign and my administration. In the process they violated the civil rights of dozens of Americans by spying on their private conversations, abused their authority by intimidating witnesses, and forced taxpayers to bear the enormous expenses of investigating a non-existent crime. Given what happened it’s ridiculous for anyone to claim that calling in the FBI to stop election interference makes any sense.”

However, calling in the FBI would be mandatory if legislation just proposed by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) is enacted. Blumenthal called his “Duty to Report” Act “essential if we want to preserve our form of government. As they have shown in their valiant effort to derail the Trump Administration these past two years, the FBI is our last line of defense against a hostile takeover of our government. Rather than expecting this heroic agency to have to do its crucial work covertly it’s time we formally legitimize their role by requiring that all candidates report to the FBI and get the agency’s approval before they are allowed to compete in the race for the presidency. If my bill had been in effect prior to the 2016 election Trump would not have been able to clear this hurdle and America would now be under the guidance of the most qualified person to ever seek the office.”

Bernie Explains Socialism

Stunned by polls showing the doltish Joe Biden in the lead for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (S-Vt) gave socialism the “hard sell” and predicted that voters would be “delighted to pay higher taxes” if his policies are implemented.

The “delight” is expected to flow from what Sanders called an “economic bill of rights. Under this plan, the government will provide everything everyone needs for free. All that anyone has to do in exchange is turn over all his excess wealth to the government.”

“The hassle of having to live by a household budget will be abolished,” the candidate promised. “Questions like ‘can I afford it?’ will vanish from our minds. If you need it, the government will give it to you. The time spent trying to choose specific products or services will be freed up to engage in other pursuits because the government will make these decisions for everyone. Unnecessary products and services will be eliminated. Only essential items will be produced.”

President Donald Trump’s economic adviser Larry Kudlow rebutted Sanders’ promises, saying “they are pretty standard for what socialists have repeatedly promised throughout history. Delivery has always been the difficult part. Human motivation teeters between greed and laziness. Capitalism has succeeded in delivering vast wealth to the masses of humanity by harnessing greed. Under capitalism, the path to great wealth comes from efficiently serving the needs of others. When socialists shutdown this path, laziness triumphs over greed. The inevitable result is poverty. Everyone wants the free stuff. No one has sufficient incentive to provide it. Coercion must be used to avert starvation. And, thus tyranny becomes the only option. Concealing this progression from socialism’s promise to its ultimate end is Sanders’ only hope for getting elected.”

Biden Promises to Cure Cancer

In a bid to out-promise his rivals for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, former Vice-President Joe Biden has pledged to cure cancer if he is elected. As it so often happens when Biden gloms onto an idea it turns out not to be an original thought. It was in 1971 that the much reviled President Richard Nixon declared “war on cancer.” He even persuaded Congress to pass the National Cancer Act (P.L. 92–218).

The government’s war on cancer is now nearing its 50th year. A recent development was the Obama Administration’s “Cancer Moonshot” initiative that Biden himself announced in early 2016. “The idea was to imitate JFK’s pledge to put a man on the moon within a decade,” Biden explained. “The problem with Nixon’s plan is that unlike JFK he didn’t set a deadline for achieving the goal. I won’t make that same mistake once I’m elected president. There will be a firm deadline and severe penalties will be imposed for failure to meet it.”

The candidate refused to elaborate on what these penalties might be or to clarify how such a threat could be expected to generate the scientific breakthrough required to produce a cure, saying “I’m not going to show my cards until voters do their part to give me the powers that I need to make this miracle happen. The important thing to remember is that right now I am the only candidate who has offered to cure this dreaded disease. That’s more than any of my competitors have done.”

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.” His work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh program. This post is also available on Facebook.

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

Miffed by the attention being paid to the heroes of the 1944 Allied sea-borne assault on Nazi-held France, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called the D-Day event “relatively insignificant in the broader context of World War II and its aftermath.”

“The puny efforts of the West pale in comparison with the absolutely essential role played by Russia in the conflict,” Zakharova asserted. “First, let’s not forget that there wouldn’t have been a World War II if Russia had not joined with Germany to get the ball rolling. Their non-aggression pact was key to enabling Hitler to initiate hostilities.”

“Second, the West cruelly overlooks the treachery of the Nazis’ unprovoked violation of the pact by their June 1941 invasion of Russia,” she continued. “It took the West three years to open the second front—during which time the Russian people experienced the unspeakable horrors of Nazi atrocities that ultimately claimed millions of civilian lives. The West congratulates itself for generously supplying weapons and supplies to our armies, but was niggardly in bearing a fair share of the blood shed in the battle to defeat Hitler’s minions.”

“Third, the West’s refusal to acknowledge the conquests of the Red Army in central Europe while their forces barely made it into Germany by war’s end rebuts their claim to have liberated Europe,” Zakharova said. “We got to keep the territories ceded to us by Hitler in the 1939 pact. We also were able to install puppet governments in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia.”

“Finally, though the Soviet Union itself is no more, the ideals of socialism live on and have taken root even in the United States,” she pointed out. “Right now, socialism has become the dominant ideology of America’s Democratic Party. Two dozen socialist candidates are vying for the nomination to take on the universally unpopular Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Clearly, our ideals and our gains have made the most headway during the course of World War II and the years since.”

In related news, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren contends that “global climate change is a bigger challenge than World War II. Even if we had lost the war, life would still have gone on. Human rights may have taken a hit in a world dominated by Nazi Germany, but the human race—except for some isolated and tiny ethnic groups—would have survived. The same cannot be said of the threat posed by climate change. All of humanity will be forced to suffer the insidiously slow encroachment of rising temperatures and sea levels. Meanwhile, governments hampered by the need to persuade ignorant and indifferent voters to adopt the severe measures required to combat climate change will fail to act in time. Our only chance is to elect a person of vision willing to unilaterally implement the harsh regulations needed to avert this calamity. I am that person of vision.”

Dems Want to Purge Party of Abortion Foes

It used to be that Democratic politicians claimed to be personally pro-life, but politically pro-choice. This attempt to straddle the gap between respect for human life and the need to garner votes from those favoring easy access to abortion is no longer tolerated.

Contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) demands that “as a party, we should be 100 percent pro-choice, and it should be non-negotiable.” Rival contender Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt) is campaigning to oust sitting Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski (Ill), contending that Lipinski’s non-conformity on the issue is “a disturbing moment in our history.”

Former Vice-President Joe Biden, the current leader in polls of Democrat voters’ on who they support for president, reversed his previous stance against requiring taxpayers to fund abortions. “I used to think that it would be wrong to force persons who believe that abortion takes a human life to have to pay for what they consider murder,” Biden confessed. “Now I realize that it is wrong to permit a person’s individual perspective on morality to interfere with the conduct of public policy. The progressive view places the collective benefit to society ahead of any personal objections. This progressive view supports the right of every woman to terminate her unwanted child. While this theoretically could be accomplished via voluntary donations, relying on strictly voluntary funding sends the wrong message. It is the duty of every member of society to contribute funds to support the rights that the government has decided each person deserves.”

In related news, U.N. Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Kate Gilmore called laws restricting access to abortion “extremist hate. Barring a woman from having a doctor tear her unwanted baby limb-from-limb is clearly torture and a deprivation of her right to health.” She lamented the fact that “the UN has no plausible means of interdicting the rogue actions of wayward US political subdivisions,” but expressed hope that “moral pressure could lead to the sort of spiritual awakening necessary for subduing such pernicious opposition.”

Pelosi Irked by Impeachment Pressure

Distressed at what she characterized as “unforgivable incompetence at the FBI,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) sought to fend off what she considers “unwise and impetuous demands for Trump’s impeachment,” by assuring the Democratic caucus that she too “wants to see Trump in prison.”

“I wish I could just snap my fingers and make it happen,” she told colleagues, “but there are too many barriers between what I’d like to do and what I can do. The FBI and Director Comey let us down big time. The Agency has been able to put countless people behind bars over the years—planting evidence, suborning perjury, and coercing admissions of guilt—or shooting them if that’s what it takes. With all the resources at their disposal it is unconscionable that they allowed Trump to slip through the noose.”

While sympathetic to the Speaker’s dilemma, House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) still advocated for impeachment hearings. “What I think Nancy is overlooking is the opportunity to use such hearings to stoke the fires of the type of voter indignation necessary to give our GOP colleagues the nerve to side with us in achieving his ouster,” Nadler maintained. “Unlike court proceedings, House hearings are not bound by rules of evidence. Accusations are unconstrained by the kinds of limits a judge might impose at a trial. Lurid and unsubstantiated charges launched by Democrats at these hearings will be passed on via the media. It is our only chance to raise the level of disgust high enough to turn the majority of voters against Trump.”

Holder Contrasts His Tenure with Barr’s

Attorney General William Barr is not the first AG to be held in contempt by Congress. Obama’s AG Eric Holder also shared this experience. Holder appeared on CNN this past week to explain how the two instances differ.

“Back in the early years of the Obama Administration we had a program called ‘Fast and Furious’ in which we were trying to set up a ‘sting’ operation by smuggling guns to the Mexican cartels,” Holder recalled. “The idea was, we would have the identifying information—serial numbers and ballistics—by which we could tie specific weapons to specific crimes. Just because this plan didn’t workout as we’d hoped—serial numbers were filed off, gun barrels were defaced hindering the usefulness of ballistic data, and hundreds of murders were committed with the weapons we supplied—Republicans in Congress tried to second-guess this plan. Naturally, we withheld subpoenaed documents.”

“In Barr’s case, the document subpoenaed by Congress is the Mueller Report,” Holder pointed out. “There’s no ongoing covert operation to protect. There are plenty of witnesses—Mueller himself and anyone of the more than dozen attorneys on his team who could tell Congress what’s in the redacted sections of the Mueller Report—that could be called to reveal this content. So, Barr’s refusal based on the law prohibiting the disclosure of this redacted content serves no important purpose other than to save himself from legal jeopardy.”

“In short, I was fighting for the principle that the federal government’s covert actions should not be subject to legislative oversight,” Holder emphasized. “To inject such oversight into the equation, especially in the midst of the failure of this sensitive undertaking we were engaged in, was a direct threat to national security. In contrast, Barr’s actions put the onus of breaking the law onto the patriots on the Mueller team who have done heroic work to try to rid the nation of the dangerous Trump Administration.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif) praised Holder’s “courageous defense of government authority” and denounced Barr as “the second most dangerous man in the country. His lack of appreciation for what the intelligence community does to protect America from both foreign and domestic enemies is deeply disturbing. Even if his premise that the intelligence community’s actions endanger the democratic process of electing our leaders is correct, this is the lesser evil compared to supinely allowing an unqualified usurper to dupe voters into electing him. I fear for the fate of our country while Trump remains in office.”

Hillary Calls Bernie “Sore Loser”

Former Secretary of State and loser of the 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton lambasted Sen. Bernie Sanders (S-Vt) as a “sore loser who refuses to graciously concede defeat.” Inasmuch as Clinton has spent much of the time since November of 2016 carping about her loss to Trump—blaming the Russians, Comey, sexism, election rules, etc—her lack of introspection is stunning.

Based on what transpired during the 2016 Democratic primaries, one could argue that Sanders was an amazingly gracious loser considering all the Democratic National Committee did to rig the process to ensure that Clinton would get the nomination.

Clinton insisted that “what happened in 2016 makes no difference now. What I am referring to is the 2020 race. I have graciously declined to run again. Bernie has not. Despite his advanced age and questionable health, he is thrusting his lame candidacy into what should be a vigorous battle among those young enough to be able to survive a full term in office. I have gallantly stepped aside, yet am still available should none of these contenders be able to secure a majority of the necessary delegates to get the nomination. Unlike Bernie, I epitomize the ideal of noble public service.”

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.” His work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh program. This post is also available on Facebook.

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

Alarmed by the Department of Justice probe into the intelligence community’s spying on the Trump campaign and presidency, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif) urged Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats “to resist exposing our guardians to undue scrutiny.”

“While Attorney General Barr’s assertion that spying on a campaign is a ‘big deal’ may sway ignorant voters, it is out-of-step with modern day reality,” Schiff contends. “Every advanced nation has used secret police to protect itself from outside threats. This is the normal way of doing business. For Barr to go on a spree of declassification is an unparalleled deviation from this norm.”

“Since World War II we have trusted our government to do what’s best for America,” Schiff said. “To turn away from this record of success just because one candidate may have been inadvertently harmed wrongly elevates electoral fairness over national survival. Surely, the sacrifice of one person’s opportunity to be president is the lesser evil, especially considering that the only so-called ‘downside’ would’ve been the election and governance of a candidate that was the most qualified to be president in our nation’s history.”

Schiff’s position was quickly endorsed by former CIA Director John Brennan who cited “our extensive cooperation with our country’s long-term ally—the same one we fought side-by-side with to defeat the Nazis—to try to prevent Trump from seizing power. The true tragedy is that we have not yet been unsuccessful.”

In related news, one of The View’s on-air personalities, Meghan McCain, defended her call for Democrats to shoot President Trump, saying “it was only a hypothetical suggestion.” She blamed her love of hunting “for my unfortunate choice of words” and reminded everyone that “Trump, himself, once said he could get away with shooting someone on Fifth Avenue in New York City without losing any votes. Likewise, I don’t think I’m in any danger of losing any viewers for my suggestion.”

Obama Meddling in Brazil’s Politics

Miffed that his operation to thwart Trump’s election and undermine his presidency has come unraveled, former President Obama tried to sway Brazil’s voters to oppose President Jair Bolsonaro’s loosening of gun controls by falsely stating that “in the United States anyone can buy firearms, including machine guns, at any time—even over the internet—without having to get government approval beforehand. Don’t let your president lead you down this same dangerous path.”

Early indications that Bolsonaro’s January directive seems to have reduced crimes committed with guns contradicts Obama’s premise that keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens would improve public safety.

Undaunted by these data that he characterized as “just a blip on the radar,” Obama argued that “whatever minor improvements that may come from arming good people, there can be no debate that crime could be virtually eradicated if all private ownership of weapons is outlawed. That is the policy that enabled countries like the Soviet Union and China to drive down crime rates so impressively.”

Mueller Statement Violates ABA Rules

Former Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s statement this week that he “did not have confidence that the president did not commit a crime” violates Rule 3.8(f) of the American Bar Association’s code of professional conduct. The rule states that “The prosecutor in a criminal case shall refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.”

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) excused this violation on the grounds that “special circumstances call for unprecedented actions. The ‘innocent unless proven guilty’ presumption may be a good approach in most cases, but prosecutors, especially Special Prosecutors, should have the discretion to go outside the boundaries, if, in their judgment, the situation warrants.”

“Since President Trump has millions of supporters, heightening public condemnation of his behavior is essential if he is to be brought to justice,” Nadler maintains. “Without a widespread vilification of his character that can drive down his approval in the polls there is no hope for impeaching him and removing him from office. Inasmuch as impeachment is a political process and not a judicial process, it seems to me that the ordinary procedures of political campaigns, which are hugely invested in vilification of one’s political opponents, should apply, rather than the daintier procedures of the justice system.”

Of course, heightening public condemnation of Trump is not the worst violation of the rules of justice by Mueller. When he was a DOJ attorney in Boston, Mueller ignored exculpatory evidence and allowed four men to languish in prison for years in order to “preserve a valuable FBI asset.” That asset was the notorious, mass-murdering, Boston mobster Whitey Bulger, who was allegedly a confidential informant against fellow mobsters.

In related news, mega celebrity Cher was so incensed by Mueller’s implication that Trump might be guilty of a crime for which there is no evidence, that she fantasized about Trump being gang-raped in prison. After her tasteless fantasy sparked some negative responses, Cher admitted that “I may have gone too far in my instinct to push for what I feel is best for Democrats and democracy.”

Jill Promises to Rein-in Joe’s “Grabby Hands”

Though former second lady Jill Biden has promised to keep a close rein on husband Joe’s inappropriate touching and sniffing of women on the campaign trail, there was another incident this week involving a 10-year-old girl at a town hall in Houston hosted by the American Federation of Teachers.

Jill explained that “the batteries in the shock collar he now ears under his shirt had rundown from overuse. Without this needed reminder not to touch, Joe was being his usual touchy-feely self. I take full responsibility for not having a back-up power source in place. But let’s not overlook the progress that he’s made. Before we took countermeasures he likely would have had his hands on dozens in the weeks he’s been campaigning. At worst, I’d say the problem is 90% solved, though Joe is puzzled that his neck has been hurting a lot recently.”

“Judging from the size of the turnout he is getting it looks like he’s down to groping only one person in the typical ten-person crowds he is drawing,” Trump tweeted.

Court Decision on Abortion Praised & Assailed

The US Supreme Court’s decision on an Indiana abortion law rankled Planned Parenthood president Leana Wen who found their ruling allowing the disposition of remains provision to stay in force “an affront,” while praising their striking down of a provision prohibiting abortions to be undertaken for reasons of the race, sex, or disability of the child “a lucid expansion of Roe v. Wade framework.”

“It is our position that a woman’s right to abort an unwanted child is an unalienable right,” Wen said. “This means that no subordinate unit of government has any authority to restrict it in any way. Suppose a mother already has a sufficient number of girls in her family and doesn’t want another one. Suppose a woman has a drunken episode of sex with a black man and doesn’t want a mulatto baby. Suppose medical tests indicate a high probability that her baby will be handicapped. These are all valid reasons for terminating a pregnancy and we’re glad the court upheld them.”

“However, as Justice Ginsburg pointed out in her dissenting opinion, allowing Indiana to require that aborted babies be interred or cremated conveys an unwarranted patina of humanity to what is more correctly considered medical waste,” Wen complained. “The real purpose of this provision is to try to discourage women from enjoying her right to end her pregnancy by implying that the abortion she is entitled to have kills a human being. In several other states we have made great progress in rebuffing this false notion and have seen the enactment of laws that extend the allowable window of opportunity to terminate unwanted offspring to the moment of birth and even beyond. We will not sit idle and watch these gains be limited to any degree.”

Candidate Wants to Free Youthful Criminals

Seeking to gain a foothold in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio hopes to sew up the young criminal vote by releasing more of them “on their own recognizance” while their cases are pending.

“In so many of these cases, the accused youths cannot make bail,” de Blasio observed. “I thought, why not use the same catch-and-release approach that has worked so well for asylum seekers and let them go free as long as they promise to show up for trial. We will save the government the cost of housing these individuals and allow them to continue to reduce the overall population of criminals by preying upon each other—as it seems is their main activity when not behind bars.”

A key part of his proposal is raising the age limit for release without bail to 19 years old. “This way youngsters eligible to vote will see that I am on their side,” the Mayor explained. “This is a much bigger cohort than the release of the tiny number of wrongly convicted that Trump’s ballyhooed prison reform legislation will ever achieve because it does not discriminate between those who are and aren’t guilty. That’s more votes for me. Then, once I am president, all will be treated equally.”

Second Dem Dream Ticket May Emerge

With his fortunes fading, former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke attempted to sell himself as a possible running mate to South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg by boasting “I am a giant asshole.” Though seasoned political observers are calling this “another gaffe in an unbroken chain of gaffes since his unsuccessful attempt to win a US Senate seat last year,” sources close to the candidate are optimistic that “Mayor Pete will understand that Beto is proposing a mutually satisfying coupling between two ideological soul mates.”

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.” His work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh program. This post is also available on Facebook.

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.