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.”