Mueller Testimony Delayed

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

It looks like Special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony before Congress will not take place on July 17 as originally planned. House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) is trying to get Mueller to appear before his committee on July 24.

Nadler explained that “we were able to reach a bipartisan agreement with the Republicans on the questioning protocol, but Mueller balked at the use of water-boarding, contending that ‘it is inappropriate to employ this harsh technique to a person of my stature.’ My feeling is that any ‘stature’ he may have had at one time was canceled out by his investigation’s failure to recommend an indictment of President Trump.”

Ranking Committee member Rep. Doug Collins (R-Georgia) cited “Mueller’s prior abuses in the Whitey Bulger case, where he withheld exculpatory evidence that resulted in four innocent men languishing in prison, is sufficient justification for the Committee to treat him as a hostile witness and use the more aggressive interrogation methods members of the US intelligence community have themselves used.”

A spokesman for Mueller called the bipartisan agreement “a clear deal-breaker from Bob’s perspective. He did all he could within the scope of the law to malign Trump and damage him politically. The ingratitude of the Democrats is causing him to reconsider whether he will testify.”

“Oh, he will testify,” Nadler insisted. “Congress has the right to compel him to testify. We will subpoena him and use whatever other tools we choose to employ to ensure he appears and answers our questions. The media will guarantee that the desired message reaches the general public and that the answers to the GOP’s irrelevant questions are buried.”

Dems Vow to Fight Deportation Action

The Trump Administration’s planned action to deport the one million illegal immigrants that the courts have already ruled should be deported met with strident objections from open-border advocates this week.

Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, called the planned action “unfair. The individuals targeted have not had the opportunity to present their cases in court.” Lieberman neglected to mention the fact that these individuals were “no shows” for their scheduled opportunity to argue their side in court, maintaining that “common criminals who skip their court appearances aren’t sent directly to prison. They’re given new court dates. That’s what we’re asking for here.”

Contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif) characterized the planned enforcement action as “a crime against humanity. Every person on the planet has the right to migrate in search of a better life. America has the means to provide that better life. We are already providing an array of benefits to undocumented immigrants—housing, food, education—and every Democratic presidential candidate is on record in support of free health care for them. I’m confident that others in my Party will join me to take efforts to nullify this crime against humanity.”

Among the others in the Democratic Party stepping forward to oppose the planned action was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) who advised illegal immigrants to “refuse to open the door to ICE agents seeking to enforce court-issued deportation orders. Barricade your self and your family inside and wait them out. In many cases, local mayors will send police to interdict the federal intrusion.”

In Chicago, Mayor Lori Lightfoot ordered police in her city to “obstruct ICE from carrying out this crime against humanity. That includes withholding criminal records, warning those likely to be targeted, and impeding ICE agents with strategically sited and scheduled traffic jams that block ICE vehicles on their way to suspected immigrant hideouts. The best case scenario is that all victims elude capture.”

Pelosi Called “Racist”

This week, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) assailed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) by accusing her of racism. “At first, I gave her the benefit of the doubt and assumed that it was just an ideological difference,” AOC said. “You know, moderates vs. progressives. I have since learned that there are no real ideological differences. The differences are racial. She is targeting newly-elected women of color. That’s racist.”

“She is also trying to weigh us down with inane demands that we spend all our time on committees and stuff instead of spending our time on Twitter and interviews with the media to advance socialism,” AOC complained. “Making we women of color beasts of burden is what old-time Democrats did to the slaves. That’s racist.”

“Her public criticism of us is also inciting crazies to make death threats against us,” AOC added. “Stirring up lynch mobs against we women of color is what the Jim Crow Democrats did against former slaves after the Civil War. That’s racist.”

Pelosi countered that “my criticisms of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez stemmed from her broad-brush slander of moderate Democratic caucus members as ‘segregationists.’ It is one thing to slander Republicans. It is quite another to besmirch our comrades in the struggle for power in such a fashion. It has been my long established practice to draw the line on these tactics where the aisle separates us from our partisan foes.”

Despite having been a consistent target of Democratic slander himself, President Trump publicly chastised Rep. Ocasio-Cortez for her “very disrespectful remarks about Speaker Pelosi. Nancy’s not a racist.” Pelosi thanked him for “clarifying that we are not on the same side on the question of who’s a racist and who isn’t.”

Beto Woos Immigrants

Casting himself as the “anti-Trump,” Democratic presidential contender former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke sought to rally illegal immigrants to his side.

“America was founded on white supremacy,” the candidate argued. “As a person who was born white I could’ve aligned myself with the oppressors and reaped the benefits of exploiting the weak. But I courageously converted to Latino as an adult so I could lead an army of oppressed brown people to victory over white tyranny.”

O’Rourke pleaded with his audience to “send for more of your relatives and friends to come to America and join this army. Hundreds of millions of Latinos want to come to America. If only half of them come before the 2020 election we’d have enough votes to elect the first Latino president in history.”

The former Representative rejected contentions that his plan might benefit rival candidate, former Secretary of Housing Julian Castro. “Julian is a cis-Latino,” Beto pointed out. “I am a trans-Latino. He is Latino by accident of birth. I am Latino by choice. I think that demonstrates that I am more committed to Latino interests and values than a fellow whose passion is only skin deep.”

Castro questioned O’Rourke’s credentials, saying “if Beto is so committed why is his command of Spanish so poor? His clumsy ventures into our language approximate those of a drunk college freshman in a Spanish 101 class. I don’t disagree with his call for 100 million new Latino immigrants. I applaud it. I need these votes and am confident I will get them if they are cast.”

Dems Test Arguments Against Trump Economy

Historically, economic prosperity has carried incumbent presidents to reelection. After two-and-a-half years of the Trump Administration the US economy appears very prosperous. GDP is expanding at a rate that former President Obama insisted would never be seen again. Stock prices are reaching record highs. Unemployment is at historic lows. Wages are rising. The task of Democrats seeking to persuade voters to unseat Trump would seem to be daunting. Nevertheless, several of them are trying out arguments against the Trump economic gains.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass) played the envy card, pointing out that “a 3% gain on a billion dollar income is $30 million, but a 3% gain on an average person’s salary is only $1700. This is corruption, pure and simple. We need a more equitable distribution of wealth even if this means everyone gets less. Fairness is more important than prosperity. Equality is what voters want. I will give it to them. Trump won’t.”

Sen. Cory Booker (NJ) played the race card, bewailing the injustice of “putting the small black and brown owned businesses in my neighborhood at a serious disadvantage. They can’t get government-subsidized loans because the government has designated their products ‘contraband.’ On top of this, police harassment raises their costs and injects an element of risk that corporate competitors like CVS and Walgreens don’t have to deal with. Trump won’t change these laws. I will. That’s why voters will elect me.”

Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif) questioned the value of full employment, saying that “slaves were fully employed. Is that a model we really want to emulate? During the Obama Administration record numbers of people were able to live without toil. They enjoyed a life free from the stress of having to endure wage-slavery because the government generously provided for their needs. This left them free to enjoy being themselves rather than having to take demeaning jobs just to put food on the table. I will restore that ‘golden era’ if I’m fortunate enough to be elected president.”

Colorado State University Professor OiYan Poon warned these Democrats that “they are over-thinking the issue. They shouldn’t go down into the gutter with Trump and try to argue the minutia of economic policy. They should just punch him in the neck. That’s what I do when I run into people who are disagreeable.”

Times Suggests Solution to Housing Shortage

The growing ranks of homeless persons and the continued invasion of our country by millions of illegal immigrants have generated a severe shortage of housing across the US. The editors of the New York Times have offered an “outside-the-box” solution that “would tap into the housing surplus currently being squandered by archaic attitudes toward property rights.”

The editors start off by pointing out that “as a general rule, most Americans have more house than they need. What we are suggesting is that the appropriate public policy could put this surplus to more efficient use by requisitioning this space for the accommodation of the homeless and new immigrants.”

Under the Times’ plan, “data to be collected by the 2020 Census will enable the government to pinpoint housing surpluses. Once determinations of where the surpluses exist is made, those in need of housing can be assigned to these residences. Persons whose home are assigned to receive new residents would also receive a federal stipend to help offset the anticipated higher expenses for utilities and food required to accommodate their new guests plus a 10% profit over costs for the home owner.”

“This will be a ‘win-win’ outcome,” the editors wrote. “Formerly homeless individuals will have a nice place to live. They won’t be wandering the streets begging for handouts and forced to defecate in public. Owners of the homes receiving new residents will turn formerly wasted excess space into a modest addition to their yearly income and have the satisfaction of helping out persons less well-off than themselves. The only serious unanswered question is which of the Democratic presidential contenders has the vision to pick up this ball and run with it.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

John Semmens is a retired economist who has written a weekly political satire for The Arizona Conservative since 2005. He says working on his satires is one of the ways he tries to honor the liberties our Founding Fathers tried to protect.” 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.

Leave a Reply