By John Semmens — Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News
Biden immediately insisted “damn right I got that guy fired. But it was completely legal. President Obama gave me the authority to do whatever it took to get the job done. I alone among those running for president have the experience and know-how for dealing with Ukraine.”
Biden compared his “get tough approach” with “Trump’s weak and ineffective ‘phone-call diplomacy.’ As we all saw from the transcript, all Trump could bring himself to do was ask Ukraine to do us a favor and investigate Crowd Strike. Ukraine totally ignored this request because there was no ‘stick’ behind it. Well, when I’m president I won’t hesitate to use the ‘carrot or the stick’–whichever seems necessary—to let the Ukrainese know who’s the boss. I may offer a billion dollars to drop their investigation or I may drone one or more of their leaders as my good friend Obama did when he was president.”
Times Sued by Trump
The Trump campaign has filed a lawsuit against the New York Times for a 2019 article that claimed Trump had a deal with Putin for Russian help against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. The suit cites a total lack of evidence or facts in the Times article and argues that the paper showed a “reckless disregard for the truth and malice toward the candidate.”
Spokesperson for the Times Gunar Bile belittled the suit, calling it “legally merit-less. The courts have granted the press blanket immunity against libel claims unless the plaintiff can prove malice. Malice is a subjective thing. What Trump sees as malice others see as dedication. Since the authors of the article in question truly believe that Trump is evil incarnate, any tactic used against this evil is warranted. While we may not have found any evidence to support what was written doesn’t matter. It is not illegal to lie about the devil. We are confident that the court understands our perspective and will dismiss this suit.”
Dems Refuse to Condemn Praise for Castro
In his quest to win votes for transforming America into a socialist country, Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders has been emphasizing the positive achievements of Cuba’s former long-time dictator Fidel Castro. Two of the positives that Sanders has cited during the debates have been literacy and health care. “Under Castro’s rule they implemented a highly motivating incentive to learn to read: if you didn’t you’d be forced to labor in the fields,” Sanders remembered. “Let’s give credit where credit is due. Seeing the problems we are having in this country, a policy of shipping non-learners off to labor battalions is an idea we might want to consider.”
Castro, of course, had his political opponents executed or imprisoned. His socialist policies impoverished the country inspiring hundreds of thousands to try to escape to the United states on leaky boats and home-made rafts. Health care was made a “human right,” but the care has been mostly of very low quality for the average citizen. The literacy program leaned heavily on teaching children to read communist propaganda.
Democrats in the US House of Representatives rejected a resolution introduced by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla) condemning Castro’s tyranny. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) explained that “the resolution was too one-sided. We don’t like tyranny, but we need to acknowledge that even tyranny isn’t all bad. Reading propaganda is still reading and low-quality health care may be all that a poor country like Cuba can afford. Besides, the proportion of the Cuban population imprisoned is only one-half of a percent. That’s lower than the percent imprisoned in our so-called ‘free country.’”
In related news, Sanders’ popularity among millennials may be explained by a finding from a report published by the Global Financial Literacy Excellence Center at the George Washington University that only 16 percent of millennials are financially literate and of millennials who self-identified as financially literate only 19 percent are.
CNN Commentator Chastises Black Trump Supporters
With polls trending toward a more favorable view of President Trump among African-American voters, CNN’s Angela Rye expressed her dismay. “Shame on you,” she exclaimed. “Our people have been voting Democrat since FDR was president. Are you going to turn your back on this long-term bond?”
Rye called the record unemployment lows under Trump’s policies “crumbs. It might seem great to have a job or own a small business, but do you realize that these options force you to work to earn a living? Democrats are the ones that have abolished having to work for a living for millions of our people. Choosing between a generous friend who asks for nothing in return and an employer who offers you a job should be a ‘no brainer.’ Take the free stuff! Vote for the Party that will give it to you.”
Laticia Okombo, owner of a nail salon in Richmond, Virginia disagreed with Rye’s perspective. “What the Democrats offer is like a narcotic,” she said. “Getting something for nothing sounds good, but before you know it you’ve lost all your energy and ambition. I want to build my own future. The freedom bolstered by Trump’s deregulation and tax cuts will help me do this. He has my gratitude and will have my vote come November.”
Senate Dems Block Bill Against Infanticide
Democrats in the US Senate were able to exploit the cloture rule to prevent the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” from coming to a vote. The bill introduced by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb) would have required a health care practitioner to render medical assistance to a baby that survives an attempted abortion.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called the legislation “fake, dishonest, and extreme legislation. It would interfere with the final execution of a woman’s decision to terminate an unwanted child. Just because a doctor flubs the abortion procedure doesn’t mean the mother’s right to abort this child is null and void. A surviving baby outside the womb foists the responsibility of caring for it back onto an unwilling parent or onto society. As Democrats we cannot allow this infringement on basic human rights to be enacted into law.”
Buttigieg Explains Limits of Religious Freedom
Claiming to be the “only true Christian running for president this year,” Democratic candidate, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg explained why religious objections to the LGBTQ agenda “cannot be allowed.”
“The right to freedom of religion is a right to worship as you choose as long as what you choose to believe does not contradict the public policy guaranteeing that lesbians,’ gays,’ bisexuals,’ transsexuals,’ and queers’ rights to be accepted as they are,” Buttigieg said. “In the privacy of your own mind you can harbor whatever thoughts you want, but in public you must obey the laws enacted by our courts on this very sensitive topic. For example, let’s say you run a business and one of your employees comes out as trans. That employee has the right to dress however they see fit. You have the obligation to use whatever pronoun that employee wants used. You cannot refuse because it offends your conscience or religious beliefs. You cannot refuse on the grounds that it may offend customers and hurt your business. Your business, your conscience are not important enough to outweigh the civic rights government has extended to these courageous individuals.”
“Look, if we’re willing to compel people to fund abortions with their tax dollars even though they believe abortion is murder, I think compelling people to accept sexual behavior they consider deviant is a ‘no brainer,’” the Mayor argued. “Like Chasten often playfully says to me, ‘I think it’s time to turn the other cheek’ on this topic. These wise words from my adorable husband are ones we all can benefit from.”
Judge Refuses to Recuse
Amy Berman-Jackson, the judge who presided over the trial of President Trump’s friend Roger Stone, rejected his lawyers’ request that she recuse herself from deciding whether Stone is entitled to a new trial. Since Stone was convicted it has been discovered that Tomeka Hart, the jury foreman at the trial, was a prolific anti-Trump tweeter and poster prior to being selected as a juror.
Seth Ginsberg, an attorney for Stone, argued that “such a biased person should not have been allowed on the jury. It is the prospective juror’s duty to reveal any prejudices she might have toward the defendant before she is impaneled. It is also the judge’s duty to ferret out any biases among those selected to be on the jury. Neither Ms. Hart nor Judge Jackson performed their legal obligations. Mr. Stone deserves a new trial before an impartial jury and judge. Rather than take the appropriate action to achieve a fair trial, Judge Jackson seems intent to further perpetuate the injustice already inflicted on our client.”
Jackson rebutted Ginsberg’s contention with her own assertion that “a random group of 12 jurors is bound to include some who are antagonistic to the President. It would be neither practical nor fair to try for a jury of individuals uninformed or indifferent to Trump. Likewise, the majority of judges are also opposed to Trump’s politics. As a member of that majority, it is fitting that I see this judicial proceeding to the end.”
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.
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.