McCain Assails Trump's Crediting Obama and Clinton for Rise of ISIS

By   John Semmens – Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent NewsArizona's U.S. Senator John McCain (R) took issue with GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump's statement that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were co-founders of ISIS.“President Obama may have given the final decision to back these guys based on Secretary Clinton's recommendation, but I was the one on the ground in Syria who met with them before they were big,” McCain pointed out. “Were it not for my preliminary work the later steps taken by Obama and Clinton wouldn't have been possible. So, I think it's only fair that I receive some recognition for the historic rise of this group.”To further bolster his claim McCain boasted of his continued links to the terrorist group. “We still talk frequently by phone,” he said. “Sure there's a lot of 'death to America' rhetoric coming from them, but there also is some constructive two-way dialog. I think I'm gaining their trust and can serve as a bridge to a mutually satisfactory accommodation of our differing interests.”Presidential Press Secretary Josh Earnest contested McCain's claims. “Senator McCain's schmoozing with the forerunners of ISIL played no role in the president's decision to arm this group to fight against Syrian dictator Assad,” Earnest contended. “Neither did it influence the plan jointly conceived by Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Stevens to ship them weapons through Libya.” Earnest asserted that “emails from the cache of Secretary Clinton's deleted files confirm that the major actors who convinced the president on this matter were Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. This is not to say that Senator McCain wasn't trying to play a role, only that his role did not affect the president's decision to take action. The bottom line is that the Senator is not as important as he imagines.”Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken) called for Hillary Clinton to be indicted for lying to Congress about secret arms shipments to Islamic terrorists. “In 2013 Secretary Clinton gave sworn testimony denying any knowledge of arms shipments to Al Qaeda rebels opposing the Assad regime in Syria,” Paul remembered. “Now we see that she was privy to emails detailing this very transaction. Lying under oath is perjury. Her claimed 'brain short-circuit' is not exculpatory.”In related news, one of Hillary's unsecured emails exposed the identity of an Iranian nuclear scientist, Shahram Amiri, who had been covertly assisting US intelligence to gather information about Iran's nuclear weapons program. Hillary's emails were cited by the Iranian government in their case against him. Amiri was executed last week. Clinton campaign manager maintained that “in the grand scheme of things this is not a big deal. The fact of the matter is that Amiri was a traitor to his country. Traitors ought to be executed. Whether Secretary Clinton's emails played a role in this outcome or not justice was still served.”More Top Democrats' Emails HackedThe recent release of emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee may be only the tip of an ice berg of embarrassing revelations of secrets Party big shots wish would have stayed hidden. The FBI estimates that the email accounts of more than 100 top Party officials may have been compromised.House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) called the breach “as dangerous a threat to America as the Watergate scandal. The privacy of the leaders of the Democratic Party has been severely damaged.”Earlier disclosures from the DNC hack showed unseemly behavior by officials to rig the primary election in favor of Hillary Clinton. This included collusion between the DNC and various media outlets to slant news and polls against her main rival Sen. Bernie Sanders, not to mention racially and sexually derogatory language. “The people ruling this country need to be able to communicate frankly with each other without having to fear that their every word will be scrutinized,” Pelosi argued. “Sometimes we have to do things for the common good that those on the outside might interpret as unfair. Sometimes in the heat of the moment we might use words that others could find offensive. Rather than prying into our private thoughts the American public needs to have faith that Democrats will look out for their interests.”In related news, former CBS anchorman Dan Rather called upon his media pals to “shame Trump supporters. This is not an ordinary election. If Donald Trump wins our entire way of life will be upended.” Rather urged the industry to “follow my example. I went out on a limb to try to save the country from George Bush. It cost me my career, but at least I did the right thing. We newsmen all need to heed the call of New York Times columnist Jim Rutenberg and not let an ill-considered respect for objectivity, truth, or fairness obstruct our higher obligation to turn back the most serious threat this nation has ever faced.”Muslims Test Intimidation TacticParishioners of St. Andrew Orthodox Church in Riverside California have been treated to shouts of “Allahu Akbar” from bullhorn wielding Muslims during weekly services. Inasmuch as  Allahu Akbar is what Islamic fanatics shout while murdering unbelievers, the church goers are understandably concerned.Father Josiah Trenham called the shouted slogan “intimidating. We're trying to hold weekly services. The noise is disruptive and one fears worse. Will it be safe to leave church after the service? Will men with guns or bombs invade the church? What can we do to safely practice our faith.”Local police officer Ryan Railsback held out little hope for church goers. “Being obnoxious is not illegal,” he observed. “There was no explicit threat. No laws were broken.”City Attorney Vance Otiose urged tolerance. “Just because someone of a different faith behaves differently doesn't mean they have no right to do so,” he declared. “Christians may be taught to turn the other cheek, but Muslims are taught to confront nonbelievers and fight to convert them. They have as much right to practice their faith as anyone else does.”Surge in Guns Alarms DemocratsThe number of Americans with concealed carry gun permits has surged by more than 200% since Obama became president. There are now more than 14 million authorized to carry concealed firearms.Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn) called this trend “frightening in the extreme. We ought to be reducing the number of people carrying weapons, not increasing them. Reversing this trend has got to be a focal point for Democrats in this election cycle. Ideally, only police ought to be carrying firearms. Making sure the right person is elected president will be crucial to achieving this goal.”The notion that an increase in concealed carry permits is a bad thing is confounded by a number of statistics. A study published by the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that concealed carry permit holders are more law-abiding than police. Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders the rate is 2.4 per 100,000. Easier access to guns is also linked to lower crime rates. In states that allow concealed carry without a permit the murder rate was 31% lower and the violent crime rate was 28% lower than in states where obtaining a permit is the most difficult.Murphy was unmoved by the data, though. “As I remember, the crime rates in the former Soviet Union, where only the police were allowed to have guns, was even lower than what was cited by the Crime Prevention Research Center,” the Senator recalled. “So, I think the case for total abolition of private ownership of guns is the stronger one.”State Department Admits Ethics “Loophole” Emerging evidence that the State Department under Hillary Clinton sold favors in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation has raised serious ethics issues regarding her oversight of the agency. Department Spokesperson Elizabeth Trudeau acknowledged that the transactions appear to have violated a pledge signed by Clinton when she assumed the Secretary position in 2009.“The problem is that the only evidence of inappropriate interactions we have implicates her subordinates who did not sign any pledges,” Trudeau said. “Secretary Clinton's pledge was to not be personally involved in dealings between the Clinton Foundation and clients of the State Department. Technically, this did not preclude other State Department officials from being involved. I know it seems like a 'loophole,' but there you have it.”Despite a raft of suspicious interactions between funds flowing into the Clinton Foundation coinciding with favors granted by the Clinton State Department, US Attorney General Loretta Lynch rejected an FBI request to investigate saying that “now would not be an appropriate time to take up such a potentially volatile and controversial case. We are in the final months of a campaign to select the next president. The mere announcement of an investigation would cast an unfavorable light on one of the candidates and could bias the outcome.”Lynch suggested that “the matter could be more objectively assessed after the election. For all we know, the next president might decide that the matter is not worth expending scarce resources and manpower on. Beginning an investigation now only to see it canceled latter would waste taxpayers' money. So rather than starting down a dead-end road I think it more fiscally prudent to defer effort until the need for it is decided by our next president.”

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.