Dems Can't Reach Consensus to Condemn Anti-Semitism

By John Semmens — Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent NewsUnable to cobble together a majority of her Party willing to vote for a resolution condemning the repeated anti-Semitic propaganda issuing forth from Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn), Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) was able to get an insipid statement opposing hatred through.“Since there are so many hateful things being said and done in the world, our caucus didn't think it would be fair to single out Rep. Omar for rebuke,” Pelosi explained. “On top of that, it was pointed out to me the Quran commands Muslims to hate Jews and that criticizing her for following the commands of her faith would violate her right to freedom of religion.”Democratic Whip Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) applauded Pelosi's compromise and pointed out that “Omar has a right to vent against Jews after she spent so much time in a Kenyan refugee camp. She personally suffered. Almost all the Jews who survived the Holocaust are no longer alive. Most Jews alive today, therefore, have not personally experienced the kind of suffering that Omar has.” Unfortunately for Clyburn's argument, Jews were not involved in running the refugee camp where Omar suffered.Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill) defended Omar's slander on the grounds that “she was raised in a different culture. Every Muslim child is taught to hate Jews. It should not be surprising that as an adult Rep. Omar is repeating the lessons taught her as a child. Chastising her now for expressing her beliefs is part and parcel of the bigger problem of Islamophobia that is impeding this rapidly growing religion of peace from achieving the world-wide dominance that the Prophet Muhammad envisioned. Whether we agree with this vision or not, Muslims have a constitutional right to speak and take the actions necessary to fulfilling it.”Twenty-three Republicans voted against the compromise measure, an action which Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez characterized as “worse than the supposed anti-Semitic offense of Rep. Omar. Her hate was limited in scope to only a tiny world-wide minority. The 23 Republicans refused to support a statement against all the forms of hate that exist in the world.”Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) called the resolution “a sham measure designed to provide cover for the anti-Semitic hate and bigotry expressed by Rep. Omar. The lame attempts to excuse her because she suffered or grew up in a culture that normalized anti-Semitism show a Democrat Party that has lost its grip on decency. The failure to specifically condemn Rep. Omar's vile slanders amounts to a defacto endorsement of the idea that being a Democrat gives her immunity.”Democrat contenders for their Party's 2020 presidential nomination Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt), Sen. Kamala Harris (Calif), and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass) all defended Omar's freedom of speech. “Anti-Semitism isn't necessarily the best use of freedom of speech, but it still merits our respect,” Harris said. “My greatest fear is that by officially condemning Rep. Omar we might be putting her at risk of violence.”While Democrats may be willing to excuse Omar for slandering Jews it remains to be seen whether she will as easily be given a pass for assailing former President Obama as “a murderer for his assassination of suspected terrorists and nearby persons via drone strikes” and “as bad as Trump for putting immigrants in cages.”House Dems Endorse Illegal VotingAs part of its top priority “For the People Act,” the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted 228 to 197 to explicitly endorse local governments that allow illegal immigrants to vote. Federal law currently does not permit non-citizens to vote in federal elections. However, the enforcement of this law is more difficult when state and local election ballots are cast simultaneously.Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) enthusiastically praised the measure, saying “we are prepared to open up the political process and let all of the people come in. 'Newcomers,' as Speaker Pelosi has dubbed them, have a human right to vote. Since a majority of these newcomers will need to rely on government welfare programs to receive food, housing, and cash handouts to live they have an abiding interest in selecting who controls the government. This bill implicitly recognizes this human right.”Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) disagreed: “Letting foreigners into the country with the expectation that they have a right to be supported by American taxpayers effectively forces taxpayers to take in non-paying boarders. Allowing these non-paying boarders to vote for politicians who will continue and expand these burdensome government giveaways is the path to fiscal disaster. It is bad enough that citizens on welfare can vote for programs they make no tax contribution to support. Inviting the millions of foreigners who illegally enter the United States this same right gives too much power to the non-productive to impose never-ending burdens on citizens who work for a living.”In related news, Pelosi (D-Calif) denounced GOP efforts to include a provision requiring that “newcomers” in the country who illegally try to buy guns be reported to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in her Party's gun control legislation. “Without the legal right to live here these newcomers have even more need for a gun than the law-abiding segment of the population,” she argued. “They can't rely on police to protect them without risking being deported. Owning personal firearms are their best means of self-defense.”Hawaii Dems Call for Repeal of 2nd AmendmentThe Hawaii Senate is considering a resolution calling for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The heavily Democrat-dominated body (there is only one Republican and 24 Democrats) will most likely pass the resolution.Resolution co-sponsor Roz Baker (D-Maui) says “the era when individuals had to have firearms to hunt for food or ward off criminals is long past. In 1789, help could not be easily summoned and once summoned could take hours or more to respond. Today, police can be summoned in seconds and arrive within minutes. There is no longer a need for individual ownership of firearms.”Co-sponsor Stanley Chang (D-Oahu) contends that “the whole notion that the 2nd Amendment was ever intended to allow individuals to own firearms is erroneous. The Amendment specifies that the right belongs to members of the militia. Allowing individuals to own guns dilutes government control. Owning firearms gives individuals objecting to this control the means to cause disruption and disobedience. The future belongs to collectivism. The armed agents of the law must be free of the fear that opponents have viable means to resist the demands made upon them to cooperate with laws and rules promulgated by duly elected authorities.”Chang dismissed writer of the phrase “inalienable rights,” Thomas Jefferson's belief that “no freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms” and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's ruling that “the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm,” as “clearly wrong. In any case, we have the means to correct their errors by repealing that Amendment.”DNC Bars Fox News from Covering DebatesThe Democratic National Committee (DNC) announced it will not allow Fox News to host any of the 2020 presidential election debates. DNC Chairman Tom Perez cited “the network's hostility toward our Party's positions and policies. It would be unfair for our candidates to have to answer questions from our political enemies.”President Trump was quick to mock the DNC's decision. “I guess the Democratic candidates need a host that will give them the questions in advance. They have so little confidence in their ability to explain their crazy ideas to the American people that they want a reliable CNN or MSNBC to help them avoid being honest on the issues of the day.”Perez rebuffed Trump's mockery, saying that “some individuals and some ideas don't merit a public airing. Trump is one of those individuals whose ideas are so poisonous that our society has a moral duty not to hear him out. We can't let the Republicans lean on the crutch of freedom of speech to hypnotize naive voters. The Democratic Party will always take a stand for protecting these voters from the GOP's siren song of individualism and personal freedom. We all need to stand together for the collective well-being of all. Progressives are the only ones in sync with this vital mission. The time has come to pull together a plan of how to proceed. We don't have the time to waste listening to those who reject this mission.”Meanwhile, former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton sought to clarify her “not running” statement. “I still want to be president,” she reminded everyone. “I think my record of public service adequately demonstrates that I still deserve to be president. But I don't think it would be fair for me to have to jump through all the hoops that those less qualified will have to do to try to win over voters. I just want America to know that I am available to step in when the dwarfs that have lately come into the race have flamed out.”Accused Killer Wants Change in VenueCristhian Rivera, the illegal alien on trial for murdering University of Iowa student Mollie Tibbetts in August of last year, has asked for a change of venue. He claims that the likely jury pool won't constitute a “jury of my peers.”“How can a jury of white corn farmers fairly assess the fate of a Latino immigrant?” he asks. “They don't know what it is like to trek hundreds of miles to secretly cross the border. They don't know what it is like to work at menial jobs for low wages? They don't know how difficult it is for a young man with strong romantic urges, but of limited English speaking skills, to meet and woo girls.”Rivera proposes that “a jury comprised of other immigrants from south of the border would provide a more peer like panel. Maybe some of the rapists and murderers currently being detained by ICE could more productively spend their time sitting on my case than locked up in cells.”A Satirical Look at Recent NewsJohn 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.” 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.