Carson, BLM Clash on Issues

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

JohnGOP presidential hopeful Dr. Ben Carson and leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement clashed this week following Carson’s assertion that BLM is “creating strife.” As Carson sees it, “Blacks have been led down a dead-end road to dependency and murder via abortion by Democrat policies.”

The message that Democrats are sending by their support for the welfare state is that Blacks can’t make it on their own efforts,” Carson argued. “This is ridiculous. Blacks are as capable as whites if they apply their God-given talents to the world around them.”

The candidate was even more critical of Democrats’ unwavering support for taxpayer financed abortions, which he called “the leading cause of death in the Black community. More Black children are killed by abortion than by gang wars or cops.”

BLM co-founder Alicia Garza rejected Carson’s view. “The issue isn’t whether Blacks are capable of making their own way, but whether they should have to,” Garza said. “For centuries white plantation owners who were capable of supporting themselves depended on the labors of Black slaves. The government benefits Blacks are now receiving are a small down payment on the reparations owed for that debt.”

And Carson’s characterization of abortion as the leading cause of death for Blacks completely misses the point,” Garza continued. “All the Black babies terminated by abortion free Black women from the oppression of unwanted motherhood. These are women taking charge of their reproductive processes. These are women liberating themselves from burdens they choose not to bear. For Carson to compare these acts of self-liberation to cops shooting Blacks is shameful.”

Garza warned Carson that “he shouldn’t think himself immune to our wrath. We shut up O’Malley, we took away Sanders’ microphone, we drove Bush from the stage. We will make Carson rue the day that he chose to challenge our message.”

Court Rejects Challenge to Executive Amnesty

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s bid to halt President Obama’s executive grant of amnesty to those in the country illegally, calling the Sheriff’s reasoning “tenuous” and “unduly speculative.”

First, the argument that the grant of amnesty is imposing extra burdens on the Sheriff’s office cannot be supported by the facts,” Judge Nina Pillard wrote. “The laws against entering this country illegally are federal laws. The federal government has made it clear that it does not intend to enforce these laws. Sheriff Arpaio cannot claim his office is being burdened if he insists on doing something the feds don’t want done.”

The federal policy against enforcement renders moot the Sheriff’s contention that amnesty will attract even more illegal migrants into his state,” Pillard added. “As it stands, illegal migrants are already entitled to all the benefits available to legal residents, regardless of whether any formal amnesty is given. The lure of subsidized food, housing, education, and health care is sufficient on its own to lure illegal entry even in the absence of amnesty. Given that 80% of the illegal entrants in California are living off public assistance, it seems likely that Arizona is merely a place that these people will pass through on their way to greener pastures to the west. Therefore, the relief the plaintiff seeks is likely to be achieved by the mere passage of time.”

Obama Admin Urges Court to Block Restitution to Terror Victims

Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken argued against the imposition of jury-awarded damages to the victims of Palestinian terrorist attacks in 2002-2004. The jury award of more than $200 million in actual damages to ten families with three dozen injured, maimed, or killed is vigorously opposed by the Obama Administration.

Despite proclaiming its sympathy for the victims, the Administration seeks to void the damage award because, according to Blinken, “the amount represents a significant share of the Palestinian Authority’s annual budget. The loss of so large an amount would seriously infringe upon the PA’s ability to carry out its functions. Rocket attacks on Israeli civilians—the PA’s only tool to avert Zionist oppression of Palestinians—would have to be severely curtailed. Tunnel construction into the territories occupied by Israel would be dramatically impeded. Training and arming infiltrators would be brought to a standstill.”

Blinken hastened to point out that his remarks were “not an endorsement of PA policies that some might construe as ‘provocative.’ We may not agree with how the PA conducts itself, but we can take a stand in favor of the general principle that a sovereign state must have the freedom and the resources to act as it sees fit.”

In related news, Blinken refused to condemn the Islamic State’s legalization of rape and sexual slavery. “Granted, the idea of raping unbelievers and selling them as sex-slaves may seem odd to our ears,” Blinken conceded. “But if we believe in freedom of religion we ought to respect practices that differ from ours.”

Newly Released Emails Said to Exonerate Lerner

A newly released batch of emails from Lois Lerner, former IRS official in charge of denying conservative groups the same tax-free status as left-leaning groups, is said to have largely exonerated her of charges of unwarranted discrimination.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch cited email content in which Lerner referred to conservative groups as “evil and dishonest” as “fundamentally exculpatory. As a public servant, Ms. Lerner was certainly within her rights and duties to block the misuse of tax-exempt status to groups that in her mind posed a genuine danger to the government. While conservatives might be expected to disagree with her apprehension, there can be no dispute that her perception was heartfelt.”

Lynch concluded that “as far as we are concerned, there is no cause for further investigation, much less possible prosecution. Ms. Lynch was doing her duty as she saw it. In the government bureaucracy, sloth and dereliction of duty is all too common. Zeal is too rare. It is tragic enough that Ms. Lerner has been hounded out of office by right-wing extremists. It is time that the GOP hell-hounds in Congress let this woman try to rebuild her life free from further persecution.”

Obama Vetoes Planned Parenthood Defunding

Efforts by the legislatures of Louisiana and Alabama to reduce public funds allocated to Planned Parenthood this week were vetoed by President Obama. The president dismissed arguments that videos revealing PP’s participation in illegal trafficking in used baby parts warranted the states’ actions.

I learned in law school that the rule in our country is ‘innocent until proven guilty,’” Obama recalled. “Attorney General Lynch hasn’t deemed there is enough evidence to justify an investigation, much less a prosecution, trial, and verdict. These states’ attempts to inflict punishment before the judicial process has been given a fair chance to work does not live up to our standards.”

The president also ventured an opinion that “there may be nothing to this whole so-called scandal. I watch TV news every night and I don’t recall seeing any of these alleged incriminating videos. Surely, these ratings-hungry media outlets would be all over this story if it were legitimate.”

Obama appeared to be undaunted by the unprecedented action of a president vetoing a state law, citing his own authority as a constitutional scholar. “There is a clause in the US Constitution authorizing the federal government to do whatever is ‘necessary and proper.’ What could be more necessary and proper than to prevent a state legislature from penalizing an organization before it is convicted of a crime?”

David Daleiden, head of The Center for Medical Progress—the organization that released the videos, characterized the president’s stance as “willful blindness dedicated to preserving a cruel and criminal enterprise” and wondered “whether the $25 million the principal officers of Planned Parenthood have donated to the Democratic Party may have played a role in shaping his response to this organization’s continuing atrocities.”

Hillary Makes Bid for Latino Vote

Democrat presidential contender Hillary Clinton told a Spanish-language TV station Univision audience that she will make rich Americans pay the travel expenses of illegal immigrants. This is in contrast to GOP contender Donald Trump’s boast that he will make the Mexican government pay to build a border fence to keep illegal immigrants out.

Realistically, there’s no way an American president can make Mexico pay for anything,” Clinton asserted. “Why should the Mexican government pay for a fence? An open border allows their surplus population to escape to the United States where a generous slate of benefits awaits them.”

On the flip side, though, an American president has lots of leverage for extracting money from its taxpayers,” Clinton said. “With both the FBI and the NSA under the president’s control I’m sure I will have the information I need to persuade Congress to levy the necessary taxes. Or I could just issue an executive order or memo. One way or another, I’ll get the job done. People who make the arduous and dangerous trek to come to this country shouldn’t have to pay their own way.”

Illegal Immigrants Sue for Millions

Five illegal immigrants from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the federal government. As their lawyer Andrew Free explained, “they came to this country to exercise their Constitutional right to share in its abundance. Yet, unlike the Mexicans who got here before them they’ve been denied free food, free housing, free education, and free health care. Instead, they been detained in squalid conditions as if they were common criminals.”

Free called this lawsuit “merely the opening salvo in a protracted struggle for social justice. There are thousands, maybe millions, of future plaintiffs. We will carve up the golden goose until all her eggs have been fairly distributed to the world’s poor.”

It’s not only illegal immigrants angling for a piece of the action. Retired Cuban dictator Fidel Castro says “the United States owes every one of Cuba’s 11 million people substantial damages for the cruel and vicious embargo it imposed on our country for over 50 years.” In response to Castro’s demand for money, the Obama Administration has dispatched its crack negotiator—Secretary of State John Kerry—to hammer out a settlement.

In related news, racial justice expert Al Sharpton slammed GOP presidential hopeful Sen. Rand Paul’s claim that hard work is a path to financial success. “The claim is demonstrably false,” Sharpton contended. “I’ve never worked hard, yet I’m drawing six figures just for talking on TV. From my experience, luck and knowing the right people are what really brings home the big bucks.”

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 uses material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit and DO NOT change the context. Thank you.

Senator Flake, Here’s How a Real Leader Responds to Lawlessness and Corruption

Just a few days ago 10 Republican members of the U.S. Senate voted to affirm Loretta Lynch as attorney general of the United States. While we were overjoyed at the departure of Eric Holder — the most lawless, most corrupt attorney general in U.S. history — his replacement is just as bad and totally unacceptable as he is. She should never should have been confirmed. Everyone knows that if the Democrats were in control of the Senate they would have refused to affirm a Republican president’s nominee for attorney general.

Nonetheless, we were curious to see how Arizona’s junior Senator Jeff Flake justified his vote to affirm Lynch. This is the message he posted on his official Senate website:

“I was pleased today to confirm Loretta Lynch as attorney general. While I disagree with Ms. Lynch on many policy positions, I have always believed that the Senate should give deference to the president to pick his Cabinet unless there is something disqualifying in a nominee’s background.

“Furthermore, with Loretta Lynch confirmed, Eric Holder’s tenure as head of the Department of Justice draws to a close. Not a bad day in Washington.”

So it’s “not a bad day in Washington” when the people we sent to D.C. to oppose the most lawless, radical, un-American presidential administration in our history refuse to do their jobs.

Now let’s look at how a real leader — Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who voted against Lynch’s confirmation — responded to the same responsibility set before him:

The Senate must never confirm an individual to such an office as this who will support and advance a scheme that violates our Constitution and eviscerates established law and Congressional authority. No person who would do that should be confirmed. And we don’t need to be apologetic about it, colleagues.

Ms. Lynch has announced that she supports and, if confirmed, would advance, the president’s unlawful executive amnesty scheme—a scheme that would provide work permits, trillions in Social Security and Medicare benefits, tax credits of up to $35,000 a year (according to the Congressional Research Service), and even the possibility of chain migration and citizenship to those who have entered the country illegally or overstayed their lawful period of admission. The president has done this even though Congress has repeatedly rejected legislation that would implement such a scheme.

President Obama’s unlawful and unconstitutional executive action nullifies current immigration law—the Immigration and Nationality Act—and replaces them with the very measures Congress refused to adopt. Even King George the Third lacked the power to legislate without Parliament.

During her confirmation hearing in the Judiciary Committee, I asked Ms. Lynch plainly whether she supported the president’s unilateral decision to make his own immigration laws. Here is the relevant portion of the hearing transcript:

Sessions: I have to have a clear answer to this question—Ms. Lynch, do you believe the executive action announced by President Obama on November 20th is legal and Constitutional? Yes or no?

Lynch: As I’ve read the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, I do believe it is, Senator.

Of course, the lawful duty of the Attorney General is to enforce the law that exists, not one she or the president might wish existed.

One of the most stunning elements of the president’s scheme is the grant of work permits to up to 5 million illegal immigrants—taking jobs directly from citizens and legal immigrants.

Peter Kirsanow, Commissioner on the United States Commission on Civil Rights has written at length about how this undermines the rights of U.S. workers, especially African-American workers, and other minorities, suffering from high unemployment. At her confirmation hearing, I asked Ms. Lynch about what she might do to protect the rights of legal U.S. workers. Here is the exchange in question:

Sessions: Who has more right to a job in this country? A lawful immigrant who’s here or a citizen—or a person who entered the country unlawfully?

Lynch: I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here. And certainly, if someone is here, regardless of status, I would prefer that they would be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.

This is a breathtaking statement. It is unprecedented for someone who is seeking the highest law enforcement office in America to declare that someone in the country illegally has a “right” to take a job.

This nation is—as George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley has put it—at “a constitutional tipping point.” Professor Turley, who is a nationally recognized constitutional scholar and self-described supporter of President Obama and his policies, testified before the House of Representatives in February 2014, 9 months before the president announced his unprecedented executive action:

“The current passivity of Congress represents a crisis of faith for members willing to see a president assume legislative powers in exchange for insular policy gains. The short-term, insular victories achieved by this president will come at a prohibitive cost if the current imbalance is not corrected. Constitutional authority is easy to lose in the transient shifts of politics. It is far more difficult to regain. If a passion for the Constitution does not motivate members, perhaps a sense of self-preservation will be enough to unify members. President Obama will not be our last president. However, these acquired powers will be passed to his successors. When that occurs, members may loathe the day that they remained silent as the power of government shifted so radically to the chief executive. The powerful personality that engendered this loyalty will be gone, but the powers will remain. We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system. If balance is to be reestablished, it must begin before this president leaves office and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority.”

One of those means is the advice and consent power. It was created for just such a time as this. It is not only appropriate, but necessary, that the Senate refuse to confirm a president’s nominees when that president has overreached and assumed the legislative powers of Congress. It is particularly necessary when the president’s nominee is being appointed specifically for the improper purpose of advancing the president’s unconstitutional overreach—all through the powers of the office to which they have been nominated.

Congress must not confirm anyone to lead the United States Department of Justice who will advance the president’s unconstitutional actions. Congress has a limited number of powers to defend the Rule of Law and itself as an institution and to stop the Executive Branch from overreaching. It is unthinkable that we would ignore one of those powers in the face of such a direct threat to our constitutional order—and it is part of an escalating pattern of overreach.

Every day that we allow the president to erode the powers of Congress, we are allowing the president to erode the sacred Constitutional rights of the citizens we serve. We have a duty to this institution, to the Constitution, and to the American people not to confirm someone who is not committed to those principles but rather who will continue in violation of them. For those reasons, I will oppose this nomination and I urge my colleagues, regardless of party, to do the same.”

Senator Sessions, you are an inspiration and a true patriot and leader. We applaud your courage and your integrity in standing up to evil and to minimize harm to this great nation. You are doing what you were elected to do.

As for you, Senator Flake, the same cannot be said. We do not compound one mistake by replacing it with a second mistake. The lack of reasoning, the void of depth and intellect in your brief, casual statement is stunning. And unacceptable.