By John Semmens – Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News
Recent revelations that the Clinton Foundation neglected to report over $26 million in payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups was characterized as “a mere oversight” by Foundation Chief Executive Officer Donna Shalala.
“The Foundation has raised more than $2 billion dollars over the years its been in existence,” Shalala pointed out. “The $26 million everyone is hyperventilating over is relative pocket change amounting to barely 1% of the total. It’s on a par with a Congressman failing to report a free vacation from a lobbyist or a waiter forgetting to report all his tip income to the IRS. It’s no big deal.”
Others aren’t so sure it isn’t a big deal. Peter Schweizer, author of the book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, wondered “why a Nigerian newspaper paid former president Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech. And if it was all legit, why was this payment among the $26 million the Foundation ‘forgot’ to report?”
“As everyone knows, the Clintons were flat broke when Bill’s term as president was over,” Shalala said in response. “Why should anyone begrudge him earning a little money from sharing his wisdom on the talk circuit? Isn’t it time that the harassment and persecution of one of America’s great families come to an end?”
Bush Defends Warrantless Government Surveillance
While one GOP presidential candidate filibustered legislation extending the National Security Agency’s (NSA) authority to spy on Americans, another alleges that “there’s not a shred of evidence that this surveillance has violated anyone’s civil liberties.”
GOP presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken) spoke for 10 hours on the floor of the Senate contending that NSA’s warrantless violations of privacy are unconstitutional. “The Fourth Amendment was intended to protect us from unreasonable searches,” Rand argued. “It calls for government to obtain a warrant from a judge based on ‘probable cause.’ The gathering of massive amounts of private information without such warrants flies in the teeth of the Amendment’s prohibition. We should be abolishing this intrusion, not extending it.”
Prospective rival for the Republican nomination, former Florida Governor JEB Bush disagreed, calling the NSA “a virtual guardian angel watching over and protecting us. I just can’t buy the argument that we have anything to fear from our own government. They’re on our side. We need to give them all the power and tools they say they need to keep us safe.”
Bush said that “the fact that the only people killed so far based on information gathered by the NSA are enemies of our government ought to reassure everyone that as long as they behave themselves they have nothing to fear. So the government knows who you phone, email and tweet. So what, as long as you’re not doing anything wrong why should you care? I don’t find the so-called scare phrase ‘Big Brother is watching you’ particularly frightening. The whole idea behind the NSA originated with my big brother and he’s a swell guy. We should be glad that he helped develop a program to watch over us.”
Hillary Defends Benghazi Lies
Evidence that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was informed that the assault on the Benghazi Consulate and murder of Ambassador Stevens was a planned terrorist attack before she went public with the misleading cover story of a video protest gone bad failed to dislodge her from defending it.
“Sure, we knew within hours of the Ambassador’s death that the attack had been planned at least 10 days in advance, but for us to have publicly acknowledged this would have put the country into even greater danger,” Clinton maintained. “Remember, this attack occurred just two months ahead of a presidential election. Our first priority was to counteract the domestic insurgency being led by Mitt Romney. Staving off this attempt to overthrow our government was more important than adhering to some quaint notions of honesty.”
Clinton characterized the bogus video-inspired-uprising story as akin to President Roosevelt’s feigning surprise at Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. “Imagine the damage that would have been done to his government if he hadn’t seized control of the narrative,” she hypothesized. “By diverting attention away from our lack of preparedness and onto Japan’s treachery he was able to rally the American people and save his government. Why shouldn’t we have emulated a man most historians agree was one of our greatest presidents?”
In related news, Clinton’s presidential campaign manager disputed press claims that her motorcade reached speeds in excess of 95 mph on the way to a fund raiser in Iowa. “While the media vehicles following the motorcade may have sped, we did not,” Robbie Mook asserted, attributing the quick transit time to “our use of new technology allowing us to travel using a ‘worm hole’ through hyperspace. The confusion afflicting those still confined to normal three-dimensional space is understandable.”
Candidate Says “Everything Will Be Free When I’m President”
Self-described socialist and candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders promised voters that “everything will be free when I’m president.”
“In a country as rich as ours it is shameful that mere lack of money should block anyone from having all the good things of life,” Sanders said. “No one should be stigmatized by having to grovel to qualify for food stamps or be denied entry into college because they can’t afford it or don’t have good high school grades. Anyone who wants to eat should simply be permitted to take food from a grocery store or restaurant. Anyone who wants to go to college should be allowed in, no questions asked.”
Payment for all these freebies will come from a confiscatory tax on excess assets and income. “Only pure arrogance drives the notion that people who are smarter and harder-working should get more than those less well-endowed by nature or nurture,” the Senator contended. “Just because you are lucky enough to inherit intelligence or learn to be enterprising from the good example of your parents doesn’t mean you earned it. A person born to stupid and shiftless parents isn’t at fault for his lack of effort. Why then should his rewards be contingent on the exertions he doesn’t make?”
“Every human being is entitled to an equal share of the Earth’s bounty,” Sanders declared. “Ensuring an equitable distribution is government’s responsibility. Voters can count on me to fulfill this responsibility.”
Pay Hike Needed to Boost Congress’ Morale
Several Democrats, including Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md), made the case for higher compensation this week citing “the low morale among those of us in the legislature who can only salivate at the sums being hauled in by ex-presidents and others for trifling amounts of work. As members of a body of 435 we won’t have the same name recognition. We won’t be invited to pontificate on sundry topics for piles of cash.”
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla) seconded Hoyer’s remarks saying “we need to get a bigger piece of the pie now! We pass laws doling out billions to important constituencies, yet we get dinged for accepting gratuities in exchange. It’s just not fair.”
Hastings went on to complain that “the $174,000 annual salary is barely four times the median household income in this country. It’s humiliating for members of the ruling class to have to scrape by on such a pittance. Plus, if our salaries were higher those hoping to influence policy would be encouraged to up the amounts they pay for our efforts to deliver the goods.”
Hoyer also warned of “a possible exodus of the best and brightest from public service if we don’t take action to increase the rewards. The loss of human capital from the departure of legislators who have served for decades would be catastrophic. Congress would likely degenerate into a body staffed by short-term citizen-legislators instead of long-term professionals who dedicate their lives to wielding power for the common good.”
Kerry Calls for Stricter Government Regulation of Internet
In a speech in South Korea US Secretary of State John Kerry called for government to play a bigger role in what goes on the Internet. Kerry advised that “we take a lesson from what’s going on in North Korea. Sure, there are a lot of things wrong with the way Kim is governing his country, but that doesn’t mean everything he’s doing is a mistake.”
“A key positive in Kim’s policies is the government’s larger role in filtering what the citizens of North Korea can see and hear from the Internet,” the Secretary maintained. “Antisocial content that could undermine his people’s contentment is severely dealt with. Positive messages aimed at raising the people’s sense of well-being are encouraged. This helps boost the people’s faith in their government.”
“There’s some good lessons we in the West can learn from Kim’s model,” Kerry argued. “Granted, we wouldn’t want to resort to executing every dissident, but there are less bloodthirsty methods of enforcing compliance with the values and practices that will help stamp out the evils of racism, hate speech, and sedition that infest the unregulated Internet that currently prevails in the United States.”
Kerry concluded his remarks with “a wish that the independent Federal Communication Commission will not let President Obama down by allowing an unwarranted respect for freedom of speech to cloud their judgment.”
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
Equality Arizona is beginning a new effort called Project Jigsaw: Connecting Every Child with a Loving Family. The purpose is to “create an environment where all couples, regardless of sexual orientation or gender, have the opportunity to provide a stable, loving home for a child.” Through adoption.
Those are the talking points.
Here is the truth. There is a lot more to it than Equality Arizona is saying. It’s the quality of the home environment that counts the most. It means everything to children in their formative years.
Adopting children into the homes of either two men or two women is not in childrens’ best interests. Sure, we understand some same-sex couples want to raise children, but let’s ask the children who have already been through this experience.
Read what Dawn said:
My biggest concern is that children are not being discussed in this same-sex marriage debate. Yet, won’t the next step for some gay activists be to ask for legal adoption of children if same-sex marriage is legalized? I have considered some of the potential physical and psychological health risks for children raised in this situation. I was at high risk of exposure to contagious STDs due to sexual molestation, my father’s high-risk sexual behaviors, and multiple partners. Even when my father was in what looked like monogamous relationships, he continued cruising for anonymous sex.
Governor Doug Ducey also made some noise recently about just putting children in any loving home. He and others are making a big mistake if they don’t take a deep look at the history, the social science and the personal testimonies on this.
The average homosexual relationship lasts 18 months — hardly a “loving home” or conducive to the stability young boys and girls need.
We have more than enough fatherless children in America. Our prisons bear the result of that. No two women can offset the absence of dad. No two men can offset the absence of a nurturing mom. The kids are not all right.
And we just saw another example of domestic violence with two female pro basketball players who beat the snot out of each other and then quickly got married to try to assuage law enforcement.
Homosexuals also engage in far more risky behaviors than married male-female couples. Like drug abuse. And alcohol abuse. AIDS, of course, is much more prevalent among homosexuals.
A majority of male homosexuals were sexually abused as children. Many girls also struggle with same-sex attraction because of the unhealthy home environments they were raised in.
So now you want to take people with deep-seeded personal issues and mollify them with all kinds of rights and complicate their problems by giving them custody of children?
It makes no common sense. Arizona, Governor Ducey, CPS, adoption agencies, do not repeat the mistakes with young, sensitive, impressionable children. It is not like you are operating in the dark with no credible information to base your decisions on. We know the results in advance if you go down this road. Stop. Think about it. Forget political correctness.
One more question for the governor and any other elected official: is it worth scoring political points at the expense of children whose lives will be put at risk.
Every child needs a mom AND a dad. No alternative can substitute for this fact. Children raised in the homes of married mom and dad do better in every physical, emotional, social, and educational level. Every one. This is not debatable.
By John Semmens – Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News
CFPB Director Richard Cordray asserted that “placing ability to repay ahead of need is contrary to federal regulations. Just because a person cannot support himself or herself doesn’t mean he or she should be excluded from the benefits of home ownership. Every person has an inalienable right to own a home. Lenders have a moral obligation to help people achieve this right.”
“For banks to argue that the risks of default and foreclosure should preclude certain persons from obtaining loans places profit over social justice,” Cordray said. “Those who attempt to implement such injustice will face consequences. Fines or even imprisonment await anyone who would defy us in this matter.”
Cordray went on to question “whether requiring loans to be repaid even makes sense. Housing costs would be lower across-the-board if the burden of repayment could be lifted from those unable to afford it. Banks have billions of dollars and could easily absorb the losses from non-performing loans. If they should become insolvent the Federal Reserve would, as it has in the past, just create more money to bail them out.”
In related news, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is considering eliminating in-person interviews for Food Stamp applicants. Secretary Tom Vilsack explained that “forcing applicants to meet face-to-face is unnecessarily humiliating for them. I mean, having to look a government official in the eye and ask for help is intimidating. It might deter some from even seeking aid and try to make it on their own. By allowing applicants to simply phone-in a request for Food Stamps we can better maximize the volume of aid we provide.”
Global Warming Activists Demand Media Stop Calling Unbelievers “Skeptics”
The Citizen Engagement Laboratory (CEL) wants news outlets to stop using the term “skeptics” for those who question the global climate change meme. Instead, those who fail to adhere to the accepted view are to be universally referred to as “deniers.”
CEL Director Ronald Deibert complained that “using the word ‘skeptic’ makes opposition to our theory of global climate change sound reasonable. It implies that their assertion that evidence is needed to prove that mankind is the source of climate change deserves a hearing. It implies that the science of global warming is not settled, that differing interpretations of the data are permissible. Is this something we should allow?”
“If we can eliminate the term ‘skeptic’ and uniformly replace it with ‘denier’ we can cast these doubters into the ranks of those who don’t deserve to be heard,” Deibert declared. “’Denier’ connotes an air of unjustified disbelief. No one need pay attention to the rantings of ‘deniers’ like those who deny that the Holocaust ever took place. Why should those who deny the reality of man-made climate change be treated any better?”
Deibert says he fears that “if we allow unacceptable views to continue to pollute the debate it will be that much more difficult to gain broad public acquiescence for the sacrifices we all must make to combat the threat. The slightest smidgen of doubt could derail the taxes and regulations necessary to avert disaster.”
Dean Claims Jesus More Leftist than Democratic Party
This week, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean claimed that “Jesus was more to the left than the Democratic Party. Look, Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple. We Democrats are content to merely tax and regulate them.”
“If you listen closely to Jesus’ words about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, it seems clear that all the money properly belongs to the government,” Dean maintained. “Democrats haven’t gone that far. We still permit people to keep some of the money they earn.”
“You know, Jesus didn’t work a steady job,” Dean observed. “While he was traipsing about the desert he was living off of handouts. Yet, the so-called ‘religious right’ assails those who accept handouts as a way of life today as shiftless and parasitic. Maybe it is they who are out-of-sync with Jesus’ message.”
In related news, President Obama castigated churches, saying that “those who focus more on abortion and gay marriage than eradicating poverty are out-of-step with Jesus’ teachings. Jesus urged people to give away their wealth. If Congress would adopt more progressive taxation the government could help make this happen.”
“Can we be so sure Jesus would have condemned abortion or gay rights?” Obama wondered. “It seems to me that Jesus cared a lot about women. Why wouldn’t he care about their reproductive health? And didn’t Jesus spend a lot of time in the company of the apostles—all men? He never married as would have been normal for a Jew in those days. Can we be sure that Jesus himself was not gay?”
Obama Calls for Change in How the Media Reports
Citing the “especially grievous slant that FOX gives to the news,” President Obama called for “better policing of the public airways to prevent this intellectual pollution.”
“When I see how FOX is constantly undermining what I am trying to do for America by pointing out every flaw and defect of my policies I feel sorry for America,” the President said. “How can our people be joyful if their TVs are parading so-called failures in front of them in their own living rooms?”
“The abuse of freedom of the press and freedom of speech for the purpose of destroying faith in government is seditious,” Obama contended. “We should not sit by and let this go out of some reverence for the outmoded ideas of America’s founders. New times require new rules if we are to promote the general welfare.”
An idea that is starting to gain some traction inside the Administration is to employ the Federal Communications Commission to “fact check” all news broadcasts. “We owe it to the American people to ensure that the news they receive is accurate,” said FCC Chairman Thomas Wheeler. “No one has the right to inject inaccurate information or disloyal opinions into the nation’s communication system. The FCC has a wide range of tools it can and should use to clean up what is broadcast, transmitted, or posted to the web. My biggest regret is that we let things go too far and had to be reminded by the President to do our duty.”
Senator Says NFL Priorities “Screwed Up”
The announcement that the New England Patriots and Quarterback Tom Brady would be penalized for cheating drove Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) into a frenzy.
“I find it stunning that the NFL cares more about how much air is in a football than it cares about a racist franchise name,” Reid raved. “No one need have known about the under-inflated balls. Covertly tipping the scales is simply business-as-usual. By going public with this scandal the NFL has ‘shot itself in the foot,’ and to what end?”
“The much more serious offense is the refusal of the Washington team to change its name,” Reid argued. “Correct opinion concurs that the name ‘Redskins’ is an insult to Native Americans. For the team owners to persist in swimming against the tide of history in this matter can only lead to bad results.”
Potential “bad results” that Reid claims to foresee include “massive lawsuits filed by aggrieved Native Americans, government seizing the team from the owners, and street riots like we’ve seen in Baltimore.”
Bush Would Use Obama Immigration Order to Extort Legislation from Congress
Potential candidate for president and former Governor of Florida JEB Bush told FOX News’ Megyn Kelly that “unlike some other GOP presidential contenders, I would not move to immediately undo President Obama’s executive action granting special privileges to illegal immigrants. Instead, I would refuse to revoke it until Congress passed appropriate enabling legislation. In any case, the American voter can count on me to see that legalizing those in this country illegally will go forward with or without legislation.”
Bush acknowledged the shaky legality of Obama’s executive action, but averred that “doing the right thing is more important than confining policy to narrowly circumscribed authority. I could not, in good conscience, do nothing simply because there is no statutory authority for the action I deem morally necessary.”
The candidate said he hoped “my willingness to go beyond what the law allows will help set me apart from those who would allow themselves to be limited by the constraints of immoral laws. The American people need a leader who is not afraid to stake out new ground and to chart a path that others can follow. Congress will be invited to come along if they cooperate, but I will not allow them to apply the brakes to what needs to be done.”
In related news, JEB characterized his endorsement of big brother George’s Iraq War as “basic self-preservation. When we were growing up George always used to bully me if I crossed him. It didn’t matter whether he was right or wrong. If he didn’t get what he wanted he’d beat me up.”
While it would seem that the era of big brother George beating up little brother JEB must have long passed, the younger Bush alleges that “emotional scarring led to my knee-jerk statement in support of my brother’s invasion of Iraq. I’m just hoping that every little brother who votes will understand my reaction and forgive my fumbling of this issue. For the record, knowing what we know now, it’s clear that Syria is the place we should invade.”
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.
From the Media Research Center
Hillary Clinton’s official presidential announcement was a golden opportunity for networks to demand the former Secretary of State respond to unanswered questions about her e-mail scandal. Yet in the flurry of coverage since her official rollout (April 12 – April 20) the e-mail scandal garnered a total of just 3 minutes, 53 seconds* on the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) evening and morning shows.
Even a new angle on the e-mail scandal – the New York Times reported April 14 that Clinton never responded to a congressional inquiry [in December of 2012] that “directly asked” if she had used a private e-mail account – failed to re-ignite the interest networks initially showed when the scandal first broke in March.
Over the past five weeks, all three broadcast networks have essentially walked away from covering the ex-Secretary of State’s secret extra-governmental e-mail server and the possible loss of crucial documents needed by the House Select Committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks, with coverage on ABC, CBS and NBC’s morning and evening news shows falling by more than 93 percent from the levels seen in early March.
When news first broke that Clinton improperly used her own private e-mail account, the Big Three networks actually jumped to cover the story, filling their evening and morning shows with a total of 124 minutes and 55 seconds of airtime (NBC: 53 minutes, 51 seconds; CBS: 36 minutes, 39 seconds; ABC: 34 minutes, 25 seconds) within the first two weeks (March 3-16) of coverage that encompassed Hillary Clinton’s March 10 press conference.
But despite pundits and journalists like NBC’s Chuck Todd insisting that Clinton’s press conference “didn’t satisfy her media critics” a look at the coverage in the ensuing weeks shows they lost a lot of their interest in the story.
In the third week, (March 17-23), the networks reduced their coverage of the latest Clinton controversy to just 1 minute and 59 seconds (NBC: 23 seconds; CBS: 29 seconds; ABC: 1 minute, 7 seconds).
In the fourth week (March 24-30), the stunning news that Clinton’s own attorney admitted her server had been wiped clean caused a brief spike in coverage — but even that development generated just 11 minutes and 14 seconds of airtime (ABC: 1 minute, 32 seconds; CBS: 4 minutes, 48 seconds; NBC: 4 minutes, 54 seconds).
By week 5 (March 31-April 6) the story was virtually non-existent drawing just 1 minute and 16 seconds total coverage. (ABC: 0; CBS: 29 seconds; NBC: 47 seconds).
During week 6 (April 7-13), anticipation of Clinton’s official announcement, and the announcement itself on April 12, caused some reporters to bring up the e-mail imbroglio but even then the bump was minor, as it garnered just 5 minutes and 1 second of coverage (CBS: 1 minute, 38 seconds; NBC: 3 minutes, 15 seconds). Former Clinton administration press spokesman George Stephanopoulos’s network (ABC) could only manage just an 8 second mention.
And when the e-mail controversy was actually brought up in Clinton announcement stories, it was framed as an annoying issue those pesky Republicans refuse to drop. NBC’s Chuck Todd, on the April 10 Nightly News, noted: “Well, Republicans are trying to do everything they can to hit her and hit her hard. E-mails is something that they want to hit her on. Rand Paul who, of course, announced this week used a lot of his speech to try to go after Clinton and go after on ethics and things like that.”
Even though unanswered questions still persist (Why was her private server wiped clean? Was there incriminating evidence in those e-mails regarding the Benghazi investigation or Clinton Foundation donations? Could a foreign nation, like Russia, have hacked her server?) the networks have essentially discarded the story, reducing their coverage to just a total of 2 minutes and 11 seconds (CBS: 14 seconds, ABC: 42 seconds, NBC: 1 minute, 15 seconds) by the seventh week.
CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley may have signaled the decline in interest when he dismissed the controversy as something that would fall along partisan lines. On the evening of Clinton’s March 10 press conference Pelley huffed: “Well, it’s one of those stories that gets Washington hyperventilating. Today, Hillary Clinton explained why she used private e-mail to conduct official business as Secretary of State….The partisans are going to believe what they want to believe. There’s no chance any minds were changed there today, so what difference does any of this make in Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination?”
The waning interest in this latest Clinton controversy actually follows a familiar pattern of the networks initially covering Obama era scandals (IRS, Benghazi, VA) only to drop them like a hot potato and sadly seems to validate the Clinton strategy of stonewalling until they and their allies in the media can claim a controversy is old news and move on without ever really getting to the bottom of the story.
*UPDATE: An earlier edition of this story read: “Yet in the flurry of coverage since her official rollout (April 12 – April 20) the e-mail scandal garnered a total of just 7 minutes, 12 seconds on the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) evening and morning shows.” That sentence has now been corrected to read: “Yet in the flurry of coverage since her official rollout (April 12 – April 20) the e-mail scandal garnered a total of just 3 minutes, 53 seconds on the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) evening and morning shows.”
ESPN.com reports …
WNBA stars Brittney Griner and Glory Johnson were suspended seven games each today for their domestic violence arrest last month — the league’s longest ban in its 19-year history.
WNBA president Laurel Richie said the league “takes all acts of violence extremely seriously” in handing down a suspension that represents more than one-fifth of the 34-game regular season. Richie called the players’ actions “unacceptable.”
“Brittney and Glory’s conduct is detrimental to the best interests of the WNBA and violates applicable law,” Richie said in a statement. “We also understand that people make mistakes, and that education and training are as important as imposing discipline.”
The players were arrested April 22 on suspicion of assault after they fought in a home they recently bought. Griner pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct and entered a diversion program. The assault charge was dismissed. She must attend 26 weeks of domestic violence counseling. All charges will be dismissed if she completes counseling. Johnson’s case was transferred to county court and is still pending.
The league spent the past few weeks investigating. The WNBA said Johnson pushed Griner in the shoulder and she responded by pushing her in the back of the neck. The confrontation escalated to include wrestling, punches and the throwing and swinging of objects. The 6-foot-8 Griner received a bite wound on her finger and scratches on her wrist; the 6-4 Johnson received a scratch above her lip and was diagnosed with a concussion.
The Arizona Conservative found this research on the prevalence of lesbian domestic violence, which could become more common in our state if the judicial activism that forced same-sex marriage on Arizona holds up on appeal …
Dr. Suzana Rose, author of the “Lesbian Partner Violence Fact Sheet,” says:
Partner violence in lesbian (and gay) relationships recently has been identified as an important social problem. Partner or domestic violence among lesbians has been defined as including physical, sexual and psychological abuse, although researchers have most often studied physical violence.
About 17-45% of lesbians report having been the victim of a least one act of physical violence perpetrated by a lesbian partner. Types of physical abuse named by more than 10% of participants in one study included:
Disrupting other�s eating or sleeping habits
Pushing or shoving, driving recklessly to punish, and slapping, kicking, hitting, or biting.
Sexual abuse by a woman partner has been reported by up to 50% of lesbians.
Psychological abuse has been reported as occurring at least one time by 24% to 90% of lesbians.
Lesbians abuse their partners to gain and maintain control. Lesbian batterers are motivated to avoid feelings of loss and abandonment. Therefore, many violent incidents occur during threatened separations. Many lesbian batterers grew up in violent households and were physically, sexually, or verbally abused and/or witnessed their mothers being abused by fathers or stepfathers.
In lesbian relationships, the “butch” (physically stronger, more masculine or wage-earning) member of the couple may be as likely to be the victim as the batterer, whereas in heterosexual relationships, the male partner (usually the stronger, more masculine, and wage-earning member) is most often the batterer. Some lesbians in abusive relationships report fighting back in their relationship.
Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum just dropped me a line, asking me to tell him whether or not he should run for president. You might be interested in my response:
Dear Mr. Santorum,
Thank you for contacting me for my opinion. I must tell you that I voted “no.” You are a man of integrity and honor, and I respect you greatly. I was very glad you won the Iowa Caucus in 2012. However, we have too many candidates on the GOP side carving up the support and the campaign money. It is time to yield to new candidates like Dr. Carson and Sen. Cruz this time around. The best thing you and several others can do is to build a conservative coalition and do all in your power to see that one strong conservative candidate emerges to take on and defeat party elites like Jeb Bush. We need a strong candidate who will have the wisdom and courage to move a stagnant, declining nation ahead in the next eight years. The Democrats have badly damaged American and sent our trajectory spiraling downward. I hope you will sacrifice your own ambitions and emerge as one of the leaders of the conservative coalition on behalf of the nation that is so starved for a leader with integrity who will put America first. You can accomplish more as a non-candidate this year to help assure one strong leader emerges who is right for America at this time. Thank you for your consideration.
God bless you and your family. God bless America.
Your friends at The Arizona Conservative
“I want to express my deepest and sincerest gratitude to my colleagues who not only played a role in the creation and development of The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act but who also voted today to protect little pain-capable unborn babies. I especially want to thank the leadership of the House for bringing it to a vote on this unique day. Protecting those who cannot protect themselves is why we are really all here and today’s vote is a strong reminder of that.
“Exactly 2 years ago to the day, one Kermit Gosnell was convicted of killing a mother and murdering innocent, late term, pain capable babies in his grisly torture chamber abortion clinic. This bill and its passage express our deeply sincere desire to protect both mothers and their little pain capable unborn babies entering their sixth month of pregnancy from the unspeakable cruelty of evil monsters like Kermit Gosnell.
“The historic passage of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection act proves that those of us privileged to live and breathe in this the land of the free and the home of the brave finally came together with our minds and hearts open to the humanity of these little victims and the inhumanity of what is being done to them.”
Life News reported on the bill …
The vote for the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act broke down on mostly partisan lines with Republicans supporting the ban on late-term abortions and Democrats opposing it. The House approved the bill on a 242-184 vote with four Democrats (Reps. Cuellar, Langevin, Lipinski, and Peterson) voting for the bill and five Republicans voting against it (Reps. Dent, Dold, Hanna, Frelinghuysen) or voting present (Hice). (See very end of this article for how members voted).
Should the Senate approve the bill, President Barack Obama has issued a veto threat. But pro-life groups hope to use the measure as an election tool in 2016 in an attempt to wrest control of the White House and approve a pro-life president who will sign it into law.
During the debate today on a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks, Congressman Sean Duffy gave what may be one of the most passionate defenses of the pro-life position ever seen on the floor of Congress. Duffy took on the claim often made by Democrats who support abortion saying they stand for the defenseless and voiceless.
“I’ve listened to the floor debate day after day .. about how they fight for the forgotten, they fight for the defenseless, they fight for the voiceless. And they pound their chest and stomp their feet. You don’t have anyone in our society that’s more defenseless than these little babies,” he said. “And we are not taking — I believe in conception. I know my colleagues can’t agree with me on that. Can’t we come together and say we are going to stand with little babies that feel pain, that survive outside the womb? Ones that don’t have lobbyists and money? Don’t we stand with those little babies?”
“If you stand with the defenseless, with the voiceless, you have to stand with little babies. Don’t talk to me about cruelty in our bill — when you look at little babies being dismembered, feeling excruciating pain, if we can’t stand to defend these children, what do we stand for in this institution?” he added.
Once again, Obama is on the wrong side of history …
A national poll by The Polling Company found that, after being informed that there is scientific evidence that unborn children are capable of feeling pain at least by 20 weeks, 64 percent would support a law banning abortion after 20 weeks, unless the mother’s life was in danger. Only 30 percent said they would oppose such a law.
By John Semmens – Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News
Enforcement of a work requirement by Republican Governor Paul LePage’s administration has led to 9,000 former recipients being declared ineligible to receive food stamps. Under the work requirement, able-bodied food stamp recipients were asked to put in 20 hours of work per week or 24 hours of volunteer services per month.
State Rep. Scott Hamann (D-South Portland) called the work requirement “inhumane” and compared it to “indentured servitude.” “The Governor is taking the state out of the mainstream,” Hamann argued. “Other states have sought an exemption from the work requirement, but LePage is charting a course that sends a message telling people they must work in order to eat. In my view, this is a step backward.”
Maine Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Mary Mayhew defended the Governor’s approach. “Entrenching people in a life of dependency is not a way to get them out of poverty,” Mayhew said. “It’s one thing for a person to be physically unable to support themselves. It is quite another for a person to refuse to contribute effort to sustaining himself.”
Hamann belittled “the contention that self-reliance is an appropriate ethos for a modern society. Not everyone is equally endowed with a strong work ethic or the ambition to succeed. Some inherit laziness and stupidity through no fault of their own. We shouldn’t be holding the losers in the genetic lottery to the same standards as the winners. Those who are lucky enough to be born energetic and ambitious have an obligation to society to help carry the weight of those less fortunate than themselves.”
In Kansas, a bill to ban welfare benefits from being spent on body piercings, massages, spas, tobacco, nail salons, lingerie, arcades, cruise ships or visits to psychics was denounced by state Rep. Carolyn Bridges (D-Wichta) as “an unacceptable infringement on people’s freedom to spend their own money as they see fit. As a society we have determined that these people are entitled to public support. By endeavoring to limit the uses to which they can apply thus support we are degrading their perception of self-worth and making them second class citizens. This is appalling. Freedom belongs to everyone. Poverty shouldn’t be used to limit a person’s choices.”
In stark contrast to what’s going on in Maine and Kansas, the nearly bankrupt State of California is looking to make illegal aliens fully eligible for state welfare benefits. “This nation was built by immigrants, how can we not cut them a piece of the pie?” asked state Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens). Lara dismissed the state’s budgetary deficit as “an excuse, not a reason for excluding newcomers from enjoying the fruits of citizenship.”
Iranian Ayatollah Calls Obama “Lying Devil”
Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, characterized US President Barack Obama’s statements about the agreement negotiated between the two countries as “deceptive” and evidence of “devilish” intentions.
“Obama’s assertion that Iran has agreed to ramp down its pursuit of nuclear weapons in exchange for a phasing out of economic sanctions is a lie,” Khamenei said. “What we have agreed to is this. First, all sanctions must be immediately ended. Once this happens we agree to refrain from engaging in any nuclear attacks until, in our judgment, circumstances for a favorable outcome warrant it. Most likely, circumstances won’t be favorable for at least a few years.”
US Secretary of State John Kerry sought to minimize any perceived discrepancy between the two sides, saying that “Khamenei’s statement is within the bounds of the framework we’ve been constructing. We could quibble over which comes first—the end of sanctions or Iran’s self-constraint as a nuclear power—or we could make the first concession as a step toward building good will.”
“Right now, Iran is conceding that there will be at least a few years before they launch any nuclear strikes,” Kerry pointed out. “This should ensure that nothing drastic happens during President Obama’s remaining term. After that it will be up to his successor to devise a strategy for dealing with Iran.”
In related news, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf dismissed warnings from former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Schultz about the nuclear agreement the Obama Administration negotiated with Iran as “lots of big words that few people will understand.”
Kissinger and Schultz noted that the so-called agreement lacks any provisions for enforcement. Neither does it address Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism—a behavior that will become a bigger problem once sanctions are lifted and Iran has more funds at hand to aid these groups.
Harf insisted that “these concerns are irrelevant since Iran will not agree to inspections and reserves the sovereign right to use its resources as it deems best. For us to raise these issues would complicate the negotiations and make any agreement unlikely. We feel that it is better to have half a loaf than none.”
Administration Brushes Off Russian Hackers
Evidence that Russian computer hackers penetrated security at the White House and State Department was brushed aside by National Security Council spokesman Mark Stroh.
“Since the Administration has no hostile designs on Russia we don’t consider their gaining access to confidential correspondence at the State Department or White House a threat to our security,” Stroh maintained. “In a way, this could be a good thing. They will see that we bear them no ill will. That could open up new avenues for better relations between our two countries.”
“It would be far more worrisome if our correspondence had been illicitly obtained by domestic right wing groups that have long harbored a racist resentment of the President and his transformative agenda,” Stroh contended. “These groups have been working assiduously to undermine the President from day-one. They even mounted an unsuccessful effort to oust him from office in 2012. The Russians haven’t done anything as menacing as that for the whole time he’s been in office.”
President Chastises “Less than Loving” Christians
President Obama took the occasion of Easter Sunday to chastise Christians for being “less than loving.” “Over the past few months alone we’ve seen so-called Christians refuse to take photographs and bake cakes for gay weddings,” the President lamented. “This directly contradict’s Jesus’ admonition to ‘judge not lest ye be judged.’”
Obama rejected the idea that Christians might have legitimate religious objections to social policies with which they disagree. “Jesus bade his followers to turn the other cheek if they are offended,” he reminded. “Jesus allowed himself to be crucified rather than fight back against those who wronged him. Shouldn’t Christians be following this example?”
In related news, murders of Christians by Islamists in Kenya and elsewhere this month failed to elicit any comment from President Obama. Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained that “the hundred or so students murdered in Kenya is but a small fraction of the 2.2 billion Christians in the world. So, in no way can Christians be considered a ‘persecuted minority.’ Besides, from a historical perspective, didn’t Christian martyrs play a huge part in sparking the spread of Christian beliefs? Maybe these Islamist atrocities will help reinvigorate Christianity from its fading role in modern culture.”
In related news, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, called such massacres “a clumsy and cruel, but nevertheless effective method toward achieving the necessary and essential goal of depopulating the planet.”
White House “Gender Neutral” Restroom “Not Good Enough”
The Obama administration’s efforts to earn gratitude from the gay lobby by adding a “gender neutral” restroom to the White House came up short.
Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender spokesperson Irma Crank called the move “not good enough. Every bathroom in every home in America is ‘gender neutral.’ Many businesses already have ‘family restrooms’ that can be used by either gender. The Administration’s attempt to curry favor with such a lame and wishy-washy measure is an insult. Frankly, we expected more from this President.”
The “more” expected by Crank “is the right of any person to use any facility—men’s room, ladies room—based on their sexual feelings of the moment. Herding individuals with uncertain or fluctuating sexual identities into a neutral space stigmatizes them. Anatomy must not be allowed to overrule a person’s mental state. An anatomically male individual must have the right to explore his feminine side whenever the urge presents itself. Likewise, an anatomically female individual must be free to express her masculine side.”
Crank also denounced “the dodge of one-occupant-at-a-time facilities that some businesses have been turning to. Urinating or defecating in a room by oneself stunts a person’s feelings of solidarity with those whose sex he or she is striving to identify with. Obviously, we are not yet at the point of full gender identity freedom in this country. We will not be satisfied with halfway compromises. We need to keep up the pressure until everyone is free to go wherever he or she pleases.”
White House spokesman Jeff Tiller expressed his disappointment with “Crank’s hasty condemnation. I think we’re all on the same page here. The gender neutral facility is for those who may be uncertain about their gender identity. Individuals who are sure may opt for the men’s or ladies’ room as they see fit. Beyond the White House, the Department of Justice will vigorously prosecute any businesses or organizations that try to restrict who may use whatever restroom facilities they provide.”