Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) urged rival Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to “not count his chickens before they’re hatched.” Explaining her decision to continue her campaign until a nominee is selected, Clinton pointed out that “you know, a lot of things can happen between now and November. Sometimes candidates get shot and have to drop out, like George Wallace did in 1972. Even worse, they could be killed like Bobby Kennedy was in June of 1968, ironically, while he was in the lead for the nomination.”

“You know, both Bobby and his brother Jack were shot in the head,” Clinton continued. “So, even if Senator Obama is wearing a bullet-proof vest, he’s still at risk. So, I need to be ready to step in if such a tragic event occurs. The best way for me to stay ready is to continue my campaign. America will be grateful that I did should such an unthinkable thing happen to Senator Obama.”

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton called Clinton’s remarks “ominous” and “completely inappropriate.” “We will not be intimidated by Senator Clinton’s thinly-veiled threats,” Burton proclaimed. “We will say, though, that these remarks provide further support for the Senator’s deterimination to limit access to guns by persons who are demonstrably unstable or mentally unbalanced.”

Senator Clinton denied making any threat, “thinly-veiled or otherwise.” She went on to characterize her remarks as “hypothetical,” and “just a bit of friendly advice.” She did, however, apologize to the Kennedy family for “dredging up painful memories,” but added that “if we don’t learn from history we will be doomed to repeat it.”

Dems Split over How to Deal with High Energy Prices

As the price of crude oil and its products—most notably gasoline—continue to rise, Democrats are split over whether fascism, communism or plain old tort abuse would provide the best remedy.

The fascist approach was championed by Representative Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa). Under his plan (House Bill 5800—Consumer Reasonable Energy Price Protection Act of 2008), ownership of energy producing assets would remain in private hands, but the government would control pricing and profits.

“For too long, American businesses have been free to pursue private greed,” Kanjorski complained. “It’s time they be compelled to meet public need.”

Kanjorski called the bill “a first step on the march toward a more just society.” “The oil barons aren’t the only ones profiteering at the people’s expense,” he went on. “Food, clothing and shelter shouldn’t be subject to the whims of the so-called free market when we have available the powers of the government to ensure a more equitable outcome.”

Drastic as Kanjorski’s plan may appear, it was labeled “too feeble” by Representative Maxine Waters (D-Calif.). “We need full government ownership of these assets if we hope to achieve full social justice,” Waters said. “Representative Kanjorski’s bill would only limit profits. We will get lower consumer prices if we eliminate them. The only sure way to guarantee a profitless energy industry is for it to be owned by the government.”

Waters acknowledged that Kanjorski was ahead in actually having a bill drafted, but vowed to quickly make up lost ground. “There are several models we can look to for guidance,” she said. “Russia, Mexico, and Venezuela all have government owned oil industries. We don’t have to invent a new structure. We can copy theirs.”

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party’s Trial Lawyers Caucus has its own plan for dealing with high fuel prices. Caucus chairman, Representative Steve Kagen (D-Wis.) was able to persuade the House of Representatives to pass a law authorizing a lawsuit against OPEC.

Kagen boasted “This bill will bring these ‘price gougers’ to account and also serve as a warning to America’s enemies around the globe. Lawyers have wreaked havoc upon many a corporate miscreant in the United States. We will turn this potent weapon on the likes of Iran and Venezuela.”

President Bush vowed to veto all of these proposed “remedies” on the grounds that “they are idiotic ideas.”

Petition Provokes Environmentalist Outrage

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’s announcement that 31,072 U.S. scientists have signed a petition challenging the assertion that humans are causing, or will cause catastrophic global warming, has sparked outrage among fanatic environmentalists.

Even though many eminent scientists are among the petition’s signers, the Institute is being denigrated as “an obscure group” and has been mockingly labeled the “Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey.”

“Who has ever heard of this outfit?” international environmental expert Al Gore jeered. “The idea that these ‘flat-Earthers’ merit a hearing is ludicrous. I have a Nobel Prize for environmental science. I think most people would agree that pretty much settles the issue of who is worth listening to.”

Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) left no doubt on where he stands in this controversy. The Senator promised to institute regulations that would limit travel, restrict diets and control indoor thermostats. “The notion that many Americans have that they can go where they want, eat what they want and pump-up the air conditioning is irresponsible,” Obama declared. “It’s an insult to other countries. I won’t allow it.”

Obama said Americans’ “profligate waste will come to an end under my administration.” The Senator said he hoped to take guidance from former president Jimmy Carter’s “visionary appreciation of the limits we must impose on ourselves for the sake of the greater good of humanity. These global warming deniers will not have the last word on this. They will be dealt with, harshly if necessary, if that’s what it takes to bring them around.”

Russia, China Call U.S. Missile Defense System “Offensive”

In a jointly issued statement, Chinese President Hu Jintao and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev condemned the United States’ plans to set up an anti-missile defense system as “offensive.”

“By seeking to defend itself from a sneak attack, the U.S. is sending a bad message,” Hu said. “It’s like they’re saying they don’t trust us. How do you think that makes us feel? We have no defense against sneak attack. Why do the Americans think they need one?”

Medvedev echoed his Chinese counterpart’s thoughts and offered an analogy to help make his point. “Among wolves, deadly hostilities are avoided when one wolf lies on its back baring its throat to a potential lethal bite,” Medvedev explained. “This gesture of submission and trust in the mercy of one’s foe defuses the conflict and leads to a peaceful resolution of differences.”

The Russian president argued that a “mutual vulnerability” would reduce tensions between his country and the U.S. “An American defensive capacity to shoot down Russia’s missiles is very offensive and discomforting to me,” Medvedev admitted. “If I knew that the United States was as helpless against attack as Russia, I would have less to fear.”

Kennedy Brain Tumor Raises Question of Succession

The announcement that Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) has a malignant brain tumor has raised the issue of who will inherit his seat. The assumption has been that under Massachusetts law, the sear would pass to his eldest son. However, experts in that state’s statutes said the succession is not so “cut-and-dried.”

“The commoners of Massachusetts anticipate that Edward Kennedy Jr. would inherit the seat,” said family spokesman, Lowell McGuff. “Actually, the law gives Senator Kennedy the right to name his successor.”

Those familiar with the Senator’s will, say that the document bestows his seat to his wife, Vicki. The bequest, must, of course, be approved by the Governor’s Privy Council, but that is regarded as a mere formality.

In related news, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took the announcement of Senator Kennedy’s illness as an opportunity to make a pitch for socialized medicine. “One of Senator Kennedy’s fondest wishes was that the government would take over the nation’s healthcare system,” she said. “He has done so much for this country. The least we can do in return is to enact universal healthcare as a memorial to this great man.”

Court Declares Money Illegal

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that paper money illegally discriminates against the blind and ordered an immediate ban on its use. “Government services must be equally accessible to all Americans,” the Court wrote. “Since paper money is inaccessible to blind, it must be made inaccessible to everyone.” The Court rejected the demand that it was responsible for identifying a substitute for the now illegal currency, but suggested, unofficially, that “we might try bartering. Goods-for-goods exchange allows for tactile identification of the items in trade. This might pass muster in any future litigation of the issue.”

 

John Semmens got his start writing about politics for his college newspaper. Since then, he has written more than 600 articles that have been published. In addition to "Semi-News," John's opinion pieces have appeared in many newspapers around the country--including the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, and many others.