Disenfranchising minority voters | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    So good 'ol Hillary gets a shoe thrown at her. It missed. She was giving the keynote address at the Las Vegas meeting of the Institute of Scrap and Recycling Industries. Surely the erstwhile Secretary of State was not speaking to the Institute of Scrap and Recycling Industries in an effort to recycle her scrapped (2012) presidential desires back into a 2016 run for Prez. (Although, where better to do that than among a group of recyclers??). She was more likely there because they agreed to meet her speaking fee (rumored to be $200,000 minimum). Hmmm...

    Apparently the Justice Department is allowing the Clark County (Nevada) police and Courts to take care of any prosecution of the "shoe thrower".. I would have thought that a former First Lady and Secretary of State would have gotten more attention from the Justice Department.... The Attorney General and his Justice Department remain suspiciously quiet. I find it interesting that our intrepid Attorney General (whose recent speeches make him seem more like a Private than a General) recently accused those who have the temerity to disagree with him or his boss including those who would require people to show a photo ID in order to vote as being "racists". He is apparently too busy heading up the internal Gun Walking, Benghazi, IRS and the George Washington Bridge lane closure investigations to be bothered with Hillary and the "shoe thrower".. Actually, the lane closures on the GW Bridge would seem to me to be more of a New Jersey (or Port Authority of NY/NJ) issue than a federal issue - but that didn't seem to even slow him down. Surely his interest in "the bridge" has nothing to do with trying to discredit a potential 2016 Rep candidate for the White House. Of course not...

    And by the way, guess what you had to do to gain entrance to the Hillary speech?? If you said, "Show a photo ID", go to the head of the class... Do you suppose they were trying to exclude minorities from the meeting?? And how about the requirement to show a photo ID in order to get into Eric Holder's Justice Department?? Do you suppose he is trying to exclude poor, downtrodden minorities?? Or is requiring a photo ID only racist when it is somebody else's idea or is required for voting?? Surely it is not racist when it is required to get in to hear Hillary's speech or Eric's Justice Department or to see a doctor or to pick up a prescription at your local pharmacy, or to cash a check (even at your bank sometimes). Of course not... Just when voting...

    And now we are hearing suggestions that a photo be added to our Social Security Card for purposes of identification. Interesting that so many aged and minority folks don't seem to be able to get to the DMV office for a free photo ID, but they will be able to get to the SS office to get a photo taken for their Social Security Card. What do you suppose changed to suddenly make what was an untenable imposition on the old and infirm (and especially minorities) suddenly become acceptable?? Do you think this idea has been looked at by a "focus group" and found to be plausible enough to help generate votes for the Dem candidates this Nov.?? Even Bill O'Reilly has fallen for this subterfuge. I would have expected better from him...

    Set that aside and think about another thing or two about this ill conceived proposal.

    First: What does this idiotic proposal do to our personal privacy?? We have been told over and over that our SSN must be closely guarded and that we should not even carry our SS card in our wallet. And now it is being suggested that we add a picture to it and carry it around with us to show to anyone who demands that we prove our identity. This proposal only goes to prove that a lot of our Dem politicians can "do a 180" without losing a bit of momentum. (Of course a lot of Reps can do it also. It's apparently something they learn after being in Congress a while - which sounds a lot like another good reason for term limits.) In any case this may be no more than something that shows the influence our latest Secretary of State is having on the party. Do you suppose this is simply a manifestation of the Kerry talking point "I was against it before I was for it" that he seemed to be able to spew with such alacrity.

    Second: Which picture will we use?? These days new parents are required to file for and obtain a SSN for new additions to their family. I believe taking care of making the request is something that the hospital does for the new parents. Surely a picture of the new born (no matter how "cute") would not be terribly useful as identification when the child reaches voting age and goes to cast their ballot. How about a picture when the individual to whom the card has been issued reaches voting age?? That would probably work for the first time or two they go to vote (assuming they don't skip too many election cycles before they vote). I've said it before and I'll say it again: Then what?? (One of the most underused combination of words in the world of "knee jerk" policy makers...) Clearly those who support the notion of turning our SS Cards into a Federal ID Card didn't give the need for periodically updated photost even a passing thought. Likewise, it sounds as though they didn't read as far as the Tenth Amendment of our Constitution - or can't be bothered with it..

    Maybe we should be thinking about a new photo every Presidential election cycle (which I don't think is too far out of line with most (state determined) driver's license renewal schedules. Or does that take us so far back in the conversation as to constitute a new and untenable inconvenience on the old and infirm (and minorities) or does it further expose the hypocrisy of the Dems?? I am considerably more inclined to believe the latter than I am the former. Hmmm...

    D'ya think??