Presidential overexposure | Eastern North Carolina Now

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

    Almost every day we hear the Anointed One making some grand pronouncement about something or other. Invariably he is "backed up" by folks who would seem to be from the constituency he seems to be romancing that particular day. When he talks about student loans he is backed up by a group of young folks who look as though they might be college age (always clean cut). When he talks about police or firemen, he is backed up by folks who would seem to be from those noble professions (on the clock??). When he talks about equal pay for women, he is backed up by what would seem to be young working women. And so it goes. It has been thus for virtually every domestic policy speech he has made since being elected. It continues... Do you suppose we really need all those theatrics to be convinced that we should "buy" whatever he is "selling" that day.

    Aside from all the "sales" pitches we also hear about a lot of outrages. What is truly astounding is that he tells us all about his "outrages" and promises dire consequences if whatever the thing he is upset about doesn't get taken care of in the manner he would like. What is not astounding is that a whole lot of folks (Americans as well as foreigners) do not any longer take him seriously. Presumably there is a limit as to how many times folks can be lulled into believing he is really going to do what he says he is going to do - only to be disappointed when nothing comes of it. This the orator surrounded with Greek Columns and the like when he was making speeches early in his term. It would seem that folks are more interested in results and keeping promises than they are in Greek (or maybe Roman) Columns.

    We hear about his Benghazi outrage; his Red Line in the Syrian sand outrage; his gun walking outrage, his VA outrage; his outrage over the ISIS occupation of large pieces of

    Syria and Iraq; his outrage over Russian behavior in Ukraine to mention a few. I suppose we owe a debt of gratitude to the Washington Post for bringing all these to the Anointed One's attention... (Well, isn't that where he always finds out about the unpleasantries going on in his administration??) Of course a lot of what goes on (or doesn't go on) in the Administration is more likely an example of one of Bispo's Laws in action. That would be the "Law" that says: Downward communications are amplified; upward communications are attenuated.. So maybe it's not him. Maybe it's the staff. Or...How about all of the above??

    And then there is his lack of outrage about the IRS targeting certain taxpayers, not even a bit of outrage about IRS inappropriately disclosing private taxpayer information, not even a hint of regret that the dog must have eaten a lot of Lois Lerner's e-mails - or something like that.. Maybe he hasn't heard about that one. Do you suppose neither the Post nor the NY Times covered the story?? Hmmm...

    We have been told by Thomas Sowell that the Anointed One (and his administration) seem to be full of "plausible" lies. As more and more administration missteps are exposed, it would seem that the "plausibility" has diminished to the point of extinction. Clearly there was nothing plausible about the Benghazi story spread by Susan Rice on all the Sunday Talk Shows following the assassination of four Americans at Benghazi...

    So what do all these things tell us?? How about: lack of Honesty, Integrity, Management skills, would be a good place to begin to describe this administration.

    Did you ever wonder how much penance is required to atone for violation of the eighth (or ninth) Commandment (depending on your religious preference)?? That would be the one that forbids "bearing false witness..."

    One plausible falsehood should be fairly easy to forgive. But not so much one shamelessly behind another in a seemingly endless stream. And how about one whopper after another (with no intended offense to Burger King)?? Sooner or later we will all reach the end of our tolerance. Well, most of us anyway... But then what??

    Oh yes, and now there is one more outrage - and it may be the most significant outrage of the Anointed One's tenure. That would be his outrage over the Washington D,C, professional football team name.

    Actually, the Washington D.C. professional football team doesn't need to change their name. They need to change their logo. They should take the Indian (native American??) off the helmet and replace it with a Virginia Redskin peanut with half the shell removed to expose the two nuts inside each securely encased in its red skin.

    But then here we go with unintended consequences. A lot of folks seem to have lived such clean and sanitary lives that they have become allergic to peanuts (those nasty goobers that we dig out of the ground and eat - sometimes without ever sanitizing them). Dig 'em up. Let 'em dry. Break open the shell with your grubby hands (the shells are soft) and enjoy. Of course if your life has been so sanitary that you have never had the opportunity to develop any immunities, you may have an unpleasant reaction. Hopefully, you will know about the allergy before you partake of the treat and will avoid it. Of course the fact that increasing numbers of people seem to have become allergic to peanuts in the last number of years may create a problem (or is it an "issue"??). Surely Dan Snyder would not want to insult those allergic folks with the new logo. In fact, it is likely there are a lot more people with valid allergic problems than there are folks with legitimate objections to the existing logo (I have heard numbers as large as 5)... So maybe the "peanut" logo isn't such a good idea after all.. Hmmm...

    And by the way... What do you suppose the name and opening line of the Redskin anthem ( i.e. "Hail to the Redskins") really means?? Perhaps a secret code intended to denigrate Indians?? (American Indians, that is..)