Democrat priorities | Eastern North Carolina Now

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

    It's interesting that the Anointed One finds fault with the "unelected" Supreme Court. This as he brings on board countless numbers of Czars who are neither elected nor even congressionally vetted or approved. What's good for the goose does not seem to be good for the gander when we are talking about what the Anointed One wants to do.

    For years we have heard "activist courts" soundly condemned pretty much to the point where they aren't held in very high esteem by a lot of us (liberals excepted). The term has come to be accepted as rather derisive. Until the last few days, activist courts have been those which "make new law, with their decisions where none existed before. They typically convey "rights" that do not exist in the constitution. Typically they are supported by those who hold the notion that the Constitution is a "living document" subject to interpretation at the whim of the folks (or judges). In the last few days, the term "activist court" has apparently been redefined by the Anointed One as any court which hands down a decision with which he does not agree. Clearly, such a court is wrong in their interpretation - particularly if they are finding fault with a duly enacted law, approved by a large majority in the Congress (i.e. a majority of one "purchased" vote - which is "large majority" when you are playing under the Chicago rules), and signed by the Prez. We can only wonder where that construction came from. Cloward and Piven?? Maybe. Saul Alinski?? Perhaps. How about the Rev. Wright?? Could be. How about some of his radical Chicago friends and supporters?? Who knows?? How about all of the above?? Most likely.

    What we need to do is administratively (i.e. with an Executive Order) increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court to eleven. It would probably be too difficult to do it with Congressionally approved legislation - which might be looked upon by the Supreme court with a jaundiced eye, so the EO is certainly the preferred vehicle. Then, with a couple of "recess appointments" whether Congress is in "recess" or not... (Well, so far it has worked on the NLRB recess appointments.) If we staff the court with Obama appointees (a couple more like Kagen and Sotomayor would do quite nicely, thank you), we could ensure a six to five majority on all the great improvements to our freedoms desired by his administration. But wait!! Hasn't that already been tried?? Oh, yeah. FDR tried it when he was faced with a court that held the Constitution in higher regard than his efforts to take over the nation and convert it to a socialist paradise (or something like that). It didn't work for FDR and it won't work for the Anointed One. The hue and cry against his signature achievement (??), Obamacare, would sound like a whisper compared to what we would hear (maybe) as soon as it becomes evident that he is trying to cancel the constitution and substitute himself as a Monarch. Just think, further elections would not be required. And we would no longer have any need for the Supreme Court (the unelected Supreme Court). Of course there would be no need for an elected Supreme Court either. Disagreements could be settled by an appointed Czar. In fact there would be no further need for elections. We should then really be able to get a lot things done. Or not... And just think, wouldn't it be nice if by caving to the Muslims, the Russians the Chinese and the U.N., we could have "peace in our time". (I may be the only person left in the world who is old enough to remember the last time we heard that - and what happened afterwards). Hmmm...

    The Anointed One's (so far seemingly successful) efforts to overrule Christian religious beliefs about contraception seems to be working. (Actually, Christian beliefs aside, there are some who would encourage the use of more contraception - especially by the Dems, which may help hold their numbers down. Hmmm...) I rather suspect that issue is not yet settled, but for the time being the Dems' sleight of hand has been working. The success seems to be based on the Dems poking their finger into the Catholic Church's eye and calling it a "women's issue". The Reps have allowed them to get away with it. (Dumb.) The upright, virtuous folks in the administration have turned things their way by wrapping themselves in swaddling clothes and claiming that the Reps are against allowing women access to birth control, even though that is untrue. It is totally untrue. It is a lie: A bald faced lie. That's the only thing it could be called. And the Reps seem to be letting them get away with it. Hopefully, a thoughtful public will see what is happening and understand how the Dems (as usual) are using misdirection to control the conversation.

    So... Now that the Dems seen to have succeeded in overruling Christian religious beliefs, what do you suppose is the chance that they will expand that "victory" into Muslim religious beliefs?? We provide Halal foods at Gitmo; we provide Halal foods in prisons; perhaps we provide them in other places - all at taxpayer expense. Now that we have decided it's OK to poke our finger in the eye of religion we shouldn't have to put up with the extra expense for Halal foods - or prayer mats and Korans for that matter. Oh, but wait. What if CAIR (or other Islamic groups) don't like the idea?? Do you suppose we would have rioting in the streets?? You can say what you like about them but you must admit that they are willing to stand up for their beliefs (which is more than you can say about the U.S. just lately). Of course, why wouldn't they?? They have seen how quickly and easily we "cave" when they challenge us. So far, our failure to stand up for ourselves does not seem to moderate how our detractors act toward us. Rather, it seems to embolden them. It seems that no matter what we do, short of "growing a spine", we will continue to risk the lives of more American troops every time we "cave" to an imagined (or manufactured) sleight of Muslims or Islam. Do you suppose it is only Christian beliefs that we find offensive. Well, that's an interesting thought, isn't it??

    Do you suppose the Anointed One is missing a golden opportunity to really capture the female vote?? He could "take on" the Muslims over the way they treat folks of the female persuasion and potentially capture the entire female vote. There are those who would argue that his failure to worry about how the Muslims treat their women gives a fairly clear indication of his relative priorities (i.e. the religion or the women).

    D'ya think??