The Shell Game of Corrupted Government Exposed
Whatever became of ...
Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.
What ever became of the Bill of Rights?? Specifically; Amendment I (Freedom of Religion, Speech and the Press: Rights of Assembly and Petition), Amendment II (The Right to Bear Arms), and Amendment X (Powers Retained by the States and the People). Likewise, what ever became of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (Powers Granted to the Congress)??
Amendment I: Freedom of Religion. Under the guise of Health Care, the Administration proposes to force religious organizations to provide contraception even though it does great violence to the teachings of the church. Apparently bowing to the amount of fuss created by the initial pronouncement, the anointed one claimed to compromise on the issue by excusing the organizations involved and instead requiring their insurance companies to provide it; giving a whole new meaning to the term"compromise". Compromise used to mean each party gives a little ground and eventually they are hopefully able to agree. Instead the anointed one simply paints Kathleen Sebelius' ill conceived policy a different color and calls it a "compromise". Could he have not been told that the organization he was disrespecting self insures?? Or was he simply claiming to compromise so as to provide himself with a decent sounding "talking point"?? Hmmm... Adding insult to injury, the Anointed One and his henchmen have succeeded in turning the conversation into a woman's right to contraception argument. The real argument should be: "Are women entitled to free contraception paid for by the long suffering taxpayers??" Short answer: NO!!
Amendment II: The right to bear arms. If the administration is anything, it is certainly persistent. They apparently believed, even in the early days of the administration when they had complete control of both houses of Congress, they would not likely be able to outlaw gun ownership. But now here we go with Hillary and her spear carriers at the UN trying to override our second amendment right to bear arms by ceding control over gun ownership to that largely US funded body of anti-American sentiment. All of this, while the Prez, in the wake of the Colorado massacre, according to the AP, promises to protect our 2nd amendment rights to bear arms. Election year politics is always full of interesting rhetoric. The Prez' pronouncement is certainly proof that this year is no exception. Unfortunately, even after almost four years of all kinds of misdirection, a lot of folks do not seem to have figured out that everything the Anointed One says needs to be parsed; carefully... The same also applies to pronouncements from his Cabinet officers, Independent Agency heads, and Czars.
And, by the way, there are a lot of UN folks (mostly big shots) who believe that the UN is the place in the country (outside of Chicago) where you get to keep all you can steal. I don't suppose it ever occurred to anyone that maybe we should quit bankrolling that den of thieves. Hmmm...
Welfare Reform A few years ago a bipartisan deal was struck to reform welfare. The year was 1996. The Prez was Bill Clinton. Imbedded in the legislation was the requirement that people would be required to either actually work or certainly create the impression they were actively looking for work in order to collect welfare. Guess what. The number of folks on welfare reportedly decreased by about 50%. But now the Imperial Presidency has unilaterally provided "guidance to the states allowing them to redefine the work requirements such that a whole lot more folks will "qualify" (which the Administration spear carriers are quick to deny). Could that possibly have anything to do with trying to "buy" votes with even more government largesse than we already provide?? Or could it possibly have anything to do with needing the rich to pay more in taxes?? Or both??
And this in the face of our being told that some very large percentage (well over half) of the American population is partaking of (and presumably enjoying) the largess of government entitlement spending. (The number "shrinks" to about one third if you take out Social Security and Medicare) It would seem that the purpose of making a big deal out of this is to help get folks stirred up enough about it to begin to support a rather serious reform effort.
Suddenly, things that we were previously told were investments in our future security (i.e. Social Security, Medicare) are being lumped together with a lot of "freebies" and called entitlements. It is the totality of the entitlements that are having a major impact on our deficits. But it seems to be mainly the "investment" entitlements that are under siege by the Dems. The rest are under siege by the Reps. Interesting.... If there ever was a good time for them to get "collegial", this is it. Some hope!!
As mentioned in one of my earlier columns, the "freebie" entitlements (i.e. tax expenditures, which we hardly ever hear mentioned by the Dems.) include Medicaid, Food Stamps (by whatever name), rent subsidies, AFDC, and more as well as a long list of other handouts and "credits". To name a few of the credits: Adoption Credit; Child and Dependent Care Credit; Child Tax Credit; Electric Vehicle Credit; Foreign Tax Credit (which even the Prez takes advantage of in his tax returns); Residential Energy Credit, and there are plenty more. I am not suggesting that Social Security and Medicare should be excused from reformation, because they should not.. What I am suggesting is that it looks as though the Anointed One and his spear carriers are striving mightily to mislead us again. They talk about the need to reform entitlements but virtually never include "tax expenditures" (such as those mentioned above) in the conversation. According to them, apparently only Social Security and Medicare need to be reformed. Welfare (freebie entitlement) needs to be expanded. Surprise!!
Immigration does double duty as an affront to our Constitution. First, Amendment X of the Bill of Rights gets trampled in the name of immigration fairness and then Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution likewise gets trampled by the Anointed One who seems to have found a way to circumvent the Congress. That would be to rule by Executive fiat (i.e. Executive Orders).
Amendment X: Powers Retained by the States and the People When the DOJ starts taking the states to task over requiring a photo ID in order to vote, we have to wonder about their respect for Amendment X. Yes, there is a statute which gives the DOJ some approval authority over how some southern states (including Texas) run their elections. However, one would think that since the Supreme Court (in Crawford et al. v. Marion County Elections Board et al) has already declared that the requirement to show a photo ID in order to vote is constitutional, one would think that the ruling would apply equally to all states. And yet, here comes Eric Holder and his DOJ bigots trying to overrule a Texas photo ID law. It sounds as though they have won in the local court. We'll have to wait to see how it comes out when the case gets to the Supreme Court. So much for the Tenth Amendment. And now we hear about other states he is planning to take to task over the same issue. Do you suppose he is doing this to refocus attention away from gun walking?? Or do you suppose it is so as to not disenfranchise all the dead folks who seem to find their way to the voting booths??
The Constitutional "separation of powers" (i.e. between the executive, legislative and judicial branches) would also seem to count for little. It seems that when Eric Holder (or his boss for that matter) doesn't like a law or a Supreme Court decision they have no compunctions about ignoring them, either outright or through the issuance of an "overruling" Executive Order or simply a "letter of instructions" from one of the Spear Carriers essentially countermanding the law. So much for separation of powers.
Holder and his henchmen (and women) then add insult to injury by ignoring the blatant NAACP bias exhibited at their recent Houston convention where they required members of the press to show not only their "Press Credentials", but also a photo ID to gain entrance to the conference. Say what??
Yes, members of the press were required to show a photo ID in addition to their press credentials to gain entry. Surely that wasn't intended to exclude minority or elderly reporters. So whom do you suppose they were trying to exclude?? Or is it only when folks are required to show a photo ID to vote that the requirement works to exclude anyone. Do you suppose if folks like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Rep. Alan West, or Star Parker found their way to Houston and tried to gain entry they could be called "reporters" and not admitted for lack of two forms of ID?? It would seem that the NAACP does not subscribe to the notion that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. That would appear to be true only when applied to others. (Surprise!!) We are also told that one must produce a photo ID to gain access to the DOJ building in Washington D.C. Hmmm...
The Constitution: Article I, Section 8: The DREAM Act didn't get very far in the Congress. But, fear not. That situation was rather easily rectified with an Executive Order. That's all it takes to unilaterally provide a path to citizenship for "illegals". So much for the will of the people or the Congress. We'll just provide an administrative path to "legality"when the representatives of the people (i.e. the Congress) don't do our bidding. That allows us to bypass anyone that is willing to discriminate against our Hispanic brethren by asking them to get into the same line as all other prospective immigrants. We also know that if a State tries to pick up the slack generated when the Feds don't seem to be bothering with even trying to enforce the federal immigration laws, it is at their own peril. Surely the DOJ is ready to enforce the immigration laws that seem to be troubling the Arizona folks. At least that's what they tell us. The problem is that it will very likely take a "DC minute" to get around to it. A DC minute is an extremely long period of time which I just invented. The definition: A DC minute is the reciprocal of a NY minute (i.e. one divided by the elapsed time of a NY minute). It would not be judicious to try to hold your breath waiting for a DC minute to elapse.
We must not let the Anointed One steal these things from us. It's time to push back while we still can.
D 'ya think??
Go Back
What ever became of the Bill of Rights?? Specifically; Amendment I (Freedom of Religion, Speech and the Press: Rights of Assembly and Petition), Amendment II (The Right to Bear Arms), and Amendment X (Powers Retained by the States and the People). Likewise, what ever became of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (Powers Granted to the Congress)??
Amendment I: Freedom of Religion. Under the guise of Health Care, the Administration proposes to force religious organizations to provide contraception even though it does great violence to the teachings of the church. Apparently bowing to the amount of fuss created by the initial pronouncement, the anointed one claimed to compromise on the issue by excusing the organizations involved and instead requiring their insurance companies to provide it; giving a whole new meaning to the term"compromise". Compromise used to mean each party gives a little ground and eventually they are hopefully able to agree. Instead the anointed one simply paints Kathleen Sebelius' ill conceived policy a different color and calls it a "compromise". Could he have not been told that the organization he was disrespecting self insures?? Or was he simply claiming to compromise so as to provide himself with a decent sounding "talking point"?? Hmmm... Adding insult to injury, the Anointed One and his henchmen have succeeded in turning the conversation into a woman's right to contraception argument. The real argument should be: "Are women entitled to free contraception paid for by the long suffering taxpayers??" Short answer: NO!!
Amendment II: The right to bear arms. If the administration is anything, it is certainly persistent. They apparently believed, even in the early days of the administration when they had complete control of both houses of Congress, they would not likely be able to outlaw gun ownership. But now here we go with Hillary and her spear carriers at the UN trying to override our second amendment right to bear arms by ceding control over gun ownership to that largely US funded body of anti-American sentiment. All of this, while the Prez, in the wake of the Colorado massacre, according to the AP, promises to protect our 2nd amendment rights to bear arms. Election year politics is always full of interesting rhetoric. The Prez' pronouncement is certainly proof that this year is no exception. Unfortunately, even after almost four years of all kinds of misdirection, a lot of folks do not seem to have figured out that everything the Anointed One says needs to be parsed; carefully... The same also applies to pronouncements from his Cabinet officers, Independent Agency heads, and Czars.
And, by the way, there are a lot of UN folks (mostly big shots) who believe that the UN is the place in the country (outside of Chicago) where you get to keep all you can steal. I don't suppose it ever occurred to anyone that maybe we should quit bankrolling that den of thieves. Hmmm...
Welfare Reform A few years ago a bipartisan deal was struck to reform welfare. The year was 1996. The Prez was Bill Clinton. Imbedded in the legislation was the requirement that people would be required to either actually work or certainly create the impression they were actively looking for work in order to collect welfare. Guess what. The number of folks on welfare reportedly decreased by about 50%. But now the Imperial Presidency has unilaterally provided "guidance to the states allowing them to redefine the work requirements such that a whole lot more folks will "qualify" (which the Administration spear carriers are quick to deny). Could that possibly have anything to do with trying to "buy" votes with even more government largesse than we already provide?? Or could it possibly have anything to do with needing the rich to pay more in taxes?? Or both??
And this in the face of our being told that some very large percentage (well over half) of the American population is partaking of (and presumably enjoying) the largess of government entitlement spending. (The number "shrinks" to about one third if you take out Social Security and Medicare) It would seem that the purpose of making a big deal out of this is to help get folks stirred up enough about it to begin to support a rather serious reform effort.
Suddenly, things that we were previously told were investments in our future security (i.e. Social Security, Medicare) are being lumped together with a lot of "freebies" and called entitlements. It is the totality of the entitlements that are having a major impact on our deficits. But it seems to be mainly the "investment" entitlements that are under siege by the Dems. The rest are under siege by the Reps. Interesting.... If there ever was a good time for them to get "collegial", this is it. Some hope!!
As mentioned in one of my earlier columns, the "freebie" entitlements (i.e. tax expenditures, which we hardly ever hear mentioned by the Dems.) include Medicaid, Food Stamps (by whatever name), rent subsidies, AFDC, and more as well as a long list of other handouts and "credits". To name a few of the credits: Adoption Credit; Child and Dependent Care Credit; Child Tax Credit; Electric Vehicle Credit; Foreign Tax Credit (which even the Prez takes advantage of in his tax returns); Residential Energy Credit, and there are plenty more. I am not suggesting that Social Security and Medicare should be excused from reformation, because they should not.. What I am suggesting is that it looks as though the Anointed One and his spear carriers are striving mightily to mislead us again. They talk about the need to reform entitlements but virtually never include "tax expenditures" (such as those mentioned above) in the conversation. According to them, apparently only Social Security and Medicare need to be reformed. Welfare (freebie entitlement) needs to be expanded. Surprise!!
Immigration does double duty as an affront to our Constitution. First, Amendment X of the Bill of Rights gets trampled in the name of immigration fairness and then Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution likewise gets trampled by the Anointed One who seems to have found a way to circumvent the Congress. That would be to rule by Executive fiat (i.e. Executive Orders).
Amendment X: Powers Retained by the States and the People When the DOJ starts taking the states to task over requiring a photo ID in order to vote, we have to wonder about their respect for Amendment X. Yes, there is a statute which gives the DOJ some approval authority over how some southern states (including Texas) run their elections. However, one would think that since the Supreme Court (in Crawford et al. v. Marion County Elections Board et al) has already declared that the requirement to show a photo ID in order to vote is constitutional, one would think that the ruling would apply equally to all states. And yet, here comes Eric Holder and his DOJ bigots trying to overrule a Texas photo ID law. It sounds as though they have won in the local court. We'll have to wait to see how it comes out when the case gets to the Supreme Court. So much for the Tenth Amendment. And now we hear about other states he is planning to take to task over the same issue. Do you suppose he is doing this to refocus attention away from gun walking?? Or do you suppose it is so as to not disenfranchise all the dead folks who seem to find their way to the voting booths??
The Constitutional "separation of powers" (i.e. between the executive, legislative and judicial branches) would also seem to count for little. It seems that when Eric Holder (or his boss for that matter) doesn't like a law or a Supreme Court decision they have no compunctions about ignoring them, either outright or through the issuance of an "overruling" Executive Order or simply a "letter of instructions" from one of the Spear Carriers essentially countermanding the law. So much for separation of powers.
Holder and his henchmen (and women) then add insult to injury by ignoring the blatant NAACP bias exhibited at their recent Houston convention where they required members of the press to show not only their "Press Credentials", but also a photo ID to gain entrance to the conference. Say what??
Yes, members of the press were required to show a photo ID in addition to their press credentials to gain entry. Surely that wasn't intended to exclude minority or elderly reporters. So whom do you suppose they were trying to exclude?? Or is it only when folks are required to show a photo ID to vote that the requirement works to exclude anyone. Do you suppose if folks like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Rep. Alan West, or Star Parker found their way to Houston and tried to gain entry they could be called "reporters" and not admitted for lack of two forms of ID?? It would seem that the NAACP does not subscribe to the notion that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. That would appear to be true only when applied to others. (Surprise!!) We are also told that one must produce a photo ID to gain access to the DOJ building in Washington D.C. Hmmm...
The Constitution: Article I, Section 8: The DREAM Act didn't get very far in the Congress. But, fear not. That situation was rather easily rectified with an Executive Order. That's all it takes to unilaterally provide a path to citizenship for "illegals". So much for the will of the people or the Congress. We'll just provide an administrative path to "legality"when the representatives of the people (i.e. the Congress) don't do our bidding. That allows us to bypass anyone that is willing to discriminate against our Hispanic brethren by asking them to get into the same line as all other prospective immigrants. We also know that if a State tries to pick up the slack generated when the Feds don't seem to be bothering with even trying to enforce the federal immigration laws, it is at their own peril. Surely the DOJ is ready to enforce the immigration laws that seem to be troubling the Arizona folks. At least that's what they tell us. The problem is that it will very likely take a "DC minute" to get around to it. A DC minute is an extremely long period of time which I just invented. The definition: A DC minute is the reciprocal of a NY minute (i.e. one divided by the elapsed time of a NY minute). It would not be judicious to try to hold your breath waiting for a DC minute to elapse.
We must not let the Anointed One steal these things from us. It's time to push back while we still can.
D 'ya think??
| The Cowardly Media Reporting On Hate Crimes | D'ya think??, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics | County Business Oversight - Who Does It? |
Home
Contact
About
Service Rates
Privacy Policy
Follow on Facebook
Subscribe to Newsletters
Rss Feed
Keywords
Eastern NC Now & ENC NOW © Copyright 1998-2024 All Rights Reserved.
