CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY IS STILL A QUESTION
by Cody Robert Judy, ©2014, blogging at CodyJudy
(Feb. 4, 2014) — Today was cold, but what is cold? Thirty-two degrees would be a blessing in Montana or Maine today. I made my way around a few neighborhoods speaking to people. A woman opened the door to a small but warm house and in our conversation I learned she was having a real hard time.
“I’m selling these little elastic rubber-bands working at home, making a dollar apiece. My unemployment benefits ran out last week. I’m hungry, I guess,” she quipped with a smile and repeated the first sentence again to emphasize she was in a pickle.
“Of course there is nothing wrong with making a dollar apiece on anything if you can sell a hundred a day.” I admired her ingenuity and prospects.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is hoping for a vote this week to renew expired Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) for a three-month extension. In addition, Obama met with Business Leaders, encouraging them to hire the long-term unemployed.
It seems almost unreal to me to hear of unemployment insurance lasting two years and two months already for the 1.3 million Federal workers who hit the wall in December 2013, because the couple of times I received it, it was over in a year and you had better do something before then or you’d be joining the crowd camping out, which I’ve also done before.
It’s real interesting that the exact thing that discourages businesses from hiring is actually being considered in an effort of extension. At its peak in 2008, Congress was extending it for 99 weeks; that’s 8 years, 4 months.
Many forget that when each State and the Federal Government leaders stand up to proclaim they are extending benefits, the money is not coming from the State or Federal Government. It’s coming from business people who are going to be taxed and are paying into the system with the unemployment tax.
So, when extensions are mandated by the Government, what happens to the businessmen’s taxes and the amount they are required to pay? The more they are forced to pay, the less incentive to hire, the more they might even lay off or not hire any more. Congress is doing very little else to help the long-term unemployed find work, when actually, if you can believe it, one of the 7 deadly reasons it’s been invoked is so that Congress will pass longer unemployment benefits.
As if Congress is the one that’s suppose to create jobs? No, it should be the job of Congress to get out of the way so businesses can operate and create jobs, but so many are insisting that Congress do the very thing that hurts employment growth in the platitude of “not being a bad guy.” That is one very sophisticated weapon being used to wipe out jobs in America.
That’s what’s happening in Massachusetts right now as their legislature considers a bill that would at least level the amount of unemployment insurance for a period of four years for employers, based on the job-killer that unemployment insurance tends to be.
They are trying a new scale that rewards businesses who tend to keep employees with a rate of $153 per employee per year, but it would sack those companies which have bad records with a rate of $2,337 per employee per year.
Gaming the system by exposing loopholes such as “seasonal” employment claiming ‘unemployment insurance’ when the season changes is one of those the bill hopes to address.
One lawmaker said, “There are some positive things regarding eligibility and regarding making sure people don’t game the system.”
So from one perspective, those businesses which can’t afford to keep their employees are going to be hit the hardest with Government “unemployment taxes?” Sounds like temporary jobs, and those part-time jobs many depend on are now on the chopping block. That’s what happens when Government starts its little tinkering towards utopia projects. I’m not sure they ever get it right or consider the economics of positive incentive from both directions at the same time.
Well, it’s interesting that one lawmaker, anyway, has seen the light and realized the “positive things” regarding ‘eligibility,’ but it’s probably too big of a wish for them to understand that when it starts from the top down, there is a much greater success.
Yesterday and today I watched Bill O’Reilly’s platitudes towards Obama in his interview. O’Reilly was so gracious as to ask Obama if he thought he was being fair to him? What does any kid in the candy store say to his parents when they ask the child if they’re being fair? “Heck, no, you’re not being fair; I need more candy!”
Well, that was Obama’s answer: “No, you’re not being fair.” After watching the nauseating interview and watching O’Reilly hump Obama’s leg like a dog in the platitudes of pleasure for raising 20 million dollars with him twice as evidence “Obama cared.”
“I have come to you four times,” O’Reilly said, speaking about veterans, “And every time you have done what I have asked. And we have raised more than $20 million.” Of course if you look at The Washington Post article of Dana Milbanks, you’d get the idea O’Reilly didn’t pitch enough softballs to Obama and was downright disrespectful for interrupting his Royal Heinous 42 times and speaking 1,000 words of the 2500 spoken in the interview.
I admit it bugs me when a supposed reporter/interviewer turns the tables and starts conducting the interview as an interview of himself, which O’Reilly does so brilliantly. I haven’t watched much of him and watching the interview confirmed for me why.
When “Gaming The System” starts at the top, as Obama, with Republicans and Democrats cheering him on, has done with the eligibility requirement for the Office of the President, that teaches everyone that it’s alright. The message is that basically there are not too many laws or rights in our Constitution that cannot be “gamed.”
Obama is gaming all of us all the time. If O’Reilly thinks for one minute any person in the seat of the President’s could raise that much money for veterans at any given time, he’s delusional in the fact Obama is capital in attending fund raisers because for Obama, it’s more about the money than the principles.
The biggest problem turns out to be a terrific exploit on principles, creating fraud and exploiting the dilapidated trust which Obama has been able to stave off for five years. I think it’s a terrific question to ask oneself and to figure out the answer to, “What is the advantage of having a qualified President in the White House by the definition of the Supreme Law of the Land’s United States Constitution?”
Is the qualification demand really the intent of our Founders to just really be a bunch of bad guys?
No one wants to be the “bad guy,” not even Obama, as near six more trillion have been added to the debt during his term. Can you even imagine the next President’s claims of inheriting the problems of the past predecessor?
It always bothered me when Bush screamed, “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a g—- piece of paper!” to an aide. “Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said, “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.” “I don’t give a *****,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way” in a discussion about renewing The Patriot Act. And when Bush indicated it didn’t matter who the next president was, the course was set as if he’d have no choice in the matter.
I always thought that’s what so many people hoped for in Obama in his empty promises for change. Now even Robert Redford, who supported Obama in the hope for the environment, has had his hopes dashed with the empty promises paid for with cash. Redford wrote: “One reason I supported President Obama is because he said we must protect clean air, water and lands. But what good is it to say the right thing unless you act on it?”
Amid 67 Billion in profits in the first six months of the year for big oil companies, Obama was pressed by O’Reilly’s assertion that “We were going to build the pipeline, right? I’ll take that as a yes,” said O’Reilly, and spilled the Kool-Aid every environmentalist has been drinking of Obama’s.
Well, when you vote for a fraud, how could you expect your money, value, or principle not to be stuck in a tar sand strip mine? Why is it that Clean Air, Clean Water, and the unemployment percentage just can’t seem to find a viable solution?
The fraud covering and exhumed in the global warming circles certainly have met their rewards with the fraud covering Obama’s Eligibility, yet support for a top-down restoration of “principle” is about as stagnant as water in a marsh on a hot day. Anyone care for a drink? When Americans get their fill of fraud, which seems to be happening at an alarming rate, being the “bad guy” who takes a stand for principle on Obama’s eligibility will soon be seen as a being a “good guy” for the principles that bring back our trust.
Read the rest here.
Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.