…or Queen. King?
( with apologies to R. Kipling)
Our former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, doesn’t know that in the UK “Conservative” and “Tory” are synonyms for the same political party…
Hillary Clinton on the Special Relationship between the US and Britain:
“It is so special to me personally and I think that it is very special between our two countries. There is just not just a common language, there is a common set of values that we can fall back on. It doesn’t matter in our country whether it is a Republican or Democrat, or frankly in your country whether it is a ‘Conservative’ and ‘Tory.’ There is a level of trust and understanding. That doesn’t mean that we always agree because of course we don’t.”
SERIOUSLY? A woman whose only claim to fame was to be a dishonored Watergate prosecution attorney, married to a serial rapist, who was from Arkansas, then magically became a United States Senator from New York, then the perennial presidential candidate became the Secretary of State. And doesn’t know this?
And I’m not even mentioning Whitewater or Benghazi…
Vote for HER for president? Not on your life!
(Yeah – I’m shocked, too!) :-P
That is a turnout increase of 300%. If voter ID was intended to suppress votes, it is failing as spectacularly as HealthCare.gov.
And here’s the entire article.
Now hers’ the SHOCKING PART!
h/t CNN !
Photo ID required to take a tour of the WH but not to vote
America rejoiced when the White House announced it would re-open for tours after cuts to funding from sequestration. But in a blatant display of irony, visitors to President Barack Obama’s home must show a government-issued photo ID to enter, but not to vote.
Tours of the White House resumed after a seven month hiatus, with the first official tour given to tourists yesterday. But for visitors looking to head inside 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., they must show valid, government-issued photo ID.
“All guests 18 years of age or older will be required to present a valid, government-issued photo identification … . All foreign nationals must present their passport,” it states on the White House’s ‘Tours & Events’ page.
This criterion is particularly ironic given the fact that the man living inside the White House adamantly opposes voters showing photo ID before heading the the polls.
“This administration believes it should be easier for eligible citizens to vote, to register and vote,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in July. “We should not be imposing unnecessary obstacles or barriers to voter participation.”
But not so much for those looking to tour the taxpayer-funded White House.
Since the United States Supreme Court deemed Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, states like Texas and North Carolina have begun to put voter ID laws in place.
The Obama administration, though, has struck back against these two states, filing lawsuits on the grounds that voter ID laws “disproportionately impact Hispanic and African-American voters.”
But don’t forget that ID if you want to tour the White House, America.
h/t Red State
Of course, there was a time one could enter the Executive Mansion ARMED, but that time is long past. – Guffaw
The MSM has been ruminating, of late, regarding the NEXT Presidential Election. Keep in mind in 2014, it’s the Congressional (off year) election, making the Presidential Election THREE YEARS AWAY (2016) from now!
The reason for all this undesired attention? Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State, former Senator, and former First Lady of the Presidency and Governorship (of Arkansas) is making noises about running! After she promised she wouldn’t, of course.
And as the last presidential election was all about electing a Black Man – as though that were some kind of qualification – this one is being countenanced about electing a Woman. Same counter-argument. Of course, we all know that all Blacks think the same and all women do, too. A slam-dunk, right? Tell that to Governor Sarah Palin.
“A woman will get us out of wars, because their’s is the gentle gender.” Just ask Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir.
So, with regard to qualifications, exactly how does Ms. Clinton qualify?
Uh, she was a lawyer, but never renewed her license. At age ~27 she was fired for being a liar and an unethical lawyer in the Watergate Investigation. Whitewater, Wikileaks, Iran, Iraq, Sandy Berger, Benghazi, Vince Foster, any of those names ring a bell?
Her voting record in the Senate – incidentally, how does a disgraced Arkansas lawyer suddenly become a transplanted New Yorker, and get elected Senator? I guess Bobby Kennedy did it, though. And her non-starterhood as the last Secretary of State.
What has she done, lately, aside from unofficially run for office? And, of course, she was the co-President to her ‘husband’ Bill. Scary stuff.
The scariest is the ‘loyal opposition’ Republicans have very few real contenders. And their party is in a shambles. And the other choice, Libertarians, are by nature and definition not confrontational.
What to do?
Heinlein’s Law – They’re ALWAYS someone to vote against!
PS – This just in – the (Democratic Governor-Elect just made Hillary-for-President noises after winning last night. Not surprising as he was a previous
bag man shill supporter of Bill and Hill !)
h/t HuffPo (believe it or not!)
I just finished a conversation with my Roomie today with regard to this Robert A. Heinlein (PBUH) concept. There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Someone always pays.
Perhaps if capitalists who ran businesses were painted as helping their employees by providing jobs and benefits (or not), instead of evil rich robber barons praying on the poor, this concept would be more widely accepted.
I recognize in today’s United States, some folks have little choice on where to work or for what wage. And relocating may not be a viable option. There are company towns. This is why unions developed.
But now, unions cost the workers (much as the robber barons did) and cost their employees jobs, or even careers (witness Hostess), while the companies go bankrupt and the union bosses get richer.
And card check deprives the union member of a secret vote, allowing undue influence and/or coercion to influence union votes.
It’s funny how the Internet weaves it’s news so some folks blame management for a business’ demise (by not knuckling-under to union demands), other folks blame the unions (the rank-and-file. translation: class warfare). And some folks blame the union bosses.
And now it’s reported a Mexican baking concern may take over this confection bakery business. Think of it – no HFCS, no GMO, no unions, cheap labor, jobs for the poor. And free market/free trade in action. And El Twinkies return!
Of course, fewer jobs here…
Sometimes, wisdom comes out of left field. Coming from my sport’s orphan history, I don’t usually use such metaphors.
But in this case I’ll make an exception.
Please go see Engineering Johnson before you cast your vote!
THAT IS ALL!
PS – This is my 1000th post! – Guffaw
Free North Carolina reports a Mississippi news item that’s received scant coverage, to wit:
There was another blip on the radar the other day about a significant number (216?) of phony ballots in that very tight race in Minnesota. Remember,
that embarrassment, now Senator Al Franken?
But were constantly told there has been and is no voter fraud (unless only one party does it!) and that we should pay no attention to that man (or woman) behind the curtain in the voting booth…
And that requiring voter ID disenfranchises voters who don’t have one. Like those unqualified to vote – illegal aliens, felons, and those who already cast a ballot. Or who are dead.
That’s it! ZOMBIE registration! :-P
When the election first appeared on my blog radar, I told you folks I would not be openly supporting any particular candidate. I’m still not. Openly.
We DO proceed here with the Australian Secret Ballot. Unlike the Aussies, however, we are not required to vote.
Tired of all the pre-election fall-de-rall? And especially of the offerings from the two major parties?
Mental Floss has listed for us 15 candidates running for President of the United States. The blog offering is written by Miss Cellania. Openly liberal, she does spin and flavor her text a bit. But, it’s still interesting which folks actually throw their respective hats in the ring. Tin foil or otherwise.
Three of the fifteen:
4. Rocky Anderson
Rocky Anderson represents the Justice Party in the 2012 presidential election. A long-time Salt Lake City lawyer, he served two terms as mayor, from 2000 to 2008. Anderson renounced the Democratic Party in August of last year, and accepted the nomination of the new Justice Party in January of 2012. The party’s platform includes the end of war, universal health care, and international cooperation on dealing with climate change. Anderson will be on the ballot in 15 states. Photograph by Flickr user Jen Wakefield-Dillier.
10. Andre Barnett
Andre Barnett is the candidate for the Reform Party USA. Barnett served with the U.S. Army and was wounded in Sarajevo in 2000. Told he would not be able to engage in heavy physical activities again, he rehabilitated himself and became a fitness model. He then founded an information technology business. Barnett’s platform includes pulling the military out of foreign countries to concentrate on homeland security, implementing tariffs on imports, lowering the corporate tax rate, and regulating the cost of health care. Three states will have Barnett on the ballot.
13. Jerry White
Jerry White is the candidate for the Socialist Equality Party, a party that follows the philosophy of Leon Trotsky. His platform involves issues of jobs, workers’ rights, and quality of life issues like universal healthcare, guaranteed minimum income, an end to foreclosures, and universal pensions. He will be on the ballot in two states.
Now you must return to the link at the top to see your other choices. Hopefully you will find someone to you liking, other than Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
Quelle surprise. One of my favorite Southern homilies (PS – I’m not from the South) is:
“What do you expect from a pig but a grunt!”
From the article:
The Obama administration is making it easier for bureaucrats to take away guns without offering the accused any realistic due process. In a final rule published last week, the Justice Department granted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) authority to “seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled-substance abuses.” That means government can grab firearms and other property from someone who has never been convicted or even charged with any crime.
It’s a dangerous extension of the civil-forfeiture doctrine, a surreal legal fiction in which the seized property — not a person — is put on trial. This allows prosecutors to dispense with pesky constitutional rights, which conveniently don’t apply to inanimate objects. In this looking-glass world, the owner is effectively guilty until proved innocent and has the burden of proving otherwise. Anyone falsely accused will never see his property again unless he succeeds in an expensive uphill legal battle.
Such seizures are common in drug cases, which sometimes can ensnare people who have done nothing wrong. James Lieto found out about civil forfeiture the hard way when the FBI seized $392,000 from his business because the money was being carried by an armored-car firm he had hired that had fallen under a federal investigation. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Mr. Lieto was never accused of any crime, yet he spent thousands in legal fees to get his money back.
Go and read the whole article, if you can stomach it. The Washington Times
Then remember BOTH MAJOR PARTIES running in November support and have historically supported more government asset seizure and gun control.
Kinda makes pulling that lever more complicated, doesn’t it? Or sickening.
h/t The Washington Times, The Gun Wire (TM)
Non-Original Rants tells the tale of the day. Not about the Iowa Caulk-us, but about Critical Thinking.
I worked with a perfectly nice lady @ TMCCC who, whenever an election would proffer itself, would announce loudly that she was only voting for (fill in space with a party with which you disapprove) because everyone knew that THAT OTHER party was a bunch of thieving crooks and murderers, and anyone who would vote for THEM was an idiot!
Issues? Personal character? Research? Didn’t matter. Her mind was made up, regardless (although, she probably would have said irregardless).
Now, I’ll admit, if someone prima facie says they are (for example) a big government, income-redistributionist, that probably means I won’t have to look far to determine I’ll be voting against them. But, I will look.
Hell, I’d vote for Bernie Sanders if he said he was pro-Second Amendment and less government, if, of course his voting record proved his spoken position. But, I’d research it, before voting.
Go read what Midwest Chick has to say further about this. And choose to think critically, not just jerk knees.
h/t Midwest Chick