I have a general dislike, nay even a natural born anger towards politicians. Now most would feel this is from a little persons disease, but for me it is not. The dislike I have is from the big persons disease. A person who may be a moral, kind, and generous person gets elected and looses the ability to think rationally. Hillary is one of them.
I implied, and now I state openly that Hillary was a hypocrite to say she opposed the Real ID act, and yet voted for it. This wishy washy nature hurt Kerry in the last election and will hurt her. The belief that politicians speak out of both sides of their mouth is not a rumor only, but the truth.
One comment was left by Jami from the "In Defense of Hillary" blog. She asked this.
So you're saying she should have voted against funding for the troops? Don't you support the troops?Should she have voted against the funding of our troops? Yes. Because that monster of a bill had little to do with the troops and more to do with cash. "If there is a problem then throw cash at it until it goes away" is not what the government is supposed to do.
Here is a story that I think you should read before we go forward. It is long but worth it.
(This argument by Davy Crockett against the principle of wealth distribution first was published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett", compiled by Edward S. Ellis and published in 1884. It appeared in the Richmond Times Dispatch)
"Several years ago, I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could.
"In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them.
"The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
"The next summer, when it began to be a time to think about the election, I concluded that I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up."
A stranger's curt greeting
"When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and . . . '
"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'
"This was a sockdolager. . . I begged him to tell me what was the matter."
"'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have no capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it.
"'In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you.
"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest . . . but an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth having, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.' "
"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."
Crockett's vote on bill recalled
"'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true? "
"Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly no one will complain that a great and rich country should not give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and am sure, if you had been there you would have done just as I did."
"'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is, the more he pays in proportion to his means.
"'What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.
"'If you had the right to give him anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20 million as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines nor stipulates the amount, you are at-liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper.' "
Wide door to robbing people
"'You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people, on the other. No, Colonel. Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.
"'If twice as many houses had been burned in this district as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about 240 members of Congress.
"'If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably. And the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give.
"'The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.
"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.
Critic could persuade others
"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
"'Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard.
"'If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.' "
"He laughingly replied: 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.' "
"'If I don't,' said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or 10 days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbeque and I will pay for it.' "
"'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbeque, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbeque. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.' "
"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say goodbye. I must know your name."
"'My name is Bunce.' "
"Not Horatio Bunce?"
""Well, Mr. Bunce. I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.
"It is one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts."
His fame extended far and wide
"He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbeque, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.
"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
"'Fellow citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before.
"'I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.' "
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"'And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.' "
You see the bill was not just to fund the troops, it was to hand even more to the Iraqi government, form the real ID act, and numerous other add ons that politicians enjoy and live for. So should she have voted for this hand out? NO!. It is not the place for the government to hand out our money like this. It is not the governments money, it is ours.
The second question she asked was "Don't you support the troops?"
Yes. Yes I do, but there is an underlying principal involved here. If you are against something then you need to fight against it with action, not words. So the best way to reply to your question is with a persons name. Jeannette Rankin. Most people have no idea who she is yet she is likely the strongest person to ever have cast a vote in Washingtons history. Feminists the world over should bow down to her strength. For you see during what could be called the darkest days of this country she stood her ground and voted no, but what a no.
On November 7, 1916 she was elected to the House of Representatives as a Republican from Montana. She took her seat in the House on March 4, 1917. Only a year into her term, the House voted on the resolution to enter World War I. Rankin cast one of 56 votes against the resolution, earning her immediate vilification from the press. Suffrage groups cancelled her speaking engagements. Despite her vote against entering the war, she devoted herself to selling Liberty Bonds and voted for the military draft.She had her beliefs, she stood up to them and she voted NO. Many would, and did say, she did not support our troops and our country and they would be wrong. She was escorted from building for her own protection that day. A shameful act that a person with integrity has to be protected. But she held firm and when she thought something was wrong she acted that day. She voted No and damn anyone who spoke against her.
In 1918 she ran an unsuccessful campaign for the Republican nomination to represent Montana in the United States Senate. She ran an independent candidacy, which also failed. For the next two decades, she worked as a lobbyist in Washington, DC for various causes.
In 1940, Rankin was again elected to Congress, this time on an anti-war platform. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, she once again voted against entering a World War, the only member of Congress to do so.
Does pacifism work at the international level? Not sure, but Jeannette's beliefs said to vote no and she did. Hillary said she believed the bill was bad, but she voted yes. That says so much about her and other politicians who are now speeking out against the real ID act.
That is strength, and that is why I openly call Hillary for her remarks on her vote. If she thought it was so wrong then she should have stood up, looked the press and America right in the eye, and said NO. But she didn't. She folded like a house of cards and went complaining to the press. She has no shame.
Hillary Clinton is no Jeannette Rankin and never will be if she keeps this up.
Small extra note.
Hillary described this as a must pass bill that she was against, but voted for. Since the vote was 100-0 would it still have passed at 99-1 ? Yes, but then she would have looked bad at the next election. She did not vote for this bill because it was a "must pass", she voted for this bill because it is a "must get re-elected" bill in her case. So her cries are falling on deaf ears here.