Dead Voting in Virginia?

For John, BLUF:  In a really close election it could make a difference.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

He fought in World War II.  He died in 2014.  And he just registered to vote in Va.

This was yesterday, in The Wash Post, by Reporter Laura Vozzella.

Here is the spin from Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds.

NONSENSE:  VOTER FRAUD IS A MYTH.  He fought in World War II.  He died in 2014.  And he just registered to vote in Va.  “The FBI and local police are investigating how at least 19 dead Virginians were recently re-registered to vote in this critical swing state.  One case came to light after relatives of a deceased man received a note congratulating him for registering, Rockingham County Commonwealth’s Attorney Marsha Garst said Thursday.”

I blame Putin.

So, on the one hand we tell people each vote counts.  A single vote, or maybe a small cluster of votes—for example, you parents, your siblings and your children—could make a difference, if they voted.  But, we aren't worried about 19 dead Virginians.

Let us give the Virginia House Minority Leader the next to last word:

House Minority Leader David J. Toscano (D-Charlottesville) said the case was not proof of voter fraud because no one had actually managed to cast a vote in the names of the dead.

That is an interesting view on what we know.  Apparently attempts at voter fraud are OK, as long as they are not turned into actual fraud.  Fraud that we notice.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Treat People With Respect

For John, BLUF:  The Democrat Party treatment of Jennifer Flowers, and other "bimbo eruptions" is just flat out wrong.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Flowers in the sewer — the misogyny of the disgust for Bill Clinton's lover

University of Wisconsin, Madison, Law Professor Ann Althouse is in high dudgeon♠ over how people♥ are talking about Ms Jennifer Flowers.

On "Meet the Press" today, Chuck Todd was interviewing Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta:

CHUCK TODD:  Is your goal of this debate is to get under his skin?  Is that why you gave Mark Cuban a ticket right in the front row?

JOHN PEDESTAL:  No, I think Mark Cuban is one of the business leaders who was never involved in partisan politics who's endorsed Hillary because he thinks she'll do better for the—for the economy.  I think that, you know, you saw his reaction,♣ which is to do his favorite sport, which is to dive in the sewer and go for a swim.

Basically we have Mr John Podesta saying, on live TV, that Ms Jennifer Flowers is a slut.  And that Mr Trump is diving into a sewer to find her.

While Professor Althouse goes after Mr Trump for saying he is going to "put" Ms Flowers somewhere, she saves most of her wrath for those who who treat Ms Flowers with contempt.  Shouldn't we see the sex in which Ms Flowers engages as a two person activity.  Is it still the 1800s, when we talk about the "fallen woman" and ignore the other partner in the game.  This is shameful on the part of Mrs Clinton's campaign.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Irate.
♥  Democrats.
♦  Here is his bio at Wikipedia.
♣  That would be Mr Trump's reaction.

Is Literature Dead?

For John, BLUF:  Will it still be OK to read the literature of other people?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Will the Left Survive the Millennials?

From the pages of The Old Gray Lady we have an OpEd by Novelist Lionel Shriver.

We have Law Professor Ann Althouse examine some of the issues, including the ACLU defense of Neo-Nazis marching in Skokie, Illinois.

But, to the issue, Ms Shriver gave a talk in Australia, to the Brisbane Writers Festival.  In the audience was Ms Yassim Abdel-Magied, born in Sudan and now an engineer and memoirist in Australia.  Ms Abdel-Magied walked out, because she was offended by what she saw as cultural appropriation.  The ever cranky Guardian picked up the story and the rest is history.

So, apparently, we can only write about our own small circle of life, within our race, religion, gender and socio-economic milieu.  We can only write about those things that represent our own cultural background.  The rest is cultural appropriation.  To put it in terms Ms Abdel-Magiedmight understand, if she writes fiction she can talk about engineers, but she would be out of her element writing about chemists.

This, if adopted, would mean the end of literature.

Ms Shriver notes that…

Now the role of oppressor has passed to the left.  In Australia, where I spoke, Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to do or say anything likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate,” providing alarming latitude in the restriction of free speech.  It is Australia’s conservatives arguing for the amendment of this law.

And here is Ms Shriver's sad conclusion.

Protecting freedom of speech involves protecting the voices of people with whom you may violently disagree.  In my youth, liberals would defend the right of neo-Nazis to march down Main Street.  I cannot imagine anyone on the left making that case today.

This reminds me of Turkish President Erdogen and his statement that Democracy is like a street car.  When you get to your destination you get off.

Hat tip to the Althouse blog.

Regards  —  Cliff

Candidates Switching Roles?

For John, BLUF:  Well, we still have to endure the debates.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

When Reality Turned Inside Out

From the pen of Cartoonist Scott Adams (Dilbert, back on 15 September, we have a comment on Mr Trump vs Mrs Clinton.  Here is how it starts:

Do you remember way—-way—-way—back in July, when the public thought Trump was the candidate they couldn’t trust with the nuclear arsenal?  That was before we realized he could moderate his personality on command, as he is doing now.  We’re about to enter our fifth consecutive week of Trump doing more outreach than outrage.

It turns out that Trump’s base personality is “winning.”  Everything else he does is designed to get that result. He needed to be loud and outrageous in the primaries, so he was.  He needs to be presidential in this phase of the election cycle, so he is.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has revealed herself to be frail, medicated, and probably duplicitous about her health. We also hear reports that she’s a drinker with a bad temper.  Suddenly, Clinton looks like the unstable personality in this race. Who do you want controlling the nuclear arsenal now?

You probably thought Trump was the bigot in this contest, until Clinton called half of Trump’s supporters a “basket of deplorables.”  That’s the point at which observers started to see a pattern. Trump has been consistently supportive of American citizens of all types – with the exception of the press and his political opponents.  The main targets of Trump’s rhetoric are the nations that compete against us.  In stark contrast, Clinton turned her hate on American citizens.  That’s the real kind of hate.  Trump is more about keeping America safe and competing effectively in the world. That is literally the job of president.

Remember what Former Sec State Colin Powell said of Mrs Clinton.  She is not transformational.

Why is that important?  Because those folks out in the hinterlands want change.  That is why they voted for Tea Party folks in 2012 and 2014.  That is why they voted for Mr Trump in 2016.  And, if they don't see change they will go for someone in 2020 who will bring change.

Mr Trump, on the other hand, can transform himself and, many voters believe, can transform the nation.  If you like the status quo, go with Hillary.  If not, then The Donald is your candidate. Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Posted September 15th, 2016 @ 10:49am in #Trump Clinton

A "What If" Question

For John, BLUF:  Given how this Presidential Election has gone so far, this is not that far fetched a scenario.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

EXERCISE EXERCISE EXERCISE

City Life Host George Anthes let me be a guest speaker at his classes on Wednesday.  As part of my time there I posed the question of how Parties deal with a Presidential Candidate who has to withdraw between the convention and the vote.♠  I used the Democratic Party, since it is a clean process, without options.  The Democratic National Committee votes on a replacement and it is who wins a majority of the votes.♥  As a caveat, this is not to suggest that Mrs Clinton has more than a mild case of pneumonia.  It is just the easier case.

The class (and I) came up with four replacement candidates, the current VEEP Choice, Governor Tim Kaine; Senator Bernie Sanders; Vice President Joe Biden; and early Presidential Candidate, Governor Martin O'Malley, of Maryland.

Here is the breakout of class voting:

	Section 1	Section 2
Tim Kaine	0	0
Bernie Sanders	17	22
Joe Biden	2	2
Martin O'Malley	0	0

Which reflected fairly closely yesterday's Rasmussen Poll, "Which Democrat Should Replace Hillary?"

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 48% of Likely Democratic Voters believe Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s primary rival, should be their party’s nominee if health issues forced her out of the race.  Twenty-two percent (22%) say Vice President Joe Biden should be the nominee, while only 14% opt for Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, the current Democratic vice presidential candidate.  Nine percent (9%) of Democrats think it should be someone else.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Fortunately, we have only one recent example, the withdrawal of Senator Thomas Eagleton as Vice President in the 1972 Race, 44 years ago.
♥  The Republican National Committee can go that route or it can reconvene the Nominating Convention.

The Civil Service and Government Performance

For John, BLUF:  Is the Civil Service a "Fourth" Branch of Government.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

If you want checks and balances, vote Trump

This OpEd is by Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds and it appeared in 8 September edition of USA Today.

The focus of this OpEd is the US Civil Service and the role it plays in making Government work.  With the bonus that it helps him decide who to vote for on 8 November.

Here is how Professor Reynolds ends his OpEd:

So if the choice in 2016 is between one bad candidate and another (and it is) the question is, which one will do the least harm.  And, judging by the civil service’s behavior, that’s got to be Trump.  If Trump tries to target his enemies with the IRS, you can bet that he’ll get a lot of pushback — and the press, instead of explaining it away, will make a huge stink.  If Trump engages in influence-peddling, or abuses secrecy laws, you can bet that, even if Trump’s appointees sit atop the DOJ or FBI, the civil service will ensure that things don’t get swept under the rug.  And if Trump wants to go to war, he’ll get far more scrutiny than Hillary will get — or, in cases like her disastrous Libya invasion, has gotten.

So the message is clear.  If you want good government, vote for Trump — he’s the only one who will make this whole checks-and-balances thing work.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Get Up, Get Out, Vote

For John, BLUF:  If you vote and leave a blank it does send a signal.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

THURSDAY IS PRIMARY DAY

Yes, I hear a lot about how Primaries are a waste of money, or of Taxpayer money.

But, it is what it is.

We know on the Democratic Party side there is a race in the 18th Middlesex.

All Republicans and Unenrolled Voters who pull a Republican Ballot in Middlesex County can write in Angelo La Civita for Sheriff (in the blank space provided).  He needs 1,000 Write-In votes to qualify for the 8 November General Election ballot.

You need to write the name AND address:

Angelo La Civita
13 LAKEVIEW AVE APT 6
READING MA 01867-3236

Please write clearly and plainly. You may have to bring your own ball-point pen too!

(If you already have a "sticker" you may use that.)

And why a Thursday Primary?

To meet the Federal Rules for absentee ballots for Service Members overseas (eg, Afghanistan, Korea) the Primary had to be this week.  The three day Labor Day holiday ruled out Tuesday, because of the need to set up polling places.  Why make local Government employees work on Labor Day if it isn't necessary?  Thus Thursday.

Regards  —  Cliff

Secretary of State and Classified Information

For John, BLUF:  Ignorance is no excuse?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

14 Excerpts From the FBI's Report on Hillary Clinton's Email

This is a report on the FBI Friday Data Dump on the interview of Mrs Clinton♠ by the FBI a while back.  The Writer is Mr Kevin Drumsep and the vehicle is Mother Jones.

I got to the article by clicking through from a 5 September article by local Professor Dan Kennedy, who wrote for WGBH, Five Reasons Why The Media Are Piling On Clinton And Giving Trump A Pass".

Which appears, in turn, to be a follow-on to Professor Paul Krugman's OpEd in The Old Gray Lady, which I blogged about here.

But, back to the Mother Jones article, Mr Drumsep includes this point:

Page 20:  When asked of her knowledge regarding TOP SECRET, SECRET, and CONFIDENTIAL classification levels of USG information, Clinton responded that she did not pay attention to the "level" of classification and took all classified information seriously.

For some reason there are people guffawing at this, but I don't know why.  The plainest reading is not that Hillary had no idea what various classification levels meant, but that she treated all classified information seriously no matter what level it was at.

The only problem with this answer, and this explanation, is that as part of her job, she was an OCA, which I discussed here.  An OCA?  An Original Classification Authority.

Say you work in some basement office in Foggy Bottom and you develop a new way to transmit information in an encrypted manner over a ground wave half way around the world.  What classification would you give this system?  You wouldn't.  The OCA needs to tell you, since it is new.  No derivative classification.  It is new.  Now it might be one of Mrs Clinton's minions who actually gives you the classification (TOP SECRET, Special Access Program L'il Abner)(I made that up out of whole cloth).  But, the minion does this under the authority of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  Shouldn't Mrs Clinton have a clue?

Here is what I wrote before:

Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009, "Classified National Security Information", lays out the rules for classification of information, protection of the information and its declassification.

Based upon past understanding [and EO 13526, Sec 1.3 (a) (2)], the Secretary of State has original classification authority.  So, if the United States is in negotiations with Lower Slabbovia over certain landing rights for aircraft engaged in supporting military operations in Afghanistan or Iraq, the Secretary of Stzte could classify the fact of and contents of the negotiations as TOP SECRET, perhaps because the Government of Lower Slobbovia wanted it that way.  In a way she is her own boss.

Hat tip to Ms Lynne Lupien.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I was taken to task on LTC's City Life for using tern term Ms Clinton.  The person wanted me to use Secretary of State Clinton, which seems an over long form of address.  Thus, while I will eschew use of Ms, I will settle for The Old Gray Lady's Mrs Clinton.  If it is good enough for their Lordships at the it should be good enough for the rest of us.

Not Being Partisan Enough

For John, BLUF:  This is a case of biting the hand that feeds you.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Hillary Clinton Gets Gored

This is from Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, at The New York Times.

Here is his point:

The bad dynamics of media Clinton syndrome:  when search for scandal comes up empty, they keep digging because there must be a pony in there

So Dr Krugman takes the Old Gray Lady to task for not sufficiently supporting Mrs Clinton.  Missing is any discussion of the fact that she was an OCA and can't remember anything about it.  Sure, her minions did all the work, but shouldn't she have had a clue?  But, the thing is, all the reliable sources say she is going to win anyway.  Right? Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Retreat Under Fire

For John, BLUF:  Free speech is a muscle and if we don't exercise it it will atrophy.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

WOULD ANYONE PUBLISH THE SATANIC VERSES TODAY?

This discussion is by Mr Patrick West of Spiked, a British on-line publication with Libertarian leanings.

The question being posed is very important for a free society.  For me the first indication of this slow implosion was when the Yale University Press refused to include the Danish Cartoon sketches when it published its book on that sad episode (The Cartoons That Shook the World).

Here are the first two paragraphs of the article:

In 1989, the Western world got its first real taste of Islamic extremism when the Indian-born British writer Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death.  It was the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran who issued the fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie on account of his book, The Satanic Verses.  Most people were horrified, not merely because of the effrontery of the Ayatollah, but because it seemed so anachronistic.  Here we were, still in the midst of the Cold War, and up had popped some religious throwback exhorting murder on account of what someone had written.  The concept of death for blasphemy, we assumed, belonged to different times.

Three decades on, furious rage at the behest of the religiously righteous and the easily offended is all too commonplace.  Were The Satanic Verses published today, we wouldn’t be surprised at the outrage it would generate. Not in the slightest.  Rather, we’d be astonished that anyone would dare write it at all, or that any publisher would release it.  In our post-Charlie Hebdo times, every publishing house and editorial office is haunted by the spectre of aggrieved fanatics bursting through the doors with machine guns.

The world seems to be full of people who would shun you, or censor you, or put you in jail, or execute you, for holding an opinion they disagree with.  We see this in the Middle East, in Russia and even here in the United States.  The point is, you have a right to be stupid or ignorant or just plain contrarian.  Those who would wreck havoc over your comments, ideas or thoughts are the ones who need to be in jail.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Saving the Skins

For John, BLUF:  Maybe the election of Mr Donald Trump will reduce somewhat this kind of Virtue Signaling regarding team names.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Redskins need to ignore PC culture and keep their name

To be honest, this Naomi Schaefer Riley article in yesterday's edition of The New York Post is an advert for her new book, The New Trail of Tears: How Washington is Destroying American Indians, but that doesn't mean she is wrong.

Here is the beginning of her article:

“It’s kind of a funny thing, though. A redskin playing for the Redskins.” That was Carolina Panthers cornerback Josh Norman talking to ESPN about the $75 million deal he just signed to join the Washington Redskins this fall.  Norman, whose parents are both part Native American, doesn’t seem too concerned about the mascot of his new team.

“Redskins is not offensive to me,” he told ESPN’s Kevin Van Valkenburg.

A year ago, Mike Wise, senior writer at ESPN, declared that a name change for the Redskins was inevitable.  First it was journalists like those at Slate who refused to even publish the name.  Then there were petitions to Twitter, Google and Facebook to remove the accounts belonging to the Redskins.  There were protests in front of the stadium.  California enacted legislation barring schools from using the Redskins name for their mascots.  Madison, Wis., banned children from wearing any kind of clothing with a Native-themed mascot.  And, of course, the Obama administration decided to strip the team of its trademark protections.

As Wise wrote:  “This is no longer merely a civil rights/social justice issue affecting our most marginalized ethnicity.  Many people now have made the obvious leap that this issue impacts people of color.”

Well, maybe.  The Washington Post conducted a poll that found more than 9 in 10 Native Americans weren’t offended by the name at all.

It seems that a deeper examination of the whole "Red Skins" imbroglio shows that (1) it is those who are not Native Americans who are the ones offended and (2) that it is possible that those none Native Americans, are, through actions on the part of the Federal Government, making things worse for Native Americans, not better.

Read Ms Riley's book.

By the way, this was posted by Ms Sarah Hoyt.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Rationing in UK

For John, BLUF:  Relax, it is the UK.  Won't happen here for years.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Obese patients and smokers banned from routine surgery in 'most severe ever' rationing in the NHS

Reporter Henry Bodkin of The Telegraph gives us the bad news.  Rationing comes to socialized medicine. As the nations increasingly turn into nanny states this will occur more and more.

Here is the lede plus one:

Obese people will be routinely refused operations across the NHS, health service bosses have warned, after one authority said it would limit procedures on an unprecedented scale.

Hospital leaders in North Yorkshire said that patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or above – as well as smokers – will be barred from most surgery for up to a year amid increasingly desperate measures to plug a funding black hole.  The restrictions will apply to standard hip and knee operations.

It was all supposed to be a step forward, but it can't be sustained.  I wonder what the real economic numbers are, under all the publicity.

On another side of this, I don't this this relates to Brexit.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Non-Standard Expressions

For John, BLUF:  If these are all new to you, you need to travel more, bless your little heart.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The 16 Funniest Southern Expressions (and How to Use Them)

I was perusing Drudge when I came across an article of interest and found the above item.

The person who put this together for posting at The Daily Mail was Mr Justin Andress.

Actually, to me they all seemed pretty normal terms, except for Number 11, about one's back teeth floating, but I can't say that I have never heard it.

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

Russia in Denial

TRIGGER WARNING:  In which I discuss that the Russians have not always been nice to her neighbors.
For John, BLUF:  Denial of history or suppression of it just leads to future mistakes.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Russia’s Supreme Court rules that the USSR did not invade Poland in 1939

From Reporter Halya Coyness and the web magazine Real Clear World.

Just some quick facts:

• 23 August 1939, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact paved the way for Germany's invasion of Poland.
• 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland.
• 16 September 1939, the Soviet Union (Russia) concluded a cease fire agreement with Japan.
• 17 September 1939, the Soviet Union (Russia) invaded Poland.
• 30 November 1939 the Soviet Union (Russia) invaded Finland in what is known as the Winter War.
• 14 June 1940 the Soviet Union (Russia) overran the Baltic States.
• "Bandera" was Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera (Assassinated by the KGB in Munich, Germany, in 1959).

Here is how the article starts out:

Russia's Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of Perm blogger Vladimir Luzgin for reposting a text which states that both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland in 1939.  The Supreme Court's ruling came on September 1, 2016, the 77th anniversary of Hitler's invasion of Poland, 17 days before the anniversary of the Soviet invasion from the east.

Henry Reznik, the well-known lawyer who was representing Luzgin, commented that the Supreme Court has discredited itself through this ruling and promised to appeal further.   He added that an application to the European Court of Human Rights was simply demanded.

As reported here, 37-year-old Vladimir Luzgin was convicted in July this year by the Perm District Court and fined 200 thousand roubles.  The charge was under Article 354.1 of Russia's criminal code ('rehabilitation of Nazism') and concerned Luzgin's repost of a text on his VKontakte social network page entitled '15 facts about Bandera supporters, or what the Kremlin is silent about'.

It may be no accident that the 'offending text' should be Ukrainian, and fairly nationalist, however it was specifically over the following paragraph in the repost that the criminal proceedings against Luzgin were initiated:   "The communists and Germany jointly invaded Poland, sparking off the Second World War.  That is, communism and Nazism closely collaborated, yet for some reason they blame Bandera who was in a German concentration camp for declaring Ukrainian independence".

Russia's Supreme Court has now agreed that this paragraph constitutes "the public denial of the Nuremberg Trials and circulation of false information about the activities of the USSR during the years of the Second World War".

A person I know made this set of comments:

This is a major step backwards for Russia....  It was during Gorbachev's period that the Soviet Union finally acknowledged that there were so-called secret protocols were part of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Treaty (aka Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) which divided Eastern Europe between Stalin and Hitler.  Of course, the Soviets did invade Poland 16 days after the Germans did and then absorbed the eastern part of Poland into the Soviet Union.  This invasion, occupation, and annexation led to the deaths of tens of thousand Polish officers and civil servants by the Soviet secret police, the NKVD.

Disgusting.

UPDATE:  Corrected mis-attribution.

Regards  —  Cliff

Former SecState Clinton Can't Remember

For John, BLUF:  Yes she was in charge.  At what point should she have resigned?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Clinton told FBI she didn't understand classified intel

From the unfriendly Washington Examiner and Reporter Sarah Westwood, a quick update on the FBI Friday afternoon data dump.♠

Here is how the article starts off:

Hillary Clinton suggested to FBI investigators in a July interview that she had little understanding of classified information when she served as secretary of state.

Clinton told FBI agents she could not remember ever receiving any training for how to preserve federal records or treat classified material.

"Clinton could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined," the FBI wrote in its notes.

This indicates either Ms Clinton is prevaricating or that she is having problem remembering things.

Neither is good.

At some other blog post this was pointed out:

Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009, "Classified National Security Information", lays out the rules for classification of information, protection of the information and its declassification.

Based upon past understanding [and EO 13526, Sec 1.3 (a) (2)], the Secretary of State has original classification authority. So, if the United States is in negotiations with Lower Slabbovia over certain landing rights for aircraft engaged in supporting military operations in Afghanistan or Iraq, the Secretary of Stzte could classify the fact of and contents of the negotiations as TOP SECRET, perhaps because the Government of Lower Slobbovia wanted it that way. In a way she is her own boss.

So, Ms Clinton was in charging of classifying material, all material, in the Department of State. That is what "original classification authority" means.  If she said it was Top Secret, it was.  If she said it was only Confidential, then that was its classification.

She was apparently in charge, but didn't know where the clue bag was.

Hat tip to Memeorandum.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Mother Jones, or at least Mr Kevin Drum, seem to thing the "Friday Afternoon Data Dump" is just a myth, as shown here, "Friday Afternoon News Dumps: Myth or Reality?".  Don't you believe it.

Defensive Crouch

For John, BLUF:  The cover-up is always worse than the crime.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Hillary Clinton was right about the vast right-wing conspiracy.  Here’s why it exists.

From Reporter Karen Tumulty and The Wash Post.

Here is a key point made by Mr David Gergen:

“I believe that decision against disclosure was the decisive turning point.  If they had turned over the Whitewater documents to The Washington Post in December 1993, their seven-year-old land deal would have soon disappeared as an issue and the story of the next seven years would have been entirely different,” Gergen wrote in his book about his time working for four presidents, from Nixon to Clinton.

Then he adds this point, which rings true:

“She has built a protective shield around herself,” Gergen added. “Her first response is, when people come after me, I’m going to have my guard up and be suspicious of what their motives are.”

The article ends on this note:

Clinton drew the opposite lesson from those early Whitewater experiences — one that also shapes how she operates today.

Her view was that she should have thrown up more resistance.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appears to have learned nothing from the Watergate imbroglio.

I believe Ms Clinton lacks the temperament to handle the job of President.  I hope she listens to her Advisors and her Husband.

Hat tip to Memeorandum.

Regards  —  Cliff

Rules for Photo IDs

For John, BLUF:  I am thinking perhaps photo IDs need to be replaced with some other easily used technology.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Alabama ACLU sues government, claiming pro-Muslim discrimination

It is "The Volokh Conspiracy", featuring Law Prof Eugene Volokh, in The Wash Post.

The issue is, a woman went to get her driver's license and asked to be allowed to keep her hair covered for the photo, for religious reasons.  The problem for the driver's license officials was that she was not Muslim and thus they couldn't grant her an exemption.  That is when the ACLU stepped in, and rightly so.

Here is the Law Prof's opinion:

The First Amendment doesn’t generally require government to give religious exemptions from generally applicable laws (such as requirements that people have driver’s licenses that show them bareheaded) — but when the government does grant religious exemptions, it generally can’t grant the exemption to members of one religion and then deny the same exemption to members of other religions.

Agreed!

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff