Hillary’s Divisive, Reckless Rhetoric on Voting Rights

National Review ^ | June 7, 2015 | John Fund

[Cincinatus' Wife]

The late Saul Alinsky, the father of the community-organizing model that inspired both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, would be delighted. The man who championed moral relativism in tearing down the establishment (“In war, the end justifies almost any means”) is calling the tune of the Democratic party on voting issues.

Last March, President Obama rhapsodized about what would happen under mandatory voting: “If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country.” Obama once served as the lawyer for the disgraced and defunct voter-registration group ACORN, and he is still toeing its line.

Then last week, Hillary Clinton demanded that the federal government override state laws and automatically register everyone to vote and then offer at least 20 days of early voting, turning Election Day into an Election Month. Both would dramatically complicate the job of already-overburdened voter registrars and make it harder to catch potential fraud. In the case of New York v. United States (1992) and other cases, the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that it is beyond Congress’s power to do what Hillary wants.

But her policy proposals were merely a way station on the path to Clinton’s goal: lambasting Republicans as inheritors of the Southern Democratic tradition of Jim Crow and firing up a liberal base that isn’t yet enamored of her. She accused Republicans of “fear-mongering about a phantom epidemic of voter fraud” and accused Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, and Scott Walker by name of taking part in “a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people, and young people.”

Ohio governor John Kasich wasn’t amused. While Marc Elias, the Clinton campaign’s general counsel, is participating in legal challenges to Ohio’s voter laws, his candidate doesn’t seem to follow the news in Ohio much. In discussing Clinton’s call for an early-voting period of 20 days, Kasich told Fox News:

If she wants to sue somebody, let her sue New York, In Ohio, we’ve got, like, 27 days of early voting, 27 days, a couple hundred hours. And In New York . . . the only voting that occurs is on Election Day. . . . And she’s going to sue my state? . . . Why don’t you take care of business at home before you run around the country using these demagogic statements that we don’t want people to vote.

Hillary won’t do that because her “business” is to turn out the maximum possible number of votes in 2016. The election-integrity measures being pushed in many states — such as showing photo ID at the polls — are enormously popular. A recent Rasmussen poll showed that 76 percent of likely voters support photo ID, including 58 percent of Democrats. Such measures guard against the disfranchisement of voters that occurs when someone cancels out their vote through fraud, but Clinton dismisses the very notion of voter fraud, despite numerous recent examples and the virtual impossibility of detecting fraud once it has been committed using a secret ballot. “I went to the polls to vote last year, and was told someone had already voted in my name,” Dennis Miller, an economist from Akron, Ohio, told me this week. “The officials said there was no way to detect who had done it.”

It’s not surprising that Mrs. Clinton denies the existence of fraud — she has a long history of encouraging measures that undermine election integrity. In 1993, President Bill Clinton made the passage of the Motor Voter Law his first legislative priority. Even though he had just been elected in a race that saw the largest increase in turnout in a generation, Clinton declared there was a “crisis” in voting and rammed the bill through Congress. It severely limited states from pruning “dead wood” (people who had died, moved, or been convicted of crimes) from their rolls. States had to permit mail-in voter registration, which made phantom voter registrations much easier. States could no longer ask anyone for identification or proof of citizenship when registering. Welfare, DMV, and other government offices were ordered to promote voter registration. Joe Madison, the former head of voter registration for the NAACP and now a radio talk-show host, said such measures would have a clear political effect. “When people are standing in line to get cheese and butter or unemployment compensation, you don’t have to tell them how to vote. They know how to vote.”

The Motor Voter Law was the brainchild of two radical academic allies of Saul Alinsky, Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who believed that poor people had every moral right to game the electoral and political system to deliver radical change. Bill Clinton, with Hillary at his side, acknowledged the role Cloward and Piven had played in passing the legislation when he signed it into law in their presence in 1993. In 1996, Cloward defended Motor Voter, telling CBS News, “It’s better to have a little bit of fraud than to leave people off the rolls who belong there.”

Since then, the Alinsky Left has actively promoted measures to expand the voting rolls by any means possible while they’ve opposed any and all ballot-security measures. “Liberal foundations, public-interest law firms, and advocacy groups have created a permanent network of experts and organizations devoted to an arcane but critical task — monopolizing the narrative on election laws and procedures,” Christian Adams told Breitbart News. A former Justice Department attorney, Adams is now in the private sector and has brought lawsuits to force several counties to clean up their rolls — including counties with more registered voters than they have adults. “Cloaking their actions in the rhetoric of civil rights and the right to vote, they seek to affect the outcome of the election.”

Indeed, a tenet of the Alinsky Left is that there are no limits to how far activists will go to expand the voting rolls. Bill de Blasio, the radical New York Mayor who served as manager for Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, has privately supported allowing aliens who have legal residency papers to vote in New York City elections. The City Council is likely to pass such a law and send it to his desk in time for his 2017 reelection battle.

None of Hillary Clinton’s proposals are likely to become law before she faces the voters in 2016. But it won’t be for lack of trying or because she’s too ethical to use Alinsky-style tactics to demagogue the issue.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

David Horowitz, June 2000

"..........They see Clinton clearly as a flawed and often repellent human being. They see him as a lecher, a liar and a man who would destroy an innocent person in order to advance his own career. .... Yet through all the sordidness and lying, the personal ruthlessness and disorder, the idealistic missionaries faithfully follow and serve the leader.

They do it not because they are themselves corrupted through material rewards. The prospect of fame is not even what drives them. Think only of Harold Ickes, personally betrayed and brutally cast aside by Clinton, who nonetheless refused to turn on him, even after the betrayal. Instead, Ickes kept his own counsel and protected Clinton, biding his time and waiting for Hillary. Then joined her staff to manage her Senate campaign.

The idealistic missionaries in this true tale bite their tongues and betray their principles, rather than betray him. They do so because in Bill Clinton they see a necessary vehicle of their noble ambition and uplifting dreams. He, too, cares about social justice, about poor people and blacks (or so he makes them believe). They will serve him and lie for him and destroy for him, because he is the vessel of their hope.

Because Bill Clinton "cares," he is the vital connection to the power they need to accomplish the redemption. Because the keys to the state are within Clinton's grasp, he becomes in their eyes the only prospect for advancing the progressive cause. Therefore, they will sacrifice anything and everything—principle, friends, country—to make him succeed.

But Bill Clinton is not like those who worship him, corrupting himself and others for a higher cause. Unlike them, he betrays principles because he has none. He will even betray his country, but without the slightest need to betray it for something else—for an idea, a party, or a cause.* He is a narcissist who sacrifices principle for power because his vision is so filled with himself that he cannot tell the difference.

But the idealists who serve him—the Stephanopoulos's, the Ickes's, the feminists, the progressives and Hillary Clinton—can tell the difference. Their cynicism flows from the very perception they have of right and wrong. They do it for higher ends. They do it for the progressive faith. They do it because they see themselves as having the power to redeem the world from evil. It is that terrifyingly exalted ambition that fuels their spiritual arrogance and justifies their sordid and, if necessary, criminal means.

And that is why they hate conservatives. They hate you because you are killers of their dream. Because you are defenders of a Constitution that thwarts their cause. They hate you because your "reactionary" commitment to individual rights, to a single standard and to a neutral and limited state obstructs their progressive designs. They hate you because you are believers in property and its rights as the cornerstones of prosperity and human freedom; because you do not see the market economy as a mere instrument for acquiring personal wealth and political war chests, to be overcome in the end by bureaucratic schemes.

Conservatives who think progressives are misinformed idealists will forever be blind-sided by the malice of the left—by the cynicism of those who pride themselves on principle, by the viciousness of those who champion sensitivity, by the intolerance of those who call themselves liberal, and by the ruthless disregard for the well-being of the downtrodden by those who preen themselves as social saints."....

[Texas Eagle]

At least she’s consistent.

[Noumenon]

+1.

You know that there is only one way this can end.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

It's always the revolution.

National Review, Sept 22, 2014: Why Hillary’s Alinsky Letters Matter

"Alana Goodman’s revelation at the Washington Free Beacon of previously unknown correspondence between Hillary Clinton and Saul Alinsky shows that Clinton has not been honest about her far-left past. The lost Alinsky letters also remind us of what we ought to know but have forgotten: Hillary is not “Clintonian.” While Bill and Hillary have worked, schemed, and governed as a couple for decades, Hillary has always been to the left of Bill. As president, she would govern more like Obama than like her husband

The difference between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren is that Warren flaunts her ideology, thrilling the base by making the leftist case as few other Democrats dare. Ever the Alinskyite, Hillary prefers to achieve leftist ends incrementally, in pragmatic guise. It’s a conflict of means rather than ends, the same conflict that leads many leftists to doubt Obama’s ideological credentials, when in fact the president is as much a man of the left as ever.

Alinsky’s original quarrel with the young radicals of the 1960s, which Hillary alludes to in her letter, was over the New Left’s tendency to make noise rather than get things done. Working effectively, Alinsky believed, requires ideological stealth, gradualism, and pragmatic cover. In his day, Alinsky took hits from more openly leftist ideologues for his incrementalist caution, as Obama and Hillary do now. Yet he was no more a centrist than his two most famous acolytes are today.

Glenn Reynolds links to a tweet in response to the Goodman story by Politico’s Glenn Thrush: “Remind me again why liking Saul Alinsky is unacceptable.” Alright Glenn, and the rest of a Democratic-leaning media that will do everything in its power to play this revelation down, I’ll remind you.

Alinsky was a democratic socialist. He worked closely for years with Chicago’s Communist party and did everything in his power to advance its program. Most of his innovations were patterned on Communist-party organizing tactics. Alinsky was smart enough never to join the party, however. From the start, he understood the dangers of ideological openness. He was a pragmatist, but a pragmatist of the far left...

Hillary Clinton understood all of this. As she noted at the conclusion of her undergraduate thesis on Alinsky, “If the ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, the result would be social revolution.” In her letter to Alinsky, Hillary says, “I have just had my one-thousandth conversation” about Reveille for Radicals (Alinsky’s first book). Nowadays, people focus on Alinsky’s more famous follow-up, Rules for Radicals. But Reveille, which Hillary knew inside-out, is the more ideologically revelatory work.".....

...With Obamacare and much else besides, the legal and bureaucratic groundwork has already been laid for a leftist transformation of America. It is naïve to believe that Hillary would roll any of this back. On the contrary, as president she would finish the job Obama started. A Hillary presidency is destined to be Obama’s third term. Two Alinskyite presidents in a row? Hillary said it best: “The result would be a social revolution.”

[FlingWingFlyer]

Willie’s BFF needs to go to jail for pimping voter fraud.

[alloysteel]

Not voting is rendering an opinion, too. It means that “none of the above” is satisfactory.

Or maybe the presumptively legal and eligible voter just does not care enough to trouble to vote.

But voting, or attempting to vote, either multiple times, or without having the franchise to vote, clearly constitutes fraud. Even more so is the ballot clerk failing to certify and deliver an accurate tally.

[Texas Eagle]

Hillary said it best: “The result would be a social revolution.”

Nothing would be enjoyable than for today's youngsters to turn the tables on Hitlery and her 1960s retreads in government and academia and revolt against her government imposed conformity.

[lentulusgracchus]

Horowitz pegs the liberals, the Progs, and the Klintonx because he was once one of their tribe, he saw how they worked and where they were headed 40 years ago.

Unlike them, however, he actually had a principle or two.

[PGalt]

10. “Divide and govern”...

Rules for Radicals? No, “Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One” - Philip Freneau

Hillaryous Rotten Criminal ALERT!

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/freneau/republic2monarchy.htm

America’s Greatest Crime Families BUMP!

[RoosterRedux]

We ain't seen nuttin' yet.

As she gets more and more desperate, she's gonna go WAY over the top.

[Gaffer]

Attacking, condemning and getting back to the basics of being Democrat - division - is her only option.

She has to do this to deflect attention away from the plethora of her personal, professional and political faults. If she let this fester and build even more steam, there aren’t enough curtains in this country to wall off vast sections of the venues she cannot fill.

IMO, she’s an old, fat, wrinkled husk of a hag filled to the brim with hate and venom topped only by her conniving greed and lust for power and control. She lost all her allure in 2008 when she let the upstart Obama take her Presidency away from her solely because of ‘black’. That little trick won’t work this time, especially for ‘woman’, one that is a poor representation thereof, to boot.

[exDemMom]

Both would dramatically complicate the job of already-overburdened voter registrars and make it harder to catch potential fraud.

Well, isn't that the purpose of these schemes to increase the number of registered voters and the length of time to vote?

Having 100% voter registration in an area where there is often 20% turnout is a liberal fascist's wet dream.

The only ways to preserve the integrity of the election process are to stop all schemes to increase the registration rolls, stop increasing the time to vote, institute some sort of verification system for absentee voting, and require ID at the polling place.

It isn't just that liberal fascists like the Clintons support voter fraud--it's that they are so open and brazen about enabling it.

[G Larry]

Label her RACIST for suggesting minorities have difficulty obtaining Photo ID.

[philman_36]

She should rail against voter "registration" if she was truly interested in voter turnout.
Isn't the need to "register" to vote, in Democrat eyes, just as problematic as voter turnout and ID?

And if voter ID isn't needed everybody should be able to walk into a voting location with a Guy Fawkes mask on and demand to be allowed to vote.

And that isn't likely to happen!

[RipSawyer]

In that pictue she really looks like a barrel of fun sort of person, doesn’t she?

[zzwhale]

EVERYONE VOTES IN THE COMMUNIST COUNTRIES.....
DEMOCRATS VOTE TWICE IN THE USSA ALIVE OR DEAD ONES...
AND WHAT ABOUT SOROS BUSSING “FOLKS” FROM STATE TO STATE TO VOTE....
you cant take a book out of the libraary without ID
but corrupt hypocrite libtards want people to vote with no ID ... hence the blatant statement by sloooo joe biden.... ILLEGALS ARE THE FUTURE OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY... he did not realize he was recorded but hence the push you see from clintoon..
WHEN ARE THE REPUBS GOING TO DEMAND AN INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR FOR BENGHAZI, E-MAILGATE AND CLINTOON FOUNDATION GATE.. the crook new AG already said she will do NOTHING inthe face of obvious criminal acts... COME ON REPUBS GROW SOME BALLS....

[Paine in the Neck]

[Cincinatus' Wife]

[chit*chat]

Just like hitlery to give us rights we already have from the founders!

[rdb3]

We ain't seen nuttin' yet.

As she gets more and more desperate, she's gonna go WAY over the top.

I've thought like that, too.

If she loses in '16, her sense of entitlement will make her go absolutely insane. And I don't think any of us have seen anything like it.

Jesus Christ: You can’t impeach Him and He ain’t gonna resign.