Don't you just love Hillary?

[Boomhauer]

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Sep16/0,4670,ClintonCivilRights,00.html

Clinton Pushes Civil Rights Agenda

Sunday, September 16, 2007

By BRUCE SMITH, Associated Press Writer

NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C.   Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, unveiling her agenda to promote civil rights, told an NAACP banquet Saturday that the "scales of justice are seriously out of balance" for black Americans.

"We have had an attorney general who doesn't respect the rule of law or enforce the civil rights laws on the books," she told about 900 people at the annual Freedom Fund Banquet of the Charleston National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

She applauded the Friday decision by an appeals court in Louisiana tossing out the aggravated battery conviction that could have sent a black teenager to prison for 15 years in last year's beating of a white classmate in the racially tense town of Jena.

The teenager, 16 at the time of the December beating of a white youth, should not have been tried as an adult, the appeals court ruled. He is one of six black students charged in the attack and one of five originally charged as adults with attempted second-degree murder.

The charges have brought criticism that blacks are treated more harshly than whites after racial confrontations.

"There is no excuse for the way the legal system treated those young people," she said.

Earlier Saturday, the New York senator issued a release in which she said she will focus on the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, including adding to its budget, as part of an effort to "undo the damage done under President Bush."

Clinton said during her speech that too many people are invisible to the nation's leaders.

"You're invisible to the president even when you are on CNN," she said, referring to the survivors of Hurricane Katrina two years ago.

Clinton, rival Barack Obama and other presidential candidates are heavily courting the black vote as they trek through this early voting state. Nearly half the voters in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary here were black.

Clinton said her administration would seek to rebuild the Justice Department's traditional role in defending civil rights and to review charges of improper, politically motivated hiring to determine whether any laws were broken.

"We have to believe justice is blind in America," she told the audience.

The earlier campaign statement accused the Bush administration of driving the Civil Rights Division "toward an agenda driven by partisanship, cronyism and ideology" and cited media reports that state political appointees have dominated the hiring process under Bush.

Last month, Assistant Attorney General Wan J. Kim, the Justice Department's top civil rights enforcer, resigned after more than a year of criticism that his office filled its ranks with conservative loyalists instead of experienced attorneys. The Justice Department said his office had set record levels of civil rights enforcement.

Clinton's other proposals include combatting voter ID laws, letting ex-felons who have completed their sentences regain their right to vote and making Election Day a federal holiday to make voting easier. She said she would press for Washington, D.C., to get a seat in the House of Representatives.

Clinton also is proposing an expansion of federal hate crimes legislation to include crimes committed against people based on their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Well, well well, rewarding violence and expanding thought-crime legislation

And I thought the NAACP was still boycotting SC...

[Ron]

Avenger, check your PM's

The Clinton's are masters of pandering. It amazes me anyone believes anything they say.

[Boomhauer]

Thanks for the tip, Ron.

The Clinton's are masters of pandering. It amazes me anyone believes anything they say.

I don't believe a damn thing that comes from either of them. But plenty do.

[Strings]

ok... wait a sec. There ARE a couple good ideas here...

>letting ex-felons who have completed their sentences regain their right to vote<

If they've completed their sentence (including any probationary period), they should be able to regain full rights as a citizen. If we can't trust them with those rights, they shouldn't be out and free...

>making Election Day a federal holiday to make voting easier.<

Nice idea on the surface, but how many folks would simply take it as another day to sit around and drink beer?

>She said she would press for Washington, D.C., to get a seat in the House of Representatives.<

This, I have no problem with.

 Not that I'd expect her to actually make good on any of those promises, mind...

[Sergeant Bob]

making Election Day a federal holiday to make voting easier

Wow, neat idea! However, the people this would most benefit would be union members. No agenda there now is there?

She said she would press for Washington, D.C., to get a seat in the House of Representatives.

Wouldn't that require an amendment to the Constitution? Not gonna happen.

Just your typical Clinton pandering to the "people of color". I'm surprised she did say if a Republican was elected, more Black churches would burn.

Has anyone noticed, the Demo's are all still running against Bush?

[MechAg94]

I don't want an election holiday.  I don't want to do anything that makes voting any easier.  If people don't give a damn enough to get out and do it, I really don't think they will put enough thought into their decision anyway.  They already have early voting for weeks prior to the election as well as absentee voting.  Hard to get any easier than that. 

[Strings]

>Has anyone noticed, the Demo's are all still running against Bush?<

I'm begining to think they'll still be running against Bush after he's dead, tell you the truth...

[Boomhauer]

>letting ex-felons who have completed their sentences regain their right to vote<

If they've completed their sentence (including any probationary period), they should be able to regain full rights as a citizen. If we can't trust them with those rights, they shouldn't be out and free...

Well, I'm pretty sure her agenda here is not to do some reforming of the "Justice" system. I think it is more in line of getting more Democrat voters. 

>making Election Day a federal holiday to make voting easier.<

Nice idea on the surface, but how many folks would simply take it as another day to sit around and drink beer?

Voting is already quite easy. If you are too lazy to either wake up early to vote or go stand in line after work, then you shouldn't be voting.

>She said she would press for Washington, D.C., to get a seat in the House of Representatives.<

This, I have no problem with.

I do. D.C. wasn't meant for people to live in, it was meant to house the seat of the gov't without a state being able to claim that it was the capital of the nation and therefore superior over other states.

[Joe Demko]

Wow, neat idea! However, the people this would most benefit would be union members. No agenda there now is there?

How do you figure that this most benefits union members?

[Sergeant Bob]

Because most of us regular working stiffs aren't going to get the day off or get a paid holiday out of it like the UAW, etc. Most of the working people I know (other than union) do not get the banker's holidays , ie, MLK, Columbus, President's, Veterans or any other non traditional holidays off or paid.

What benefits unions, benefits Democrats.

[Manedwolf]

I've always wanted to see elections take place over several days, including a weekend day.

Long-commuters either have to use absentee ballots or often can't vote! They can't go alllllllll the way home and allllllll the way back to work on a workday just to vote, and in many districts, you have to vote where you live!

[Joe Demko]

Because most of us regular working stiffs aren't going to get the day off or get a paid holiday out of it like the UAW, etc. Most of the working people I know (other than union) do not get the banker's holidays , ie, MLK, Columbus, President's, Veterans or any other non traditional holidays off or paid.

What benefits unions, benefits Democrats.

I believe you are overthinking this.

[Waitone]

Contrarian here. 

I'm of the quaint view that voting is a duty of those living in a sorta free society.  I don't want it made easier, more exciting, or popular.  I want only those who give a damn to vote.  If a citizen is too lazy to get out of bed to vote, so be it.  Don't need their input anyhow.  Votes are not snap decision.  They are planned long in advance and dates are made available to everyone.  You can make arrangements to make sure you don't have to work while fulfilling a dental appointment.  Vacation rarely interferes with work.  Why do we insist on accommodating the lowest common denominator?  Voting is a time for sorta free upstanding citizens to congregate around the polling place to fulfill a duty incumbent on its citizens.  I am sick of pandering to the disinterested and lazy.

<I feel much better now>

[The Rabbi]

ok... wait a sec. There ARE a couple good ideas here...

>letting ex-felons who have completed their sentences regain their right to vote<

If they've completed their sentence (including any probationary period), they should be able to regain full rights as a citizen. If we can't trust them with those rights, they shouldn't be out and free...

No, that's a crappy idea, along with letting ex-felons have 2nd A rights.  There is a reason that society decided that people who commit serious crimes don't deserve to have  say in the society they abused.

[Monkeyleg]

"making Election Day a federal holiday to make voting easier."

Oh, much easier for the Democrats. The largest union in the country is the Association of Federal, State, County and Municipal Emplyoyees (AFSCME).

A paid holiday, and all they have to do is spend 15 minutes voting? Say hello to a permanent Democrat monopoly on government.

[HankB]

"We have had an attorney general who doesn't respect the rule of law or enforce the civil rights laws on the books,"

A LOT of irony in this statement, considering who its coming from.   

She applauded the Friday decision by an appeals court in Louisiana tossing out the aggravated battery conviction that could have sent a black teenager to prison for 15 years in last year's beating of a white classmate

I wonder if she would've applauded if it were a white skinhead who was part of a group that beat up a black classmate? 

And as for making it easy to vote . . . in Texas, we have "early voting" where many places - grocery stores, Home Depots, etc., have voting stations for around 2 weeks before election day. If someone is too darned lazy to take an extra 5 or 10 minutes to cast a ballot when they're shopping . . . I don't WANT them to have a say in who gets elected!

[Sergeant Bob]

Because most of us regular working stiffs aren't going to get the day off or get a paid holiday out of it like the UAW, etc. Most of the working people I know (other than union) do not get the banker's holidays , ie, MLK, Columbus, President's, Veterans or any other non traditional holidays off or paid.

What benefits unions, benefits Democrats.

I believe you are overthinking this.

Thats your right.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Contrarian here. 

I'm of the quaint view that voting is a duty of those living in a sorta free society.  I don't want it made easier, more exciting, or popular.  I want only those who give a damn to vote.  If a citizen is too lazy to get out of bed to vote, so be it.  Don't need their input anyhow.  Votes are not snap decision.  They are planned long in advance and dates are made available to everyone.  You can make arrangements to make sure you don't have to work while fulfilling a dental appointment.  Vacation rarely interferes with work.  Why do we insist on accommodating the lowest common denominator?  Voting is a time for sorta free upstanding citizens to congregate around the polling place to fulfill a duty incumbent on its citizens.  I am sick of pandering to the disinterested and lazy.

<I feel much better now>

I agree.  Make voting harder, not easier.  Discourage the disinterested.

[Manedwolf]

Speaking of Hillary, wow, even CNN is slamming her on her new socialized healthcare speech!

Tax the rich to pay for the poor, even one saying "What, everyone has to have health insurance? Or what, do they get arrested?"

Exccccelent.

Please let her keep self-destructing with an undisguised socialist agenda laid bare!

[charby]

Speaking of Hillary, wow, even CNN is slamming her on her new socialized healthcare speech!

Tax the rich to pay for the poor, even one saying "What, everyone has to have health insurance? Or what, do they get arrested?"

Exccccelent.

Please let her keep self-destructing with an undisguised socialist agenda laid bare!

I think she has amougst the people, just the MSM just hasn't gotten it yet.

[Sergeant Bob]

It doesn't matter much what she does. The Hillary supporters are still going to be Hillary supporters. We can just hope she knocks a few people off the fence.

[280plus]

Please refer to my avatar for the correct answer... 

[Paddy]

Who's the darling of the Dems?  Is it Hillary or Barak Hussein?  We know the darling of the Repubs is Giuliani  barf barf.   If Hill and Rudy are all they got, I'm not voting for the first time since 1968.

[Euclidean]

No, that's a crappy idea, along with letting ex-felons have 2nd A rights.  There is a reason that society decided that people who commit serious crimes don't deserve to have  say in the society they abused.

Take a trip with me Rabbi.  I too used to think that exact same thing.

One thing hasn't changed.  I really don't have any sympathy for people who deliberately do bad things to other people.

Now I'm taking for granted that by "serious crimes" you probably mean felonies, at least.  And I admit that people who commit serious crimes need to be severely punished.  However, the problem with the idea that ex felons shouldn't own firearms is threefold.

#1.  It's a meaningless restriction.

#2.  It's a band-aid on a broken arm mentality.

#3.  It's a tool of the gun grabbers, as it's ridiculously easy to become a felon already.

Point #1:  It's a meaningless restriction.

You can be holding a loaded firearm and still be unarmed.  It's the software, not the hardware.

While it's true that better tools do make for easier completion of intended tasks, what makes dangerous people dangerous is the fact they're unhinged.  There is something wrong with them, something very, very wrong with them.  They don't care what happens to people like you and me.  What's more, they don't care about rules, ideas, or policies.  They are convicted felons, after all.

I've never spoken to anyone who actually believes that firearm restriction schemes or whatever you want to call them work or could work if the person who wanted the firearm was determined enough.  If they want a gun so bad, they'll get one.  It's really that simple.  On top of that, even if we get your control scheme to work, it's not like lack of a firearm renders one harmless.  Should we restrict felons from owning blackpowder revolvers, pepper spray, tasers, baseball bats, knives, and their fists while we're at it?

These people who hurt others are sick and alien.  They don't care about laws, restrictions, or anything.

Now you may argue that's wrong because some felons do follow the rules and try to get their lives back.  Well if they can follow the rule to not own a gun, they can follow the rule to not shoot anybody.  As far as I'm concerned the latter trumps the former.  I don't care how many guns anyone has as long as they don't go shooting people for no reason.  In fact, it's absolutely none of my business whether or not they own one or any firearms.

On top of that, I've been assuming the whole time that we're talking about violent felons.  What about a cyberterrorist or an embezzler?  Are they not allowed near computers or accounting ledgers any more?  That would make more sense then banning them from owning firearms.  Sure they're bad guys and subject to punishments, but they never laid a hand on anybody.  Let the punishment fit the crime.

Point #2.  It's a band-aid on a broken arm mentality.

The real problem is, we're letting violent and dangerous freaks like rapists out of prisons every day.  Now I agree parole may be reasonable for many offenders, possibly even a rare handful of violent offenders, but the hard fact of the matter is recidivism happens and there's no rehabilitation for someone like say, Jeffrey Dahmer.  We are creating the problem by releasing violent felons who we damn well know have hurt people, and will continue to do so.

Tossing them out and then crying "You're free to kill again but it's okay you can't own a Marlin .30-30!" is worse than half assed, it's utterly irresponsible.  I personally want it written in concrete that you can't restrict someone who is not in jail or mentally incompetent from owning a firearm to force the justice system to reform itself, because then they won't have any more excuses.  We need to solve the problem of violent felons being freed to kill and hurt again, not the problem of how to write the best sounding meaningless restrictions on them once they are freed.

And it's not that I think the justice system are the bad guys here.  I don't think anyone is doing this on purpose.  I think the problem is that the system is being crushed under the bureaucratic weight of a government gone mad, which brings me to point #3.

#3.  It's a tool of the gun grabbers, as it's ridiculously easy to become a felon already.

Seriously, I bet a goodly portion of this forum has had a controlled substance in their possession.  My late grandfather kept an illegally shortened shotgun hidden away for decades.  A man who asserts his 5A rights and doesn't file a 1040 is in big trouble.  If these people were caught and convicted, they'd be felons.

Why is it illegal for me to purchase a kilo of a controlled substance and then destroy it, never consuming it or distributing it to anyone without the chance of being made into a felon?  Why is a 17.5" barrel on your 870 not okay without a magic paper?  Why can't I assert my Constitutional right to not incriminate myself?

What is considered to be a serious crime now includes darn near everything a man can do.  There are many victim less crimes, which shouldn't even be crimes at all, which count as felonies.  2324 offenses in Texas alone are felonies.  If felonies included only crimes that are actually harmful to society, I don't think I'd even care about the 2A rights of convicts.

I hate to overuse Rand quotes but it's appropriate.

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws...you create a nation of law-breakers and then you cash in on guilt.

We need to toss out the drug offenders and guys who tried to pick up prostitutes and other people whose only crime is violating the arbitrary code of morals the government tries to force on us so we can spend the money on keeping the truly dangerous people in.  Maybe that's not a complete solution but it's a good start.

The sentiment to wish to protect people from violent offenders is a noble one and I commend The Rabbi for it, but the current means by which the state tries to accomplish this goal are not optimal.