Follow the Bouncing Hillary Ball

Hillary Rodham is still having trouble with the issue of driver’s licenses for ILLEGALS. It has been over a week since she answered the question about it several different ways and twenty-four hours after her waffle she came out in support of giving ILLEGALS licenses. It would appear, despite her claims of being clear on the issues, that she has not been clear on this one. In her latest nuance, Rodham says that issuing licenses to ILLEGALS should depend on the state. She stated that in a state like New York there is a huge security problem and a lot of ILLEGALS but that in other states it might not be a big deal. I guess the idea that it is wrong to reward ILLEGAL activity at all has never crossed her mind.

I know I have indicated that Rodham is a poll driven candidate but it would appear as if she is on the other side of public opinion on this one. About 77% of Americans surveyed [Washington Times] do not favor allowing ILLEGALS to get a driver’s license and yet, depending on when you talk to her, Rodham is for it, against it, for it and against it, or believes it is up to individual states [Breitbart]. Perhaps she is in favor of it because people often register to vote at the same time they get a license (motor voter) and if they do not have to prove they are legal when getting the license they do not have to prove they are eligible to vote. Obviously, it helps Democratic candidates to have a huge number of ILLEGAL voters on the books and Rodham is probably pandering to that large contingency. A huge Hispanic vote cannot hurt her in the election.

Obtaining a driver’s license is a privilege, not a right (though ILLEGALS have few rights under our Constitution) and bestowing a privilege on people who do not deserve it is wrong and counter productive. If the government of any state rewards bad behavior then the result is more bad behavior. By allowing ILLEGALS to get licenses we are telling them that what they did is perfectly OK and that they can continue to break the law. There is a lot of public outrage when ILLEGALS break the law and commit some terrible crime but what should we expect? We do not punish them for their initial bad behavior so they continue to exhibit bad behavior.

This is not to say that there are not millions of hard working, good people in this country who happen to be here ILLEGALLY but the fact is, even the good ones broke the law to get here. Hillary Rodham is fond of blaming this on Bush and saying that this country does not have an immigration policy. She is wrong on both counts. First of all, Ted Kennedy gave us both of the huge amnesties of the past and he promised after the last one that it would never be necessary again because the Congress would fix the problems. Here we are 23 years later and we still have the mess but we have millions more ILLEGALS. Kennedy and the Congress dropped the ball long before George Bush became president. Additionally, Bush tried to give a huge amnesty package that was defeated by the Republicans (and some Democrats) in Congress after the public outcry.

As for the idea that this country does not have an immigration policy, this is plain hogwash. We have plenty of laws concerning entering this country and we have rules that are supposed to be followed. The problem is not that we do not have a policy, the problem is that this country fails to enforce it. Instead of securing the border and stopping the flow of ILLEGALS, our government jails the border patrol agents who are trying to enforce the law while people continue to walk in unabated.

The United States Congress needs to get its head out of its rear end and start enforcing the laws we have and we need to start deporting ILLEGALS we catch. We need to jail those who break the law and we need to hold judges and elected officials responsible for failures in the system. Unfortunately, this issue will not receive the proper attention until an ILLEGAL rapes or murders a politician’s or judge’s wife or daughter or until one of their family members (or the entire family) is wiped out by an ILLEGAL driving a vehicle with or without the license Hillary wants them to have.

As for Rodham, she has bounced this ball back and forth for more than a week and is still unclear as to her position. I imagine it will change a few more times before the primary and she will take a more firm stance against it, should she make it to the general election. Hillary fails to understand that ILLEGAL behavior is wrong and that people should not be rewarded for it.

But, that should not surprise us. She and hubby Bill have been involved in a lot of illegal activity. Their people have also been involved in illegal activity for the benefit of the Clintons. Those people are rewarded for what they do, no matter how wrong it is.

Sandy Berger, anyone [The Hillary Project].

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

15 Responses to “Follow the Bouncing Hillary Ball”

  1. […] [Discuss this article with the Big Dog…] Share Article New York, Hispanic, Hillary Rodham, Ted Kennedy, ILLEGALS, Democrats, Congress    Sphere: Related Content Trackback URL […]

  2. Adam says:

    It’s time to give this one up. It’s dumb, and it’s intellectually dishonest. As I said on my own site earlier today, Clinton’s position is and has been for some time that comprehensive immigration reform at a federal level has failed, and that for state by state reform to work there must be a federal system in place. On the issue of New York and Governor Spitzer, Clinton believes that granting drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants is the best of a series of bad choices that states with massive populations of illegal immigrants like New York may have to make as long as there is no federal reform.

    In the debate she slipped up when she attempted to clarify her statements and back peddled poorly while other Democrats attacked her as changing her views. She did not change her views. The quotes from from transcripts and interviews before during and after the debate prove it without a doubt. Her views have not changed, no matter what or how many times you say they have.

    I think you should check out the quotes but I suspect you don’t care. The truth on this subject doesn’t fit your hate Hillary theme you got going here.

  3. David M says:

    The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 11/07/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.

  4. Big Dog says:

    I know it is difficult for some people to see the writing on the wall. First of all, there is no failed immigration policy in America except the policy that ignores our laws. That is a plain, simple truth. It is a fact that if you support giving a license to an ILLEGAL you support breaking the law. That should not surprise anyone because the Clintons break the law.

    It is amazing that Hillary and Bill are never wrong. Kathleen Willey is a liar, Gennifer Flowers was called a liar (though Bill admitted under oath that he had a sexual affair with her, so who is the liar), and all the others who have something to say about her majesty are haters, or wrong, or both.

    She gave two different answers. She could not think on her feet. If she truly did not understand then she could say she is not informed enough to answer.

    How about addressing the lies about the release of documents? That is a LIE! Bill is trying to slow down the process. Hillary claims that she has experience because of her time in the WH but refuses to release her documents that could possibly substantiate such a claim.

    There are some people who will always be blinded. They could have a film of Bill and Hill cutting a person to pieces and burning the remains and their supporters would deny it.

    She is evil and anyone who supports her is supporting Satan.

  5. Adam says:

    Again, I challenge you to find any recent example of an answer about immigration Clinton gave that doesn’t basically fit this two part stance:

    1. Attempts at federal immigration reform have failed, but it is vitally necessary that federal reforms be made.

    2. Reforms at the state level, while not the best choices and sometimes even somewhat counterproductive, may be be necessary until the correct changes are made on the federal level.

    I’m not here today to debate the validity of those two points, but just to point out that they amount to Hillary Clinton’s stance on the subject, and that nothing she has said in recent weeks goes outside of those points and amounts to any flip flop.

  6. King Groundhog says:

    Personally, would favor one-way tickets for all third-world immigrants to either Upper Volta or Spain.

    If the country collapses, so be it (it won’t).

  7. Adam says:

    By third-world immigrants I assume you mean illegals. You don’t want to toss everybody out, right?

  8. Big Dog says:

    I am sure that Hillary has kept this stance recently though her voting record on immigration sometimes reflects differently than what she says. She said she was opposed to illegals and that people should not hire them and then voted to give them social security and other benefits.

    I am glad we are not going to debate the issue because they are both bad positions. The only reform we need is to follow the law, but I digress.

    She was unable to clearly communicate a position that she has a steady position on? Wonder why that is?

    Also, I did not only mention immigration. Your assertion was that she has been clear in her positions and I will admit that she has been clear but that the positions have changed depending upon who she is talking to.

    I know it is hard to think that she is a liar but the people who have told the same stories in the past cannot all be liars.

    Why would anyone want a position that is counter productive?

  9. Adam says:

    The one bad time out of a dozen recent explanations of Clinton’s stance on immigration is not an argument against her ability to clearly explain her stance. It’s just not. She has a clear stance and she has communicated that well to those who listen even the slightest.

    Despite my evidence to the contrary, and without a single shred of your own evidence to back up your statement, you just keep repeating the lie that she is changing stances on immigration and flip-flopping based on who she is talking to. Why are you doing that? You just keep claiming she is a liar yet you present no example where has lied. This puzzles me.

    Maybe hatred of the Clinton’s has gotten in the way of the facts once again…

  10. Big Dog says:

    Well, I did not specifically limit this too immigration but we can start there. In a 2004 interview on a radio program Hillary said:

    “I am adamantly against illegal immigrants.” That alone was a show stopper but she went on: “People have got to stop employing illegal immigrants. [in NY] you see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work & construction work & domestic work.”

    All of her votes on immigration help illegals. She is in favor of the amnesty bill, in favor of allowing them to get social security, in favor of a guest worker program (that I might not have a problem with if done correctly) which will probably be used to let people come and then stay when it expires.

    She preaches toughness but wants to help them. BTW, this is not Bush’s fault like she claims. Congress failed to pass the damned thing (which I am glad about) but if they had, he would have signed it. He is more in favor of helping ILLEGALS than she is so her continual blame of Bush is deceptive.

    Report Card

    Now, since immigration is not the only issue, what say you about her flipping on Iraq depending on who she is speaking to? What about the lie about the records that people want released.

    As for an earlier assertion about her college papers, they showed a very socialist student. Her letters to friends also showed mental health issues and indecisiveness. People can say they are probably not important but she is the one who claims her time there qualifies her for the job so why not let people see the papers?

    Perhaps she was not as involved as she would have us believe. Perhaps there are embarrassing items about her blow ups and her hatred of the military. Perhaps there is some communication between her and Bill that shows she lied about something. Those might be reasons to hide them.

    She is Satan and if she is elected the country deserves what it gets. If she does, I will have fun pointing out all the bad things though i doubt it will help since you castigate Bush for doing some of the exact same things Bubba did.

  11. Big Dog says:

    BTW, ILLEGAL immigration was just as big a problem when Bill was prez and yet he ignored it. She places all the blame on Bush when Kennedy gave us the mess. He promised after the last amnesty that another would never be necessary. Now 20 million ILLEGALS later he and the rest (including Bush) want to give another amnesty.

  12. Adam says:

    I’ll accept that her voting records might disagree with her statements. I’d argue that is common of many politicians. I’ll take a further look into them and see what I turn up. But what do her 2004 statements have to do with the fact that you are repeating this lie that she has flip flopped several times in the last few days alone when she clearly hasn’t?

    I would argue that Clinton has been much less clear about the Iraq issue than she has been on immigration, but that it still is no flip-flop. She has said many times before that she does not regret her vote to authorize force based on the intelligence she had been given, but that the blame rests on the administration for it’s failure to not at least least lead an open and honest debate about the war and the circumstances that lead to it that might have prevented mistakes like the lack any existence of WMD or the lack of a post-invasion strategy. Maybe you can point out some specific evidence of her flipping back and forth depending on who she is speaking to.

    Remind me again about her lie about the documents?

  13. Big Dog says:

    Interestingly, Hillary gets a pass for basing her vote on intelligence and yet Bush is to blame for basing his decisions on the VERY SAME intelligence. I would bet that if the Clintons would release the documents we would see that Hillary was much more aware than she let on and that the Clinton administration had the very same thoughts about Iraq/WMD.

    Remember, there are a number of quotes from Democrats, including Hillary, saying that he had WMD and that he had to go and those statements were made during the Clinton administration. That is an important fact that is often overlooked.

    She said she would withdraw the troops immediately and then said they would need to stay in other roles (those are two different things). This claim that Bush rushed to war is insane. While it happened early in his tenure, the war had been ongoing for 14 years with violation after violation of UN resolution. Bush sought UN help and they did not act. Clinton took military action in Bosnia without UN approval (a preemptive strike) and no one said a word. He lobbed missiles into Iraq and no one said a word but Bush enforces UN resolution and goes into Iraq, based on intelligence that the WORLD said was correct and he is the bad guy.

    As for the debate, Clinton took two different positions on the New York license question. If I am lying about that so are millions of people, many of whom are her supporters.

    I am not saying she is not talented but she is evil and this country does not deserve to be punished by having her at the helm. Once again though, she will have a hard time and I will be able to point out how many things she does wrong and how many of them the left blasted Bush for.

  14. Adam says:

    “Interestingly, Hillary gets a pass for basing her vote on intelligence and yet Bush is to blame for basing his decisions on the VERY SAME intelligence.”

    I don’t give anybody a pass, but it is Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld who made the case for war, not Hillary Clinton. It is her position that the lack of input and honest debate about the war lead to the Bush administration overlooking many of the clear indicators (such as Curveball) that things maybe weren’t what they seemed on the WMD front.

    “I would bet that if the Clintons would release the documents we would see that Hillary was much more aware than she let on and that the Clinton administration had the very same thoughts about Iraq/WMD.”

    Hillary already admitted and makes no move to hide what you say in her speech about her vote to authorize force against Iraq. She has never tried to cover up the fact that she and others in the world and in the previous administration mistrusted Saddam and believed he had the weapons and weapons programs.

    “She said she would withdraw the troops immediately and then said they would need to stay in other roles (those are two different things).”

    This is also no flip-flop. She has always called for phased redeployment, not just withdraw. She said recently that she cannot promise anything, but that it is her intention to start phased redeployment as soon as she took office, which is the same thing she has always said about how she would approach Iraq if she were president.

    “As for the debate, Clinton took two different positions on the New York license question.”

    She did not. Look at the quotes. She never once before after or during the debate said she supported DL for illegals. What she failed to do was couple her two views about the need for federal reform before state changes. She left one point out and when she spoke up to make that second point clear, she got hammered from all sides and it hasn’t stopped since.

  15. King Groundhog says:

    2 days ago

    By third-world immigrants I assume you mean illegals. You don’t want to toss everybody out, right?
    No, not right. Put it this way–Pat Buchanan’s one year moratorium on immigration is 1000 years too few.