In our last edition of Hillary Watch 2016, we explored the latest 2016 poll, (Hillary wins naturally) Chris Matthews’ newest obsession, (getting Hillary elected) and a video blast from the past about Hillary NOT baking cookies.
But today’s breaking Hillary news is so beyond predictable, I was even wondering whether it deserves its own Hillary Watch 2016 column.
However, since this series is supposed to be a record of how Hillary will claw her way to the 2016 Democrat presidential nomination. Oops, sorry! What I meant was that all her opponents will surrender immediately after she announces and fight among themselves to be her running mate, so every Hillary Watch 2016 – even this Ho-hum edition is important for history.
Now it is time for the “big” news under the real heading, “The Big Story” at AP:
Hillary Clinton Announces Support For Gay Marriage
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her support for gay marriage Monday, putting her in line with other potential Democratic presidential candidates on a social issue that is rapidly gaining public approval.
Clinton made the announcement in an online video released Monday morning by the gay rights advocacy group Human Rights Campaign. She says in the six-minute video that gays and lesbians are “full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship.”
“That includes marriage,” she says, adding that she backs gay marriage both “personally and as a matter of policy and law.”
Clinton’s announcement is certain to further fuel the already rampant speculation that she is considering another run for president in 2016. Other possible Democratic contenders — including Vice President Joe Biden, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley — all back the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Here is the video announcement if you need further proof of Hillary’s controversial stance.
Gee, I wish she had come out against gay marriage, and then we could have had some real fireworks!
Perhaps her announcement might have sounded something like this:
”My Midwest Methodist church upbringing makes it impossible for me to support gay marriage. Since, as a young woman, I was lucky to marry the man of my dreams who has been faithful to me in my own special way, I can not imagine marriage being anything but a blessed union between a man and a woman, just like in that popular series The Bible that Bill and I have been enjoying together.”
Plus, since A G Janet Reno was Chelsea's real daddy, Hillary is already ahead of this particular curve.........
Plus, since A G Janet Reno was Chelsea's real daddy, Hillary is already ahead of this particular curve.........
She’s running.
She’ll win.
She’s running.
She’ll win.
I don't know about you guys, but, if I needed advice on marriage, Mrs. Hillary Clinton wouldn't be on my short list.
I don't know about you guys, but, if I needed advice on marriage, Mrs. Hillary Clinton wouldn't be on my short list.
"Human rights" are special privileges granted by the government to favored constituencies, and, like all privileges granted by the government, alterable or revocable at the government's will.
When "human rights activists" demand "human rights" from despotic regimes, they are not seeking liberty. They are not seeking rights against such governments, which they know will be a futility. They are seeking special privileges---a little less torture, a little less repression of the press. ... (show more)
"Human rights" are special privileges granted by the government to favored constituencies, and, like all privileges granted by the government, alterable or revocable at the government's will.
When "human rights activists" demand "human rights" from despotic regimes, they are not seeking liberty. They are not seeking rights against such governments, which they know will be a futility. They are seeking special privileges---a little less torture, a little less repression of the press. They are seeking indulgences from the government, as if their rights came from the government. The UN, the home of the world's despotic regimes, never ever talks about "liberty." It never talks about the rule of law; it never talks about civil rights. It prates endlessly about "human rights."
The Constitution presumes NO "human rights"; it presumes LIBERTY, which it expects a free people to defend by exercising its civil rights against the government. Hillary Clinton is quite correct to say that "gay rights" are "human rights"---that is the very reason that they should be OPPOSED, not favored. They are special privileges which an interested minority is demanding the government cede to them.
The gay-rights movement began using "human rights" in its pronouncements back in the 1970s, because there was not basis in American CIVIL rights law for their demands. Sexual preference---the term which the movement, then more honest, used at that time---was not a basis on which "rights" could be demanded. It still isn't, but almost forty years of intentionally creating linguistic confusion through conflation have left their mark, and many people erroneously assume that "human rights" and civil rights are the same thing.
There are no civil rights denied to the homosexually-inclined; they are not denied the right to vote, to travel, to associate with whom they will. They are not denied protections against unreasonable search and seizure or self-incrimination; they are not denied the right to serve on juries; they are not denied the right to own property. They are denied none of the civil rights which are the birthright of all Americans. But the gay-rights movement is not looking for civil rights; it is seeking the special privileges of human rights. It wants special dispensations from the government. (show less)