More on the election ...

I failed to mention another critical reason Romney blew out the competition today and it has ramifications for the general election. In a word, illegals. There are 4 or 5 what are called "issue shows" in radio throughout Southern California into Nevada all the way to Texas. Want to guess what these hour long, very passionate programs have as their singular theme? From uninsured illegal motorists to states of emergency along the border (from Dem governors as well to show how big a problem illegal "immigration" poses), to hospital ER's being overrun, this is the single biggest political issue, if you take them one by one, that unites voters in the Southwest. It polls around 90% with natural born citizens and 70%, YES 70, with legal immigrants (for obvious reasons, they waited in line). Well for all of the hosts on each of these programs and for all those whose primary issue is this, there is one clear champion in the Congress - Tom Tancredo (R) Colorado. He is the toughest, most articulate elected official on this issue out of all national figures (although he's barely that), and he was running for the GOP nomination up to two weeks ago when he formally dropped out (although his name was still on the ballot/caucus tally here). Well, guess who he endorsed upon dropping out? Mitt Romney. And he went on all these programs to let people know. I think that, in this region of the country, was more decisive then the organized Mormon vote - you don't beat your closest rival by 40% on Mormonism alone, let me assure you. I think this issue & Tancredo's endorsement now puts Romney in play for CA, NM & TX over Guliani on super Tuesday, and if he wins those that's game set and match. And at that point Rudy better start sending texts to Mitt with the letters V & P enclosed.

On the (registered Republican) Christian vote, The Las Vegas Review Journal exit polling suggests that 94% of Mormons voted for Romney, 25% of evangelicals, and low & behold 29% of Catholics ... he, he. And that's with a Catholic (Rudy) on the ballot to choose from. In fact, given Huckabee, Thompson & McKennedy ... err, I mean McCAIN, split the rest, Romney won the largest percentage of Catholics ... again, he, he.

One other odd occurrence ... apparently the Democrat delegates are split according to geographical districts, not population. So while Hillary won the majority of votes, Obama won slightly more districts and took 13 delegates out of NV to her 12. See if the mainstream press reports that. Primaries are about delegates, not votes. Votes are merely the vehicle, and given that truth, Obama won. It would seem Hillary had a mini 2000 election, just no hanging chads ...
FR

Hangin' with the President...

It was an odd experience ... I was starving and had long (40 minutes dealing plus the drive into work from North Rancho Drive through to Sahara West) planned to hit the EDR (employee dining room), which is separate and afar (in yards & food) from the dealer's break room, which is just off the gaming floor after a few descending steps. Suddenly, 2 minutes from my first break (I took pole on CR 404 @ 1pm at our crew's start), at 1:58 pm my friend (Manchester borne, 56 year old husband to a Russian mail order bride & father to a 3 year old Russo/Anglo beautiful girl, Jim) comes screaming into the Caesar's Palace dice pit exclaiming, "where's Ryan, Ryan where are you." To which I turned just off my right shoulder, having glanced past the gaudy carpet and incompetent floor man to say, "I'm right here." Having reveled in and indulging my good hearted friend in past discussions concerning conspiracy's involving the Brandenburg Hotel & the elite of the world, I knew that he troubled his voice on my behalf for no small matter. "Bill Clinton will be in Cleo's Cafe (our EDR) in a few minutes." I thanked my friend with a healthy "get the hell out of here" and proceeded to clear my hands and go meet our former Commander In Chief along with some eggs over easy (remember I was hungry).

I peered around the corner as I ordered my eggs & placed the 3 1$ bills atop the metal counter. "Is he here yet?", I asked the cook and undoubtedly a Culinary Worker's Union Member. Now I must pause for a moment to explain why his union association and Bill's appearance are not unrelated. Lawyer's representing the Nevada Teacher's Union, and associated with Nevada Democrat politicians endorsing Hillary, filed a law suit declaring the "at large precincts" (that I spoke of in a prior post) which allow casino strip workers to vote based on where they work (rather then where they live) "unfair" to the teachers in NV who can not caucus at their workplace (as if schools are open on Saturday, the Caucus day). And they did so within 48 hours of Obama receiving the Culinary Union endorsement (by far the most lucrative in dollars and foot soldiers Nevada has to offer - 60,000 members in state alone). And that suit lost only hours, in the Las Vegas a.m. that very day, after former President Bill Clinton had already went on early local Las Vegas air to excoriate the 9 precincts named in the law suit. Well .... this was a "mending fences" tour" as all 9 locations he visited this afternoon were those named in the suit. As you may gather, it doesn't take Monica Lewinsky to see the balls on this guy.

At any rate, I was about to leave, due back on the game at 20 after, because this "s.o.b", as I put it, "is running late", as he is infamous for. I wait an extra 5 minutes knowing the guy out next would let me make it up to him, but nada, no show. I go back, promise to make it up to Freddy, he says no sweat, and then 30 minutes later the place is buzzing because he's actually here. So, I tell the floor I have to use the restroom (my end was dead). This may seem unusual to Titus & Jambo, where we're from you go to the bathroom on your break, however, the day shift dice pit is 90% over 55 years old, and probably half over 60 so lighting up a reserve sign & closing a dead end or grabbing a dice dealing mucker to take your spot for an urgent bathroom break is a regular phenomena at Caesar's, and in all pits truth be told. So, I use the ten minutes I know I have to go down there. He was exiting with Magic Johnson (talk about two guys who represent a parable on the dangers of infidelity), and was working the lined up bunch in typical politico fashion - hand shakes & how do ya do's. He came to me, looked me right in the eye and said "hi Ryan" (he read my name tag) as he shook my hand. I replied, "Nice to meet you sir." Then, and you can't make this up, I noticed there were a gaggle (half dozen or so) young, giddy girls behind me with their cells phones out & held up as if to take a picture. So, they start handing them to me one at a time a s I snap a shot of them & slick Willy. Nothing is so surreal as telling the former leader of the free world to "skootch over just a bit, alright, smile." But I did 5 or six times, he thanked me and he moved on down the line as I scurried back to my game .... where the shift boss was waiting for me, the cunt that she is. Now she knows my penchant for politics (of which she is a screaming lib) and knows full well that I left for the restroom under false pretenses. She can't get me for that, she's not going to back up cameras for 10 different hallways and angles, so she slaps a half point on me for being late from break the time before! Now, the dice pit is never touched in this area, they handle their own (late, no shows, etc) as part of tradition given their seniority. Not in this instance. And it occurs to me - the irony in my getting a half point from trying to meet a guy I have venomously attacked for most of my adult life is nearly Shakespearean.

I have gotten a range of text messages from my various family members (GOP to a hundredth percentile - and of the "Christian Right" no less) calling me traitor, saying what the hell, asking why all I said was nice to meet you, and I even got the ominous "heathen" from Titus. To which all I can say is this: I called him exactly what Newt Gingrich did every time he walked into the Oval Office - "sir." I would have loved to give a dissertation on how he sold us out to China, how his personal behavior and lawlessness disgraced a great office and then hit him with the best of my Clinton jokes (that's verbally hit, I don't want to be added to any watch list for any relevant agency reading this). However, in the 5 seconds of greeting and subsequent 1 minute of picture taking I don't think I had the time. Not to mention, I can get fired for being rude to Joe blackjack, I think excoriating a former president at work may have had a bad financial outcome for me.

I know, I know, it sounds like I'm gushing but I'm not. It was just a neat experience. I still wouldn't vote for the guy if you had a gun to my head - Bush 41 or Dole would have been preferable (and obviously more honorable) in my mind, but as I said, I couldn't pass up the chance to meet a former president, no matter how much I dislike him (Carter as an exception of course - I wouldn't walk ten feet to meet that guy).

Well, our caucus was this morning - get a load this: having defined the difference of the two in the past here, I still had no first hand experience with caucusing itself. So, I found my designated location, googled directions and got the start time 3 days ago (it started at 9am). And today at 11:30 I headed over to the High School where it was being held. Too late - caucus ended at 10:15 a.m. "What!?" I exclaimed. It failed to occur to me that in a straw poll - where you literally stand in one area of a room designated for your nominee while they get a head count- that people would not be required to stand there from 9am to 5pm like typical voting. The local precinct organizer is allowed to "call" the vote when he or she thinks they've hit maximum capacity for that room, and apparently that was 10:15. No matter, Romney won that local precinct and is crushing the competition in the state over all as I write.

On that topic it occurred to me - the GOP caucus was at 9a.m. on a Saturday in Las Vegas (the Dems started at 11am all over town - slackers). Now, which one group of voters do you think is the most likely to go to bed sober and early in Vegas on Friday night, and get up early and not hung over on Saturday morning? How about the non drinking, non smoking, non partying past 9pm MORMONS! If I were a Romney strategist I'd request voting be done at 7a.m. in every precinct in every state! And low and behold, he's winning ....

Later ....

Good topic!

Love this kind of crap...

The question isn’t one of “Is it legal?” but instead, are the individual geo-political organs of the USA "sovereign" to begin with?

This is a question that has plagued the US since its inception. The first talk of secession wasn't in the South, and it had nothing to do with slavery. It occurred in 1803 because of the Louisiana Purchase and it happened in New England. It happened again in 1808, 1813, 1814 and finally ended in 1815 with the resolution of the War of 1812.

No fewer than 117 Indian nations/reservations/organizations have declared "independence" from the United States. 71 "counties" in 18 states have declared their independence, including Jones County, MS (which "seceded" in 1859, well before the CSA was formed). Of course, there are the 13 "Confederate States" of the 1860... 11 of which became the Confederate States of America for four years.

In short, since 1790 when the last of the original 13 colonies ratified the Constitution (RI, I believe), all subsequent state entries into the United States have required ratification of the Constitution as part of their "statehood" status. I am of the opinion that this removes the issue of sovereignty from the States, as they have ceded that to the Federal Government through the ability to mint coin, regulate international trade, draft militia and military forces, and apply tariffs and trade taxes across borders. We are not an "organization" of 50 independent "States”, but a single nation of 50 geo-political divisions called "states". The bloodiest conflict in our history was fought to determine this fact as the rule of law.

The secessionist movement of 1860-61 were (nearly) all popular referendum votes held by the eligible voters of 13 states, and the overwhelming majority of 10 of those states was for the removal of said states from the Union (exceptions being the counties of WV, the states of KY and MO, and the panhandle of FL... all had disputed and probably illegal votes). If the question were one of "what do the PEOPLE want?", then secession was it in states like VA, SC, NC, GA, MS, LA, AL, and TX.

BUT, it isn't a question of what the people want, is it? The "Revolutionary War" was NOT a revolution, was it? It was a war of secession. We (the Americans) did not want to over-throw and REPLACE the government of the United Kingdom... we only wanted to secede from it. That being understood, then the "War of Independence" (a far more accurate term) never took into consideration the will of the vast majority of eligible "voters" (read "citizen land-holders") in states like New York, New Jersey and Georgia that WANTED to remain part of the Crown authority. Their fates were in the hands of a few (less than 20) delegates that decided to sign the Declaration of Independence.

An old (and admittedly leftist) adage says "The purpose of Government is to maintain the status quo." If that is the case (and an argument can certainly be made that it is), then until those bonds between people and government are broken, by whatever means, then the status quo remains as it is.

These are the reasons I feel that secession is, in fact, illegal: No "constitutional" recourse for it is to be found. The Declaration of Independence calls for the over-throw (violent, if needed) of tyrannical and unjust government by the governed... but the Declaration is NOT the law of the land. It was the reasoning for the push for Independence in the first place, nothing more. A simple and eloquent justification for a radical change in the status quo.

About the Lakota cause...

Russell Means is a fine portrayer of American Indian heritage in film and TV, and he has some (but not many) very conservative views (he was a Libertarian/Republican VP candidate, after all), and is probably a HUGE Ron Paul supporter right now. None the less, I don't feel he speaks for the MAJORITY of Indians in the reservations in question... not by a long shot. The AIM uprising at Pine Ridge and Rosebud reservations in the 70s were the acts of 50 or so radical activists with very legitimate concerns and completely illegal means of addressing them. At no point do I think that THEIR actions represented the majority opinion of Indians on the Sioux Nation's reservations. He LOST the bid for the Presidency of the Lakota Nation in every election he has entered into, and failed to win in elections held at other reservations in NM and AZ (bands he wasn't a member of), so I am still not sure how he became the spokesman for this Lakota Independence cause. Someone will have to explain that to me...

I can't imagine a more "autonomous" mode of self-determination than the Indian nations already enjoy... no state obligations or taxes due, only Federal agents and designated Tribal law enforcement have any authority on reservation land, and a non-voting representative party at the United Nations (as part of the Indigenous Peoples of North America Council). No other ethnic segment of American society has these (or anything close to these) freedoms from bureaucratic control and certainly no geo-political segment enjoys that much freedom. The unclaimed settlements given by the US Government in 1980 now total in excess of $1 billion dollars, and they are only unclaimed because no "land" was given with them. Not one of the Lakota reservations in question has taken a PENNY from the Feds in more than 16 years... nothing for welfare, medical benefits, road maintenance, housing allowances, unemployment benefits, tuition reimbursement or loans... not a penny. Since the inception of "Indian gaming", they have not needed a dime, and in fact have FUNDED "state" improvements because the infrastructure at a state level isn't keeping up with that on the reservation (see the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwa Indians, for that example).

That injustices were perpetrated by the Federal government is beyond question, and restitution for those injustices is undoubtedly due, if it hasn't already been given (see the $1 billion sitting in a bank somewhere unclaimed mentioned above)... but what hope could the reservations have of maintaining true "independence" even if it were possible? What means do they have to supply such trifles as fuel, food and security without the aid of the US? Arguments could be made that places like California (already the 6th largest economy on the globe!) could exist quite easily as an independent state… but little more than 400,000 acres spread over 5 states (and not contiguously, either) with a population of less than 25,000 and NO industrial or economic infrastructure? I don’t think so…

Still, James’ question was whether or not the Southern states had the legal right to secede from the Union. As already stated, 10 of 13 states held popular votes that determined without question that the vast majority of citizens wanted to break with the US. The legality of that break was settled four years later at Appomattox. No other question of secession was carried that far, either before or since, so it is our only frame of reference. To allow otherwise, the US would be setting a precedent that is beyond dangerous, it is societal suicide.

I know this is an old, old debate...

But once again it rears its ugly head.

Does, or did, states have the legal right to secede?

I'll keep this minimal because feedback is a must. If you're so interested, googling the Lakota Sioux will lead you to the story, (totally buried, must not rate anything) that the Lakota Nation has seceded from the Union. They cited numerous treaty violations, etc. and said more will be posted as things develop. BadBoy brings this to my attention.

This affects four states over a geographical mass nearly the size of Iraq. (Oddly enough.) So the breakroom hawks immediately say, "Well, the National Guard will take care of this."

I responded as best I could being that break was almost over, and never got to hear the "fruits" of discussion, but the question nags me so I bring it here. The Lakota differ from the southern states first and foremost in the reality of their nationhood before the existence of the United States. The Confederacy could claim no such history. The reasons for the South seceding are well documented, but none of them start with "Violations of the treaty of 1873, or 1825, or 1813." Keep in mind, these are treaties ratified by the Senate. Real treaties. Not some guidelines like the Geneva Convention.

It doesn't help that one of the first places this newly independent nation sends delegates to is Venezuela.

So, was it legal for the southern states to secede?

Why do I even bother???

So, I'm watching the Democrat debate tonight ... oh my goodness, these people can not become Commander-in-Chief. Near the end Brian Williams (the MSNBC host) allowed them each one question of the other (by the way, it was only Obama, Hillary & Edwards, NBC filed suit to keep Kucinich out & was successful). Hillary asked Obama to cosponsor a bill she is introducing that would prevent President Bush from entering into any treaty or formal governmental agreement with Iraq prior to his leaving office, i.e. permanent bases, economic commitments, etc. They both said they found it UNACCEPTABLE that any agreement of his would bind the hands of the next president with Obama noting, "that's contrary to how democracy is supposed to work." How moronic is that? And how moronic must he think the "people" are to nod along with that? A sitting president crafting and proposing a formal arrangement (be it a treaty or anything else), then proposing it to the Congress (when necessary as with a treaty) for ratification is EXACTLY the way our representative republic is supposed to work. I just can't take the level of animus these 3 candidates have towards American success in Iraq. They are political sophists and novices of the first order and any of them are capable of making Jimmy Carter look like Winston Churchill.... and coming from me, that's saying something.

Also, my boy Romney took Michigan tonight. That makes two second place and two first place finishes (he won a small and little known primary in the mid west who held a very early primary). He now holds the most delegates of any candidate and I think calling him the "front runner" (for now anyway) is appropriate. Did I mention I've been promoting him on our blog since he was at 2% in GOP opinion polls? At any rate, I think watching the Dem debates is about as healthy for my well being as Titus listening to Mike Church.

Odd result for the Dems in Michigan. Hillary wins with 59% (Union state, that was expected), but in second place was "uncommitted" at 30 something %, Kucinich got 4% and Obama & Edwards barely registered (yet Kucinich gets excluded tonight). What the #!!#$%$#?

South Carolina next.... I'll be sure to keep this level of information up since your Killigans soaked brains will no doubt be tallying football scores through the next weeks rather than election results.... he,he.

Campaign Details, etc.

Very nice summary of the reasoning behind a caucus. Your summation showed me several things I didn't know... but none so surprising as the "at large" stuff.

I know that my experience with the "caucus" ritual is very limited. Probably the closest thing I have to compare it to is the "Model U.N." experience from my days at UW. Wisconsin holds a primary, as does Pennsylvania and Mississippi. I recall from my days in "Poli-Sci" at college that the caucus is one of the last vestiges of the "parliamentary" system here in the States, and while it is relatively new to the electoral system of government, it is still a popular local election activity in places like Maine, Mass. and Rhode Island.

All I know for sure is that the states and regions that still employ it are VERY fussy about the "geographic" nature of the operation. In Iowa, people drove for hours to get to one of the 19 caucus centers to participate. As far as I know, there are no considerations for those that might work odd hours or late shifts. I am not 100% sure, but it is my concerted opinion that if allowances are made for particular job sectors or industries, the people and states that instituted this process back in the 60s and 70s feared the label "Soviet" might be applied... because there is a STRIKING similarity between the "proletariat" system of election employed by the Soviets and the caucus system of the US, with the only real difference being that the Soviet system was based solely on where you worked, while our caucus system was geo-political in its make up.

The entire electoral system is constructed to ensure that small, lightly populated states have a proportional voice in the election process to the huge, heavily populated states like Texas and California. A balance between size and population, if you will. Concessions the likes of which you are describing seem to me to defeat this purpose.

I would rather see the State (say, Nevada) deem the process important enough to allow, through legislation, considerations to be made to people and employees that must take time off of work to go to the caucus centers... rather than re-write the caucus system to focus on individual industries like education, health care and hospitality/entertainment (i.e. casinos).

As far as Hillary making a stink about the "little stuff"... please. Nit-picking details and fine-print is a political tradition in this country that dates back to its inception, and in no way do the Clintons have a monopoly on that kind of campaign tool. It is a dedicated and oft-employed function of the process that is taken up by both sides of the isle equally, when viewed over the long-term. Hillary just got a local example started that caught your eye... focus on IL or NH, and you'll find Barack or McCain doing the same thing there over another issue. For God's sake, Jefferson and Adams fought a campaign of hate and rhetoric that lasted for several decades beyond both of their Presidential terms!

One point you brought up that IS a concern of mine is the "faithless elector". This is a member of the Electoral College that, for reasons of their own, refuse to cast their vote according to the dictates of the caucus/primary results. It has happened repeatedly through out our history, but it has never happened to where it actually EFFECTED the result of the election. In both FL in '00 and Ohio in '04, it was the popular vote that determined how the electors would cast thier ballots, but had the popular vote been clear and the electors cast OUTSIDE of the election mandate, then we'd have seen an unprecedented MESS, because I know of NO historical example of the Electoral College failing in its course to elect by a clear majority the President of the US. In years when the losing candidate WON the popular vote, it only meant that the margin by which they WON the states with the largest populations was large enough to cover the margin by which they LOST the smaller, less populated states that (electorially speaking) voted for the other candidate. Thus, win enough of the MidWest and Southhern states, and you don't need CA, TX, FL or NY to win the election, even though those states can give you the majority of the popular vote.

Making Nixon blush ...

Before I get to the subject title I feel compelled to address "sports." In particular, football. "Princess Jasmine comforter?" THAT was friggin hilarious. Good slams aside, it should be noted that I realize that what Howie Long has said is now an American truism, "Baseball may be America's past time, but football is her passion." Fantasy leagues, win/loss charts, point spreads, they blanket our dealer break room this time of year, and Limbaugh can't stop talking about it (apparently he's an ardent Steelers fan). And ironically enough my father is an Illini and Chicago anything (especially "da Bears" and Bulls) super fan. In my teens I was a die hard Micheal Jordan fan - posters, clothes, I played basketball nearly everyday, and any televised Bulls game was can't miss TV. However, after he retired (the second and final time) my interest in sports (outside of the effect Superbowl Sunday has on toke rates) faded away. I remember coming back from break once at the Grand, tapping in on stick and Cramey (sitting box) asking me, "what's the score?" Apparently because of my interest in weight lifting it was assumed I would know such things. I answered, "Well, now I'm really going to disappoint you because I don't even know who's playing." He smiled, tilted his head and knowing my penchant for all things political/historical replied, "Well, I guess there's only so many hours in the day." We both chuckled. Now, that's not to say that people whom have a high opinion of their intellect (like us) simply can't enjoy football or watching sports in general. Obviously the brothers Foster demonstrates this quite well. I remember Jambo trying to explain to me why watching Mike and Mike in the morning was a fantastic and mentally healthy way to start your day, to which I responded, "Yes, because I can't function until I find out what team threw what ball through what apparatus for what score." It's just that being born in Iowa, partially raised in Illinois, then majority raised (and lived as an adult) in MS who has no professional team of any kind, I simply have no vested interest in any given team. And that regional connection, in my opinion, is what embeds that "passion" you football junkies so publicly display. Ironically enough the closest I can get to "pulling" for any one team happens to be the Packers only because Farve IS from my home town (the area at least), and he attended the same university as I, USM. Although if you repeat that in front of my father (remember, a Bears fan) I'll call you a liar to your face. All that aside I simply find it boring - packers win, they don't, whatever. I know that's blasphemy for many, and it's not that football fans are morons, or incapable of more, I'm not an elitist - I realize it's a healthy, cathartic recreational outlet. And organized sports is particularly beneficial to children. But in the words of Austin Powers, "It's not my bag baby." I don't find watching it on TV entertaining in the least. Going to the professional games, as my Dad took me to many a baseball game in Chicago, is a fun experience and one I will share with my kids at some point, but on TV? No thank you. And call me gay or a bed wetter all you want - I still bench press more than the two of you could put together .... he, he.

Now, to the IMPORTANT stuff .....

****

A caucus is:
"a private meeting of members of a political party to plan action or to select delegates for a nominating convention. It is not a secret ballot, you make your checked off selection in the open, and speeches and discussions are allowed and encouraged.

"Whereas, a primary is:
"[an] election held to nominate a candidate for a particular party at a forthcoming election for public office. It is a secret ballot"

Both are technically "primaries", but the latter is a direct primary. You vote, and the candidates get the same percentage of that states delegates as votes they garnered in that election, i.e. McCain won 39% of the votes in New Hampshire so he gets 39% of their delegates at the national convention. The caucus is MUCH more complicated. It's basically (stripped to nuts and bolts) a meeting of party members, and only registered party members, and they vote for the candidate of their choice, however, legally that vote is merely a "suggestion" to the sate party leaders who then decide who to give the delegates to at the national convention. But while the caucus goers selection is not binding, obviously 99.9999% of the time the sate party leaders take that "suggestion" literally and give the candidate the same percentage of delegates as votes they received. I've only heard of one case where the state party leader issued them to a non caucus vote winning candidate and I can assure you their career in political activism ended that very day. Also, at the caucus, theoretically, you can give speeches, hold discussions and your vote is done in view of everyone. In theory it's the local party members weeding through the candidates via discussion, argument and ultimately an open vote until they find one with majority support. In practice it's just a primary with more red tape.

Now, I make this distinction because there is a controversy brewing here in Nevada (our caucus is this Saturday), more specifically in Las Vegas, and even more specific then that, on that famous strip, where I happen work. Several months ago 5 DNC officials approved the NV Caucus rules. Who, where, when, etc was decided. In those rules was a provision for what they called "at-large precincts." Normally where you caucus at (the proper term as opposed to "voting" - in a primary) is determined by where you live. And you can only caucus at that specific location that services the district your home address puts you in. However, the "at-large precincts" are 9 locations on the strip designed to franchise shift workers. The rules (the RNC has virtually identical plans drawn up in this respect) say that if you work within 2 1/2 miles of any of these 9 locations, then you can caucus there as opposed to the one dictated by the location of your residence. So far so good. However, last week Barak Obama received the most lucrative Nevada union endorsement in terms of money and foot soldiers when he was endorsed by the Culinary Workers Union. They are 60,000 strong and their rank and file are at the heart and soul of whom the Democrat machine courts every election cycle - lower wage minorities. In fact, 40% are Hispanics. Hillary had been vying for that endorsement, that was publicly known. Well, on the day Obama came to the strip and accepted the endorsement from the Local 226, lawyers on behalf of the state's Teachers Union filed a law suit attempting to prevent those "at-large precincts" from being used this Saturday. The complaint focuses on what they describe as a disenfranchisement of educators in Las Vegas. They note that teachers can not vote at the school in which they work at. That they must still use the one based on their home address and as such this gives strip casino Democrats an unfair advantage. First off I don't know of any school that is open on Saturday, causing the "unfairness" that they claim is occurring. But much more importantly three of the lawyers filing this suit were on that committee of 5 that originally approved the very rules they now claim are unfair to non-strip Las Vegans. What has suddenly caused this? Well, many of the lawyers who brought this issue to the attention of the teachers union (who are being obviously being used as a rouse here) are senior staff members to top elected officials in NV such as Harry Reid. And nearly everyone of those officials, by the way, have endorsed Hillary. This is a brazen move by her campaign to prevent the Democrat employees on the strip from caucusing for the man they have now endorsed - Obama. And when asked by the Las Vegas Sun who brought this to the attention of the lawyers (who subsequently brought it to the Teacher's Union), those lawyers (remember, 3 of whom are senior staff to politicians endorsing Hillary) declined to comment.

I know Clinton Inc didn't invent political "dirty tricks", but does any one seriously want 4 to 8 more years of this nonsense? I mean really, wasn't the first 8 enough? Even putting Monica and his perjury aside, there's Travel gate, memo-gate, Chinese $50,000 coffees. These people are perhaps the MOST dishonest and crooked bunch since the days of Boss Tweed and that anyone would think that her tears of the other day were about America "falling backward" and not about her reaction to the prospect of losing, is naive to the point of having no ability to reason whatsoever. She's a socialist fascist in the truest sense of the words from wealth redistribution to imposing her "morals" on the rest of us (be it smoking bans, removing candy vending machines from Jr Highs or making trans-fats illegal like the secret ingredient the Colonel was using is cocaine - all of which she supports among a litany of other fascistic demands) - an imposition of "morals" ironically that leftists claim Bush is guilty of just because he's a Christian and backs the Patriot Act. At least with Obama I could argue with the guy and get a beer with after. She'd cut my brake lines before I left for debate and if I still managed to make it, slip a mickey in my Coors Light.

This woman would be an absolute, unequivocal disaster. But that's just my opinion ... and that of ANY sane person who hasn't eliminated the majority of their brain cells through drink as they wear a cheese wedge on their head and mindlessly cheer on millionaires in matching out fits.