The Birthers' Next Target: Hillary Clinton?, page 3

reply to post by whatukno

---

Here is what you don’t get on a fundamental basic human existence level my friend.

There are rules.

The rules were broken.

The rules were then later adhered to by a vote, an agreement to honor one rule, by changing specifically another to create a retroactive after the fact compliance.

Now here is the question…all that was done for one person.

Do you or I, get a similar and equal chance to effectively have rules changed we have broken so that after we have broken them it becomes alright?

On a Federal level?

If not then its an unfair game and I call foul on the play!

If we have to abide by the rules, no matter how stupid, limiting or self defeating then they have to also.

I object to dual standards.

There can not be one set of laws and regulations and procedures for the people that they have to abide by, and a political and corporate elite that does not have to abide by them and have them modified or changed specifically for them when it serves them.

We all get that privilege or no one gets that privilege.

Other wise it’s a rigged game and I will disregard all the rules myself.

Which by the way I already have long ago, but in case you want to know why I made that choice…this is why!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

---

So are you saying that you in a private job cannot run for office because that office would pay you more? See, that puts a huge kink in my attempt this year to run for a house seat.

That is ridiculous. I just don't see the horrid crime that you do. I think you are simply trying to make a mountain out of absolutely nothing.

She quit her senate seat, which means that at the time she was appointed to the SOS position, she was technically unemployed. So are you saying that the unemployed cannot have a cabinet position? She could have quit that job 1 millisecond prior to accepting her new job as SOS and it would be legal.

reply to post by gimme_some_truth

---

Courts sometimes thwart justice Sunday, 14th February 2010

In one, Hillary Clinton’s appointment as Secretary of State has been challenged on the basis that when she was a U.S. Senator, immediately prior to being appointed by President Obama as Secretary of State, the Senate increased the salary of that position three times. The U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 6, clause 2, provides: “No senator or representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been [increased] during such time.” That language prohibits Mrs. Clinton from holding the office of Secretary of State, despite a “legislative fix” to roll back the compensation increase before she actually took office, according to a challenge by Judicial Watch, which disputed the appointment in the name of a State Department employee. The details of the complaint are less important than the reason for it being dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Court concluded the State Department employee lacked legal standing to bring suit.

news-political.com...

I for one believe we have been blind-sided again. This will disapear and everyone will forget about how the Constitution of the United States was ignored to appease the PTB. Hillary will continue to do what she is told by the CFR and we the American populace will wonder what has become of this once great nation. The snow ball is rolling down the mountain side, becoming bigger and bigger and will soon slam into our awestruck faces. Proto, thanks for bringing this up.

The truth is we have been blind sided from the beginning. Ask the average American about this issue and they will have no idea of what you are talking about. You see, we have been given an illusion that everything our government does is for good. Everything we are involved in is about fighting tyranny and oppression around the world and bringing justice to those who oppose this moral populace. We are beginning to see a much different picture.

Zionism and its tentacles reach out and snag the young before they can question its true motivations and these children go about their lives with rose colored glasses. The populace is placated with song and dance, or bread and circuses and we are given an outlook on the world that makes us feel as though everyone besides us has it wrong and we need to fix them. The agenda continues as no one can or should question the good intentions from such a superior authority.

It is the very topic that Proto has brought to our attention here, that should be looked at very closely. As our rose colored glasses are removed, we get a much different picture than the one we have been fed. I believe this issue should be brought before the people and scrutinized, as well as Obama's eligibility. There is nothing wrong with taking a close look at what our government really does and why.

Do I believe what the Bible tells us about Israel and the Jewish nation? Yes I do, but I believe that God had a much better plan than the one Zionism is forcing upon the world. I believe God told us plainly, not by force, nor by might, but by My spirit. Do I see His spirit in some of the actions that have befallen us? No. Someone is pulling the strings and the marionettes respond. Have I babbled on and brought this post off topic? Probably.



[edit on 18-2-2010 by jackflap]

reply to post by whatukno

---

You are missing the point entirely my friend. Rules are rules. It doesn’t matter what the rule is about. It could be for jaywalking, brain surgery or cabinet level appointments.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s a stupid rule. Doesn’t matter if it’s a good rule, what matters is that it is a rule.

Specific legislation was enacted by Congress to help just one single solitary person get around the rule after they broke the rule.

The question is the next time I jaywalk and am cited for it will Congress specifically for me change the jaywalking rule retroactively? Not because there is a perceived benefit to the nation. But because there is a real benefit to me, and the legislation will be aimed at only making it alright for me.

If I have to live by the rules meant for everyone, then the elites have to live by them too.

If they don’t have to live by them and can get around them simply by using political connections then its not a fair system to me.

Its not a fair system to you.

I can’t believe you are alright with one set of flexible rules for the elites and them having personal access to having them changed specifically for one individual while you are held to every rule no matter how stupid and have no access to change it for you specifically.

I am not alright with that kind of system and I would think the reason would be obvious.

While we were Distracted with Gay Marriage news This happend today
  Posted 18 days ago with 81 member flags

People are marching in the streets all over Quebec
  Posted 3 days ago with 70 member flags

Federal appeals court: Illinois cannot enforce ban on recording police officers
  Posted 19 days ago with 45 member flags

Critical Mass Has Arrived: Fast & Furious Scandal - Dems Join With GOP
  Posted 16 days ago with 32 member flags

Breaking: Ron Paul to end active campaigning - cnn
  Posted 13 days ago with 26 member flags

President Obama Affirms His Support for Same Sex Marriage
  Posted 18 days ago with 24 member flags

Anon has released 1.7 GB of files....
  Posted 6 days ago with 24 member flags

Police Tasings Might Finally Be Ruled Brutality
  Posted 12 days ago with 23 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: