|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
Hillary & the Constitution
 Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:07 am
|
 |
|
Just watched, on TV news tonight: (12/04/07)
Question to Hillary Clinton.
"You can have two books in the White House,
One is the Bible, what is the other?"
Hillary said:
"My copy of the Constitution.
I don't think they've had the Constitution in the White House for years."
No articles on the internet yet.
Perhaps someone here also saw the question/answer?
It's really difficult to get truth past the media's filters.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58337
WorldNetDaily.com (a Clinton bashing website let some truth get past)
GOP President Bush and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and a candidate for the Democrat nomination for president in 2008, don't have the same perspective of even the U.S. Constitution, according to their comments.
{Clinton said, the administration is "out of whack" with the Constitution.}
Clinton ... would "consider giving up some of the executive powers assumed by President Bush and Vice President Cheney,"
but a spokeswoman for Bush says the two operate strictly within constitutional boundaries.
The question came from Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House:
"The AP reports from Denver that
Sen. Clinton said that if elected she would 'consider giving up some of the executive powers assumed by President Bush and Vice President Cheney.'
And my question: Does the White House know of any such powers assumed by the Bush administration that to not constitutionally belong to the president and the vice president?"
Dana Perino, Bush's spokeswoman, started out, "I'm not going to comment on her comments. I can refer you to the [Republican National Committee] for those or to her campaign."
"Therefore, what's your…" Kinsolving continued.
The president and the vice president operate within the Constitution," she added.
"Therefore, the White House considers this more of candidate Clinton's sometimes …" Kinsolving said.
"That's it. That's it. No, moving on," Perino said.
"…astonishing rhetoric, wouldn't you say that?" Kinsolving finished.
The report from Denver said Clinton was addressing a rally
and said that she would "conduct a very serious review of how the Bush-Cheney administration has grabbed power.
"Everywhere we look, we see that,
they have ignored checks and balances,
they have disregarded the separation of powers,
they have this theory of the so-called unitary executive,
and then Vice President Cheney has a whole different theory about how he's a fourth branch of government."
The RNC, through spokesman Danny Diaz, did have a reaction, however.
{ RNC Talking Point: } "The reality is that Hillary Clinton, much like Bill, will say and do anything to win political office and will conveniently forget their promises in short order," he told AP.
Clinton said, however, the administration is "out of whack" with the Constitution.
"I'm going to take a look at everything, and I intend to get into that as soon as I can be inaugurated and start acting on it," she told the rally.
In an interview published by a London newspaper,
she denounced the Bush administration for its "power grab" and questioned its constitutional foundation.
"There were a lot of actions which they took that were clearly beyond any power the Congress would have granted, or that in my view was inherent in the Constitution," Clinton said.
"There were other actions they've taken which could have obtained Congressional authorization but they deliberately chose not to pursue it as a matter of principle." |
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:03 am
|
|
|
Found confirmation of what I heard, with minor variation in what exactly Hillary had said:
quote:
One book to take to the White House, other than the Bible?
Hillary Clinton: "I would certainly bring my copy of the Constitution, because there apparently was not a copy in the Bush White House."
Zing! Then she [also] chose The Federalist Papers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/04/primary-questions-about-t_n_75175.html
Re Hillary's 2nd choice, The Federalist Papers
I personally believe in Federalism.
The idea as Hillary's hubby put in writing in his Executive Orders:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/clinton-subjects.html
Federalism: EO 13083
quote:
Sec. 2. Fundamental Federalism Principles. In formulating and implementing
policies that have federalism implications, agencies shall be guided by the
following fundamental federalism principles:
(a) The structure of government established by the Constitution is premised
upon a system of checks and balances.
(b) The Constitution created a Federal Government of supreme, but limited,
powers. The sovereign powers not granted to the Federal Government are
reserved to the people or to the States, unless prohibited to the States
by the Constitution.
(c) Federalism reflects the principle that dividing power between the
Federal Government and the States serves to protect individual liberty. Preserving
State authority provides an essential balance to the power of the
Federal Government, while preserving the supremacy of Federal law provides
an essential balance to the power of the States.
(d) The people of the States are at liberty, subject only to the limitations
in the Constitution itself or in Federal law, to define the moral, political,
and legal character of their lives.
(e) Our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the public
policies adopted by the people of the several States according to their
own conditions, needs, and desires. States and local governments are often
uniquely situated to discern the sentiments of the people and to govern
accordingly.
(f) Effective public policy is often achieved when there is competition
among the several States in the fashioning of different approaches to public
policy issues. The search for enlightened public policy is often furthered
when individual States and local governments are free to experiment with
a variety of approaches to public issues. Uniform, national approaches to
public policy problems can inhibit the creation of effective solutions to
those problems.
(g) Policies of the Federal Government should recognize the responsibility
of—and should encourage opportunities for—States, local governments, private
associations, neighborhoods, families, and individuals to achieve personal,
social, environmental, and economic objectives through cooperative
effort.
Sec. 3. Federalism Policymaking Criteria. In addition to adhering to the
fundamental federalism principles set forth in section 2 of this order, agencies
shall adhere, to the extent permitted by law, to the following criteria when
formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications:
(a) There should be strict adherence to constitutional principles.
Note: In Executive Order 13132
Mr Bill changed that last to:
quote:
(a) There shall be strict adherence to constitutional principles.
Hillary, so far, is the only major candidate speaking of giving up some of the executive powers assumed by President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
Hillary may be our best choice to restore Constitutional government to the USA.
Remember?
http://whitehouser.com/politics/bush-constitution-just-a-piece-of-paper/
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case
that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a god-damned piece of paper!”
I forget which rightwing website I read it at but I agree:
"You place your hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution.
You do not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
From a far right website:
http://blog.cptexas.us/?p=41
quote:
Let me say it plainly: a Hillary Clinton administration would be no worse than a Rudy Giuliani administration. In some ways, it might not be as bad. At least, with a Democrat in the White House, conservatives might try to act like conservatives and muster the energy to actually oppose some of her liberal proposals.
The record is clear: when a Republican is in the White House, conservatives not only lose their backbone, they also lose their brain cells.
They walk around in a daze without the ability to even see what is going on right before their eyes. They become “mind-numbed robots” with no commitment to principle whatsoever.
Why? Because one of “their own” is in office. At that point, it becomes a “see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil” situation.
If two George W. Bush administrations have taught us anything, they have taught us that.
Good argument for putting a Democrat in the White House? |
| |
|
|
PAK
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 1324
|
|
Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:37 pm
|
|
|
The Great Seal of the United States. Note, there are two wings on the bird, representing the two political "parties" (because those who govern love parties), but the true "virile" power that controls both parties lies behind the shield, hidden from view of the public.
Hillary and Bill are not constitutionalists, the true nature of Hillary is represented in pictoral form, on the cover of Time Magazine when she was running for Senator. She is wearing a dark blue, Mao Tse Tung Chinese style peasant outfit, her hands positioned showing her status in the higher orders that protect and support her. Her husband Bill and George Bush Sr. are the best of friends, Barbra calls Bill "son", and they both serve the same master, not the American people. China has "favored nation status" with the United Nations and is the "model" for the Corporate Facists that run the UN and own both of our political parties, no matter what BS spews from the mouths of their hand picked politicians.
_________________
... we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to love their servitude. Aldous Huxley |
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:16 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PAK
Hillary and Bill are not constitutionalists,
I read that RNC talking point when it was first posted at the RNC website.
"The Party" repeats it often enough.
Facts, such as Bill's "Federalism" Executive Orders, show that RNC TalkingPoint to be a lie. No other President so ordered.
quote:
Federalism: EO 13132
There shall be strict adherence to constitutional principles. : Clinton
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/clinton-subjects.html
RNC Talking Points are based on out of context (mis)quotes and outright lies.
Feel free to prove me wrong with other than rightwing propaganda.
eg: National Archives And Records is non partisan
quote:
Originally posted by PAK
represented in pictoral form, on the cover of Time Magazine when she was running for Senator. She is wearing a dark blue, Mao Tse Tung Chinese style peasant outfit,
Time magazine in 1992 ran a "negative" image of Bill Clinton and featured RNC Talking Points in an article titled:
"What Voters Don't Like about Clinton"
Never ran a similar issue about Bush, Buchannon, Perot.
Just NWO propaganda bashing Clinton.
Same here.
quote:
Originally posted by PAK
China has "favored nation status" with the United Nations and is the "model" for the Corporate Facists that run the UN
The UN was founded with "Free China" on th eUN Security Council, with a veto vote.
Nixon, Kissinger and UN Ambassador George HW Bush engineered kicking Free China (Taiwan) totally out of the UN, and placed Mao's Communist China on the UN Security Council with that veto vote.
The Republican Party thus 'well and faithfully served the cause of International Communism' by making Mao both a world leader and a world power. |
| |
|
|
PAK
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 1324
|
|
Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:30 am
|
|
|
You miss my point Shatoga. Both parties, both Clinton and Bush are married to the New World Order, they only serve one master and that is the International Bankers who own ALL THE NATIONS under corporate facism. The same agenda has been pushed through the US very quickly since WWII especially, by both parties who "play" politics for the people, a circus really, while quietly behind the scenes pushing an agenda to bring about global government. Both parties have allowed ALL of our technology, innovation and now all industry and production to be moved to China with the US taxpayer footing the bill, through grants to multi and transnational corporations to set up shop, profitting off the slave labor while the politicians on both sides pocket perks. If you think Hillary is going to restore the constitution you are in lala land. No one makes it to the top of the presidential race unless they've already been approved by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Royal Institute for International Affairs. I just attended a conference in Chicago, sponsored by the CFR. It confirms that the agenda is to create a worldwide economic system, controlled by a corporate facist Elite with the use now of advanced scientific technology that is every dictator's ultimate dream of control and domination. It really doesn't matter which party takes control, or who is at the helm, they are under the command of a shadow worldwide parallel government.
_________________
... we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to love their servitude. Aldous Huxley |
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:13 pm
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton quotes
Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House e-mail accounts. We've seen U.S. attorneys fired to silence them because they didn't bring bogus lawsuits against Democrats during election years. We've seen information taken off of government websites. It is a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok. It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent.
Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference Jun 20, 2007
(Hillary Clinton)
Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision.
Vote to invoke cloture on a conference report that extends the authority of the FBI to conduct "roving wiretaps" and access business records. Voting YES would recommend, in effect, that the PATRIOT Act be extended through December 31, 2009, and would makes the provisions of the PATRIOT Act permanent. Voting NO would extend debate further, which would have the effect of NOT extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision.
Reference: Motion for Cloture of PATRIOT Act; Bill HR 3199 ; vote number 2005-358 on Dec 16, 2005
Pushing for privacy bill of rights
Hillary Clinton urged creation of a "privacy bill of rights" to protect people's personal data. Clinton's speech on protecting consumers from identity theft and citizens from government snooping was the latest in a series of talks billed as "major addresses" by aides. Previous speeches were on energy and the economy. A potential presidential candidate in 2008, Clinton noted her work on a House committee investigating the Nixon administration's illegal snooping and other abuses.
Clinton said any president should have the latest technology to track terrorists, but within laws that provide for oversight by judges. "The administration's refrain has been, 'Trust us,'" Clinton said. "That's unacceptable. Their track record doesn't warrant our trust. Unchecked mass surveillance without judicial review may sometimes be legal but it is dangerous. Every president should save those powers for limited critical situations."
Source: 2008 speculation in Associated Press Jun 16, 2006
Count Every Vote Act
In the past two presidential elections, we saw people turned away from the polls or discouraged from voting. We saw ballots mysteriously lost in state after state. It is inconceivable that in 2007 African Americans would have to wait in line for 10 hours to vote, while whites in the affluent precinct next door waited 10 minutes; or that students at a college would be fundamentally discriminated against and not given their right to vote by being denied even the right to register or the equipment that they would need to do so.
That is why I've introduced the Count Every Vote Act in the Senate because I want to make sure that we are not embarrassed again as a nation. We are the oldest democracy in the world, and we need to act like it and restore integrity to our electoral process. Our democracy requires nothing less.
Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference Jun 20, 2007
Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore.
Amendment to repeal the tax subsidy for certain domestic companies which move manufacturing operations and American jobs offshore.
Reference: Tax Subsidy for Domestic Companies Amendment; Bill S AMDT 210 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-63 on Mar 17, 2005
I consider myself a modern American progressive
Q: How would you define the word "liberal?" And would you use this word to describe yourself?
A: ...I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern American progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms... Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007
quote:
Originally posted by PAK
You miss my point Shatoga. Both parties,......
..both parties, both parties...
merely stating an assumption you believe to be true
Argue about that with Texas Conservatives:
http://blog.cptexas.us/?p=41
quote:
Let me say it plainly: a Hillary Clinton administration would be no worse than a Rudy Giuliani administration. In some ways, it might not be as bad. At least, with a Democrat in the White House, conservatives might try to act like conservatives and muster the energy to actually oppose some of her liberal proposals.
The record is clear: when a Republican is in the White House, conservatives not only lose their backbone, they also lose their brain cells.
They walk around in a daze without the ability to even see what is going on right before their eyes. They become “mind-numbed robots” with no commitment to principle whatsoever.
Why? Because one of “their own” is in office. At that point, it becomes a “see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil” situation.
If two George W. Bush administrations have taught us anything, they have taught us that.
History shows that it matters which party is in the White House.
As long as the extreme court remains in the hands of Republicans, only Republican Presidents will be a threat to our Freedom.
The 'extreme court' wouldn't even let President Clinton use the "Line Item Veto"
yet,
The 'extreme court'
-lets Bush impose illegal wiretaps, read all our e-mails, IM's and posts,
-lets Bush hold thousands (that they admit to) of people in prison without any evidence they ever committed any crime.
No Democrat could have implemented the draconian provisions of the misnamed patriot act.
It took one party Republican rule to suspend our Constitution.
BTW/ Ron Paul was my 'congresscritter' in SE TX.
I campaigned for him, and supported his principled withdrawel from the Republican Party when he became an Independent.
RonPaul ate all those principled words, and proved himself both a hypocrite and a liar;
When he stopped being an Independent and crawled back to the GOP;
He sold out to get their' magic (R) next to his name again.
His much touted votes against Bush's NWO legislation (like the infamous patriot act) came only after assurances his vote would not prevent passage.
I challenge anyone to find even one time Ron Paul cast a deciding vote to prevent one of Bush's NWO programs passing the House.
He serves the GOP by fulfilling the russian conservative's advice:
"The best way to handle the opposition is to control it ourselves." VI Lenin
Last edited by shatoga on Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
| |
|
|
PAK
Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 1324
|
|
Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:02 pm
|
|
|
Shatoga,
I do not, nor have I ever said I suppport the Bush regime, the Republicans or any political party. Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr. are both members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) a branch of the Royal Insititute for International Affairs (now Chatham House), along with other notables like Dick Cheney, Wesley Clark, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Kissinger, John Kerry and other government leaders, whether designated as "conservatives" or "liberals". No one makes it into top political positions in the US unless they pass muster with the CFR and RIIA. This is a private club, they all serve a global system, and at the top of this system are the international banking familes and royalty. This is a private aristocratic club. Those who belong do not serve the nations or the public that they represent, but the ruling Elite who gave you your nations and borders. Hillary has given numerous speeches to her colleagues at the CFR. Her hubby also belongs to the Trilateral Commission and is a Rhodes scholar and member of the round table groups. They laugh at the ignorance of the masses, that we are all deceived by the two party political BS, while their private agenda continues no matter which party is in office - they are all working for the same agenda while pretending to have empathy for Americans. So if you think Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to bring back the Constitution and freedom to the American people, cast your ballot. In my opinion, the whole country should boycot the polls, no one show up to vote, that might send a real message to the yahoos in Washington. They probably would then have to pass a law forcing you to vote in order to keep their jobs fleecing the taxpaying sheeple.
_________________
... we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to love their servitude. Aldous Huxley |
| |
|
|
shatoga
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 1291
|
|
Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:06 pm
|
|
|
If these people who so obviously serve the NWO were not attacking Hillary, I probably would not support her!
quote:
Originally posted by PAK
I do not, nor have I ever said I suppport the Bush regime, the Republicans or any political party.
A major part of Republican election strategy is to supress the vote.
Huge turnout=Democrats win
Small turnout=Republicans win
When you call for:
quote:
Originally posted by PAK
In my opinion, the whole country should boycot the polls, no one show up to vote,
That fits in with supporting Republican strategy. Rethink that advice!
quote:
Originally posted by PAK
Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr. are both members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
I am an NRA member, but I don't believe the NRA's lies, nor vote the way they tell me.
When the NRA warned us about Hillary and jack booted storm troopers would confiscate all our guns, I knew, and history has proved the NRA was lying.
Like most NRA members, I bought more guns during Clinton's years, and saw many states pass "Concealed Carry" legislation.
When (1990s) the DNC pushed for a national concealed carry law, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre opposed such an extension of gun rights, and called it "Just another list of gun owners."
When the NRA killed the Democrats' attempt at passing National Concealed Carry I knew it was their way of keeping the gun issue alive for Republicans.
The so called "Constitution Party" intends to "thwart Hillary".
Instead of supporting any candidate who supports our Constitution, they support Republicans.
quote:
"For six years, the Bush administration has refused to secure our borders," Corsi told the group assembled at Friday's dinner, "in a stealth plan to create a European Union-style North American Union under the cover of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America that President Bush announced at the March 23, 2005, summit meeting with Mexico and Canada in Waco, Texas."
How do they deal with Bush's failure and betrayel?
By opposing Hillary!
quote:
Baldwin told the group the "radical left" has an agenda to remove God from the United States of America.
"When both the Democratic and Republican parties join together agreeing that we should put 'In God We Trust' on the edge of our coins where nobody can read it," Baldwin told WND, "then most Americans are ready for change."
note: If Bush (R) doesn't sign the bill, it does not become law.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52576
quote:
About 1,000 documents obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America show the White House is engaging in collaborative relations with Mexico and Canada outside the U.S. Constitution, says WND columnist and author Jerome Corsi.
"The documents give clear evidence that the Bush administration has created a 'shadow government,'" Corsi said.
So, instead of opposing the Bush administration, they oppose Hillary!
It's Republicans doing it to us, but they respond by opposing Hillary Clinton.
Anyone else paying attention?
As President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, "In politics there are no accidents. If it happens you can bet it was planned that way."
IF, instead of fighting against the (R)people who are destroying our freedoms,
they instead fight against one woman who speaks against those same people,
who speaks of restoring Constitutional government...
you can bet it was planned that way
If these people who so obviously serve the NWO were not attacking Hillary, I probably would not support her!
THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
Attendance list North American forum
Donald Rumsfeld, George Schultz among U.S. officials on roster
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52079
FYI information only:
The single issue votes that show support for or opposition to the NWO/police state...
H.R.3162 Became Public Law No: 107-56
Note: H.R. 3162, the USA PATRIOT Act, passed the House on 10/12/2001; and S. 1510, which passed the Senate on 10/11/2001.
[GPO: Text, PDF]
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml
Republican: yeas 211, nays 3 not voting 5
Democratic: yeas 145, nays 62 not voting 4
A 356-65 margin of victory for the police state
But, on renewal, more politicians stood up on their hind legs and said "NO!" to the police state:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/22/politics/main710879.shtml
(CBS/AP) The House voted to extend indefinitely the anti-terrorist USA Patriot Act,
By a 257-171 margin, lawmakers who earlier Thursday had watched reports of attempted terrorist bombings in London, agreed to renew key provisions of the Patriot Act that were set to expire at the end of this year.
Forty-three Democrats joined 214 Republicans in passing the bill, which dropped 14 of 16 expiration dates on provisions initially drafted into the law shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Differences shown by these votes?
One party learned from their mistake, the other increased thier support for "the Conservative Vision" : a police state.
2001 Republicans': yeas 211, increased to 214 by 2005 = increased support for the police state
2001 Democratic: yeas 145, decreased to 43 by 2005 = stronger opposition to the police state
Hillary or Edwards would have a party majority opposed to the NWO police state to help them restore our Constitution.
Ron Paul or Thompson would have a party majority in favor of the NWO police state to fight against. |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 3:31 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
