Hillary Commits A Felony On Film and NOTHING Happens.
↑ Click on the image above to see her caught on film committing a felony that should have gotten her 5 years in↑
Federal Prison.
Meanwhile, top Obama donation bundler Jon Corzine stole $1.6 billion dollars of legally segregated customer funds and hasn’t so much as been detained for questioning, let alone prosecuted and convicted.
Selective enforcement is a tool of tyrants.
Lock Bammy up - already...
Totalitarian countries do, that’s who. And if anyone hasn’t noticed, the tools of government have been used more blatantly and aggressively against political opponents in the last 5 years than in any time in US history.
Obama is a personality cult totalitarian.
He admitted to breaking the law.
It maybe selective enforcement, but the law is the law.
If you are going to break it knowingly, even from a sense of conscience, you have to be willing to suffer the consequences.
Interesting movie based on that.
"The line is usually interpreted as questioning why someone would put massive effort into achieving something minor or unimportant, or who would punish a minor offender with a disproportional punishment."
!
What has the article got to do with wheels and butterflies?
Dinesh is a good boy but he seems to have stepped in it.
He works full time in the business of politics.
He knew exactly what the law was.
Even worse, he suborned two friends to help him break the law.
He is also a hypocrite.
If a Democrat had done this, D’Souza would have exposed that person and demanded his prosecution.
When an unconstitutional “law” is put on the books, selective enforcement follows as the night the day. And all “Campaign Finance Reform” legislation is patently unconstitutional.Everyone understand that the First Amendment precludes the government from requiring you to obtain a license to speak or to print. No one thinks that The New York Times can be censored by the government. But if the press is free, you have a right to spend your own legally acquired money - to buy a printing press. And, having done so, to be on an equal footing before the law with The New York Times. Now, The New York Times is a corporation. Therefore if you incorporate your printing press business that doesn’t affect your rights to be on an equal footing before the law with The New York Times.
The fact is that the First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
is not predicated on the assumption that “the press” is objective or nonpartisan or even non-sectarian. The saying is that in polite company one does not discuss politics or religion - but the First Amendment leaps directly into that thicket by saying that Congress has no business attempting to prevent the people from doing exactly that - at the top of their voices.The New York Times gets paid by readers, but that money primarily goes to the distribution of the physical paper. Any newspaper makes its money by selling advertising, which is to say, by promoting claims and saying things which it would not do for free. There is no case, therefore, that the newspaper’s money is cleaner than the money you might use to buy and operate a press. You and The New York Times are on an equal footing, morally and legally. Until “Campaign Finance Reform” legislation presumes to say that you have no right to spend all the money you want on promoting any candidates (and suggesting that it would be foolish to vote for others), while implicitly or explicitly carving out an exemption for the establishment press.
Nobody thinks that a newspaper can tell every known truth - and yet, “Half the truth may be a great lie.” Consequently there is no real difficulty for the establishment press - especially acting in concert - to denigrate and disparage candidates - or to “position” them favorably. The ineluctable conclusion is that a “free press” requires actual freedom. And that “no law” does not mean just a little law. So if The New York Times can be a corporation, and if indeed all the “presses” listed in McCain-Feingold can belong to a single organization - as I submit that all of them belong to the Associated Press - there is no constitutional case to be made against you and I acting in concert to promote candidates congenial to us both. Nor any case to be made for limiting to amount of your money, or mine, which we may spend on that project. Whether we ask, “Mother, may I” of the government first, or not.
The Federal Election Commission is unconstitutional, root and branch, and must be voided by SCOTUS. And the Federal Communication Commission is scarcely better suited to a free republic. What business does the government have deciding what is “broadcasting in the public interest” and what is not???? The Fairness Doctrine is a planted axiom of granting the government control over what it pleases the government to call the “public” airwaves. And “fairness” is in the eye of the beholder - and nowhere in the Constitution.
The Law’s an ass.