Gasp !!!

There are very important issues that these "Women on Top" must consider. There are issues that can no longer be hidden or pretend that they don't exist. There are issues that can be measured on the level of such importance,  of such magnitude, that even the MSM can no longer ignore it any further..

Little things create bigger issues as we all know. Comparable issues come to mind like "squeezing the toothpaste tube from the top", ahhh!!, would be considered a hygienic faux pas, let alone "double dipping the cracker in the pate" is an absolutely inexcusable action, an unconscionable act, a never forgiven activity that would deny you, future invites. In some areas of the party passionistas, it would be a hangable offense and deservedly so... Those philistines..

But never before has anyone ever transgressed, so flagrantly transgressed the hair etiquette standards and the International Hair Association's policy, than Hillary Clinton has by her persistence at wearing a ...what for it....a SCRUNCHIE..

This is Internationally, breaking news..

Hold the launch and put those ICBMs back into their silos, put the army back into barracks and drop those anchors, something more important has come up.   

It is big, it is ugly and there is no treatment available..
 

Should Hillary Clinton's Staff 'Ban' Her From Wearing Scrunchies?

by SodaHead Politics Posted April 09, 2012

Fashion bloggers are no longer the only ones calling out Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her unflattering scrunchie habit. Now some of Clinton’s staff members want to “ban” her from wearing the accessory altogether. But should we even be concerned with how Hillary styles her hair?

The staffer’s scrunchie comment was revealed in Rachael Combe’s profile on Clinton in the May issue of Elle magazine. Despite the fact that the article only spent a couple paragraphs discussing Hillary’s fashion sensibilities, those few style tidbits have received significant media attention.

Obama's Interfering Dragon..

There are a few things that are just not right. One would be for a government to create a case against one of it's own citizens out of sheers spite and revenge. The other would be that leaders who do know better, can flaunt the law of the land just because it does not suit their own plans or future outcomes..

The reason for the law to be introduced initially was for just that reason. The object was that no citizen can be forcibly manipulated or just made to disappear. It was for that reason that the Magna Carta was instigated and demanded to be signed by the reigning Monarch, as anyone at that time could be and was thrown in jail, put to death at a whim, without proper trial, rights to defense or the opportunity to have one's day in court, as the term now applies..

That "day in court" has all but disappeared over the last couple of decades ever since Bill Clinton and his cronies introduced the VAWA anti-male/law legislation in response and payment to feminists for supporting one of the biggest hypocrites ever to be installed in the White House. Make that the second one as the current one is definitely no improvement. Bill "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton could be forgiven for his action when one has a close look at the alternative, but that was no excuse. Only the reason. The was a comedy a while back which should be renamed as Bill and his Dragon. That would certainly be appropriate..

Now, we have another member of that high office giving the two fingers at the law all because some people did not do their jobs properly and we have the Clinton precedents on how to go about it..

 The plaintiffs argued several points before Malihi, including Obama’s alleged failure to qualify as a “natural born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution for presidents. Obama has admitted in his writings his father never was a U.S. citizen, and attorneys argued that the understanding of the Founders, and a subsequent Supreme Court ruling, defines natural-born citizen as the offspring of two citizens of the country at the time of the birth.

Yep, trying it on for size again as we witness another convenient readjustment of the law and the US constitution.

Superior Court asked to boot Obama from ballot

'At issue is nothing less than the enforcement or loss of constitutional rule of law'

More to the story here for those who are interested..

And what is Bill "I shagged no one" Clinton doing, well..

Monica Lewinsky back in spotlight with 'Clinton'

Advisers speak publicly about affair for 1st time in PBS documentary

 It would appear that we are finally going to find out the truth, maybe..