While we endure
the daily lies of President Obama, do we really want to have another four to
eight years more of Hillary Clinton’s? It’s not like we don’t have ample evidence
of her indifference to the truth and that is not what America wants in a
President, now or ever.
The office has
already been degraded to a point where neither our allies nor our enemies
trusts anything Obama says. Do we really want to continue a process that could
utterly destroy our nation?
Hillary
Clinton’s announcement that she intends to run for President is predicated not
on any achievements in her life beyond having married Bill Clinton. Instead,
her message is that America needs a woman as President. Having already elected
an abject failure because he was black, one can only hope and pray that enough
voters will conclude that America needs to avoid race or gender to be the
determining factor.
In 1974 the
27-year old Hillary was fired from a committee related to the Watergate
investigation. Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised her and when the
investigation was over, he fired her and refused to give her a letter of
recommendation. When asked why, he said, “Because she was a liar. She was an
unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the
rules of the House, the rules of the committee, and the rules of
confidentiality.”
She has not
changed. Writing about her emails, Ronald D. Rotunda, a professor at Chapman
University’s Fowler School of Law, said her admitted destruction of more than
30,000 emails “sure looks like an obstruction of justice—a serious violation of
the criminal law. The law says that no one has to us email, but it is a crime
(18 U.S.C. section 1519) to destroy even one message to prevent it from being
subpoenaed.” The law, said Rotunda, punishes this with up to 20 years
imprisonment.
Instead, Hillary
is asking voters to give her at least four years in the highest office in the
land.
Even pundits
like The New York Times’ Maureen
Dowd, writing in mid-March responded to Hillary saying “None of what you
said made any sense. Keeping a single account mingling business and personal
with your own server wasn’t about ‘convenience.’ It was about expedience. You
became judge and jury on what’s relevant because you didn’t want to leave
digital fingerprints for others to retrace.”
“You assume that
if it’s good for the Clintons, it’s good for the world, you’re always tangling
up government policy with your own needs, desires, deceptions, marital
bargains, and gremlins.”
Around the same
time as Dowd’s rebuke, I wrote that I thought that the revelations about the
emails and the millions the Clinton foundation received from nations with whom
she was dealing as Secretary of State would be sufficient for those in charge
of the Democratic Party to convince her not to run. I was wrong. I was wrong
because I profoundly underestimated Hillary’s deep well of ambition and
indifference to the laws everyone else must obey. I was wrong because the
Democratic Party is totally corrupt.
It is not as if
anyone paying any attention would not know that she is politically to the far
Left, a politician who does not believe that the powers of our government are
derived from “the consent of the governed.” Throughout her life she has let us
know that with quotes such as:
“We’re going to
take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
“(We) can’t just
let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from
some people.”
“I certainly
think the free-market has failed.” These quotes are the personification of
Communism.
In March, the
political pundit, Peggy
Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal, said “We are defining political
deviancy down.” Referring to the email scandal, she asked “Is it too much to
imagine that Mrs. Clinton wanted to conceal the record of her communications as
America’s top diplomat…?” That was the reason she ignored the government’s
rules regarding such communications. Rarely mentioned is the very strong
likelihood that her email account had been hacked by our nation’s enemies and
thus everything she was doing, officially and privately, was known to them.
“The story,”
said Noonan “is that this is what she does and always has. The rules apply to
others, not her.” That is, simply said, a criminal mentality. “Why doesn’t the
legacy press swarm her on this?” asked Noonan. “Because she is political
royalty.”
We fought a
Revolution to free America from the British royalty. This was so ingrained in
the thinking of the Founding Fathers that section 9 of Article One of the
Constitution says “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States.
And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without
the Consent of Congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of
any kind whatever from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” That’s what the
foundation did.
Noonan had
earlier written a book about Hillary. “As I researched I remembered why, four
years into the Clinton administration, the New York Times columnist William
Safire called Hillary ‘a congenital liar…compelled to mislead, and to ensnare
her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.’”
“Do we have to
go through all that again?” asked Noonan. “A generation or two ago, a person so
encrusted in a reputation for scandal would not be considered a possible
presidential contender. She would be ineligible. Now she is inevitable.”
Well, maybe not
inevitable. We have a long time to go until the primaries arrive and then the
election. We have enough time to ask ourselves if we live in a republic where
merit, integrity, and honesty are still the standards by which we select our
President.
© Alan Caruba,
2015
No comments:
Post a Comment