By Alan Caruba
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 use 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.”
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