Here we sit on the verge of the promised (yet still undefined) change that we blindly selected for the next phase of the American experience and the Dictators of Culture in Hollywood have decided that this is as good a time as any to once again dig up old Republican transgressions in the form of a thirty year old interview in order to feel like they are kicking us around again…for old time’s sake. Oh, the sweet freedom of the victory dance.
It simply astounds me that the same willfully ignorant electorate that will eat that up at the box office remains blissfully silent about the demonstrated arrogantly-lawless element coming forth thru the Office of the President Elect to populate positions within the new government.
A few quick examples…
It appears that the American Neo-Camelot Soap Opera will continue with our next Secretary of State. (And it appears the original version will be revived with the appointment of her Senatorial replacement to the seat that the state of New York insists on whoring out for Democrat party pleasuring purposes. But, I digress.) While most of Sen. Clinton’s self-touted “thirty five years of service” really are laughably empty (except that it does provide a resume that is marginally deeper than that of her soon-to-be new boss), it’s the horrid details of what she has done at critical crossroads of that “career” that should derail any possible cabinet level confirmation. Unfortunately, I’m afraid we will soon see not even the hint of a serious discussion in the Senate before she is rubber stamped.
My focus is on two occasions when this woman was presented with positions of either great responsibility and/or great importance in deciding the path history would take in both legal and political realms and the decisions she made. The first revolves around her highest profile experience to utilize her “brilliant” legal mind. Her Watergate experience had potential to be celebrated on high by lefties everywhere but, instead, it earned her the recommendation of being not suitable for “any future position of public or private trust” (1)
and is mostly forgotten to history. A few more details from her boss
to complete the picture:
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “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.” (2)
The second occasion is her testimony under oath during the Travelgate investigation…you know, the testimony in which her statements, under oath, were patently false (3). Again, she’s a liar and both situations demonstrated her complete contempt for the American systems of law and government.
The second example involves Carol Browner for Energy Czar and has been nicely summarized
by Michelle Malkin (4). In short, Ms. Browner seemed to habitually ignore the law while heading the EPA and brazenly violated a Federal Judge’s order (i.e. contempt of court) on her last day on the job. I would think that this would fall into the “not suitable for any future position of public or private trust” category also. But that’s just me.
There you have it. Two nominees who have demonstrated histories of assuming they are above-the-law and an incoming Senate that I assume will not even have the gall to question them about their lying, cheating ways.
We are now getting the government we deserve.
Proud Member for 4 Years and 3 Months
I’m currently having issues with embedding links in the new and improved Redsate so here are the links indicated above: