|
DUMP LIEBERMAN
|
Posted on 03/12/2003 7:57:51 PM PST by Mia T
DUMP LIEBERMAN
TheAmericanProwler.org Copyright © 2002 TheAmericanProwler.org. All Rights Reserved. By Published 3/12/2003 12:05:00 AM Live From New York If we told you that America has evolved into a hypocritical society, would you believe it? If we told you that, while we pretend to be a moral people, we actually accept and practice corruption as a way of life, would you believe it?
JACKIE MASON FOR PRESIDENT!
A Nation of Hypocrites
Since it is not nice to call people names without first proving your point, here is a simple question: Would all of these charlatans, liars, and lowlifes be representing you in our government if you were not their partner in crime? How did they get there? Obviously, you voted for them. If corruption offended you as much as you think it does then why do you think of politicians generally as crooks? Would they be holding office if not for you?
When President Nixon was accused of running the most corrupt government since Ulysses S. Grant, all the polls showed that a huge percentage of the people never doubted it but he won the next election more easily than an elephant eating peanuts. If you think that he was corrupt, and you believe that you are somehow different, you owe it to ask yourself to ask: Did any of the crimes of Bill Clinton stop you from voting for him? Somehow, it is inconceivable to think of ourselves as morally corrupt; however, when something serves our self-interest, our moral conscience somehow gets lost in space. If a person is great for the economy, who cares if he is corrupt or even raped one girl! We all live in a collective lie preaching and espousing a morality that we never practice. This is why, in the highest offices of our government, we accept the lowest behavior.
As an employer, you would not hire a waiter for a restaurant if you found one lie on his application. However, Al Gore, while campaigning for president, created more fantasies than the Wizard of Oz. He had faith in our corruptibility. President Carter, America's symbol of the highest moral values and the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, makes personal speaking appearances for the paltry sum of a hamburger and a bottle of beer. With this, they include an apology to him for having to speak in an empty building. On the other hand, President Clinton, whose total lack of morality resulted in his impeachment while in office and his subsequent disbarment from the practice of law (because he is too big of a liar to be a lawyer), is paid $150,000 per speaking appearance. His popularity is not an accident! While we absolve ourselves of responsibility, the truth is that we are actually the enablers of public corruption. We not only accept it, but actually idolize it, glorify it, and envy it.
But there is no shortage of examples of our partnership with corrupt behavior. Take Senator Lieberman, for instance. This great man of principle and morality sees nothing immoral about having no principle. He was celebrated for his bravery in taking to the Senate floor to denounce President Clinton for reprehensible and obscene behavior and desecrating the high office of the President of the United States. But when asked if this meant that Clinton should be thrown out of office Lieberman responded, "No, what does one thing have to do with another?" His obsequious followers in the press immediately hailed him as the new moral conscience of the United States Senate. The truth is that he really should have been hailed as the biggest hypocrite of this century. The press is not alone in this irresponsible charade. It also proved again that the American people are just as easily corruptible. That is why Senator Lieberman is now among the front in line for his party's nomination for the presidency. In reality, if we practiced morality instead of preaching it, Senator Lieberman should be in front of the line at the unemployment office.
It is hard to believe that there are examples of hypocrisy that are worse than this, except when you mention the name Clinton. But this time we are referring to Senator Hillary Clinton, who makes President Clinton look like an honest man. For instance, after the Special Prosecutor completed his investigation of Mrs. Clinton, he concluded that she was guilty of committing perjury and obstruction of justice. However, he decided not to indict her. He publicly stated that she was much too popular among the American people to expect a jury to find her guilty. He felt he could not get a verdict against Mrs. Clinton, but, at the same time, he unintentionally delivered a devastating verdict against the morality of the American people.
Jackie Mason is a comedian. Raoul Felder is an attorney.
the logic of pathologic self-interest
by Mia T
There was a third chance to get rid of the clintons. In '98, when there was still time to stop bin Laden...
The failure to remove the clintons in '98 was a monumental error and is directly traceable to the logic of pathologic self-interest.
Recall in particular:
THE LIEBERMAN PARADIGM
Senator Joseph Lieberman's bifurcated Monicagate speech in 1998 on the floor of the Senate was almost universally misperceived as an act of honesty and courage.
In reality, it was neither.
Lieberman's argument that sorry day was rightly headed toward clinton's certain ouster when it suddenly made a swift, hairpin 180, as if clinton hacks took over the wheel. . .which they probably did.
What was Joe promised? A place on the 2000 ticket, perhaps?
To be fair, I must note that it was not the Lieberman speech but rather a New York Times apologia that institutionalized this shameless scheme to protect a thoroughly corrupt and repugnant--and--as everyone except The New York Times now knows-- dangerous -- Democrat regime.
The Lieberman Paradigm made its debut in The Times' utterly loony 1996 endorsement of clinton. The Times actually argued--NOTE: this is NOT satire--that although bill clinton was a "corrupt," "dysfunctional personality [with} delusions" -- The Times' own words -- we need not--we must not--remove bill clinton; we need only remove.the character lobe of bill clinton's brain.*
THE SHAYS SYNDROME
Not an aberration, the Shays Syndrome was quickly adopted by the entire Senate as its impeachment show trial deus ex machina of choice.
Shays, you may recall, examined the evidence in the Ford Building, concluded that clinton did, indeed, rape Broaddrick -- "VICIOUSLY!" AND "TWICE!" he declared at the time-- and was planning to vote to impeach; he changed his mind, however, after a little tete a tete with the rapist.
Any cognitive dissonance Shays may have experienced rendering that verdict was no doubt assuaged by the political plum clinton had given Mrs. (Betsi) Shays...
Each of the 50 senators, on the other hand, cured the cognitive dissonance problem pre-emptively by making certain not to examine the damning Ford Building evidence in the first place.
roadside ad:
by Mia T
Hypocrisy abounds in this Age of clinton, a Postmodern Oz rife with constitutional deconstruction and semantic subversion, a virtual surreality polymarked by presidential alleles peccantly misplaced or, in the case of Jefferson, posthumously misappropriated.
Shameless pharisees in stark relief crowd the Capitol frieze:
Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Bryan, Byrd, Cohen, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Gore, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Moynihan, Reid, Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer.
These are the 28 sitting Democratic senators, the current Vice President and Secretary of Defense -- clinton defenders all -- who, in 1989, voted to oust U.S. District Judge Walter Nixon for making "false or misleading statements to a grand jury."
In 1989 each and every one of these men insisted that perjury was an impeachable offense. (What a difference a decade and a decadent Democrat make.)
Senator Herb Kohl (November 7, 1989):
* * * * *
"The hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself," observed the philosopher Hannah Arendt. "What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core."
If hypocrisy is the vice of vices, then perjury is the crime of crimes, for perjury provides the necessary cover for all other crimes.
David Lowenthal, professor emeritus of political science at Boston College makes the novel and compelling argument that perjury is "bribery consummate, using false words instead of money or other things of value to pervert the course of justice" and, thus, perjury is a constitutionally enumerated high crime.
The Democrats' defense of clinton's perjury -- and their own hypocrisy -- is three-pronged.
ONE:
clinton's perjuries were "just about sex" and therefore "do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense."
This argument is spurious. The courts make no distinction between perjuries. Perjury is perjury. Perjury attacks the very essence of democracy. Perjury is bribery consummate.
Moreover, (the clinton spinners notwithstanding), clinton's perjury was not "just about sex." clinton's perjury was about clinton denying a citizen justice by lying in a civil rights-sexual harassment case about his sexual history with subordinates.
TWO:
Presidents and judges are held to different standards under the Constitution.
clinton's defenders ignore Federalist No. 57, and Hillary Rodham's constitutional treatise on impeachable acts -- written in 1974 when she wanted to impeach a president; both mention "bad conduct" as grounds for impeachment.
"Impeachment," wrote Rodham, "did not have to be for criminal offenses -- but only for a 'course of conduct' that suggested an abuse of power or a disregard for the office of the President of the United States...A person's 'course of conduct' while not particularly criminal could be of such a nature that it destroys trust, discourages allegiance, and demands action by the Congress...The office of the President is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States."
Hamilton (or Madison) discussed the importance of wisdom and virtue in Federalist 57. "The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."
(Contrast this with clinton, who recklessly, reflexively and feloniously subordinates the common good to his personal appetites.)
Because the Framers did not anticipate the demagogic efficiency of the electronic bully pulpit, they ruled out the possibility of an MTV mis-leader (and impeachment-thwarter!) like clinton. In Federalist No. 64, John Jay said: "There is reason to presume" the president would fall only to those "who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue." He imagined that the electorate would not "be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle."
(If the clinton debacle teaches us anything, it is this: If we are to retain our democracy in this age of the electronic demagogue, we must recalibrate the constitutional balance of power.)
THREE:
The president can be prosecuted for his alleged felonies after he leaves office. (Nota bene ROBERT RAY.)
This clinton-created censure contrivance -- borne out of what I have come to call the "Lieberman Paradigm" (clinton is an unfit president; therefore clinton must remain president) -- is nothing less than a postmodern deconstruction in which the Oval Office would serve for two years as a holding cell for the perjurer-obstructor.
Such indecorous, dual-purpose architectonics not only threatens the delicate constitutional framework -- it disturbs the cultural aesthetic. The senators must, therefore, roundly reject this elliptic scheme.
In this postmodern Age of clinton, we may, from time to time, selectively stomach corruption. But we must never abide ugliness. Never.
|
|
Free Republic is one of those groups obsessed with the Clinton era.
Word's out: Protest at Hillary's tonight
"ONE OF THOSE GROUPS OBSESSED WITH THE CLINTONS"
|
|
|
|
|
|
LEFT-WING TALK RADIO 2: "It's the terrorism, stupid."
Hear clinton stupidity, smallness, banality, fecklessness, ineptitude, prevarication, corruption, perfidy and utter failure directly from the rapist, himself. clinton provides the perfect foil for Bush, who makes a cameo appearance or two.
Pay special attention to Dan Rather's little story about terrorism hitting the U.S. "bigtime" during the clintons' tenure.
In particular, connect the following dots: the '93 WTC bombing. a certain bin Laden protégé and clinton's admission that he passed up bin Laden. Note clinton's spurious argument for this monumental failure.
To this day, clinton seems not to understand that bin Laden is -- and was in 1996 -- an enemy of the state, not a simple criminal.
clinton still seems not to get it -- the same terrorist --the terrorist he refused to take--hit the same building in '93.
Notwithstanding this, to hear clinton tell it, his disastrous decision not to take bin Laden when offered on a silver platter by Sudan, (arguably the worst decision ever made by a president), derived from his scrupulous avoidance of abusing power and trashing laws...
Yeah, right.
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
A Fish Rots from the Head
Investor's Business Daily
Ijaz, an admitted Clinton supporter who helped negotiate these opportunities to nab bin Laden, said, "The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening."
Ijaz says that three months before bin Laden's men blew up the USS Cole in Yemen, he "brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings (in Tanzania and Kenya)... But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer."
Clinton's apparent boredom with vital information extended beyond Sudanese intelligence officers to his own intelligence officers. His first CIA director, James Woolsey, couldn't get a meeting with Clinton in the two years he served. Woolsey left the Clinton administration disgusted with its slovenly approach to national security. ...
To hear Clinton now say "We must do more to reduce the pool of potential terrorists" is thus beyond farce. He had numerous opportunities to reduce that pool, and he blew it.
The pool, in fact, grew larger on Clinton's watch, as he spent his final days giving pardons to drug dealers, Puerto Rican terrorists and Marc Rich, a fugitive who topped America's most-wanted list.
In this light, Clinton's order to the CIA that it not use "unsavory characters" to collect information pushes irony to its outer limits. |
Had George Will written Sleaze, the sequel (the "sequel" is, of course, hillary) after 9-11-01, I suspect that he would have had to forgo the above conceit, as the doubt expressed in the setup phrase was, from that day forward, no longer operational.
Indeed, assessing the clinton presidency an abject failure is not inconsistent with commentary coming from the left, most recently the LA Times: "Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize."
When the clintons left office, I predicted that the country would eventually learn--sadly, the hard way--that this depraved, self-absorbed and inept pair had placed America (and the world) in mortal danger. But I was thinking years, not months.
It is very significant that hillary clinton didn't deny clinton culpability for the terrorism. (Meet the Press, 12-09-01), notwithstanding tired tactics (if you can't pass the buck, spread the blame) and chronic "KnowNothing Victim Clinton" self-exclusion.
If leftist pandering keeps the disenfranchized down in perpetuity, clinton pandering,("it's the economy, stupid"), kept the middle and upper classes wilfully ignorant for eight years.
And ironically, both results (leftist social policy and the clinton economy) are equally illusory, fraudulent. It is becoming increasingly clear that clinton covertly cooked the books even as he assiduously avoided essential actions that would have negatively impacted the economy--the ultimate source of his continued power--actions like, say, going after the terrorists.
It is critically important that hillary clinton fail in her grasp for power; read Peggy Noonan's little book, 'The Case Against Hillary Clinton' and Barbara Olson's two books; it is critical that the West de-clintonize, but that will be automatic once it is understood that the clintons risked civilization itself in order to gain and retain power.
It shouldn't take books, however, to see that a leader is a dangerous, self-absorbed sicko. People should be able to figure that out for themselves. The electorate must be taught to think, to reason. It must be able to spot spin, especially in this age of the electronic demagogue.
I am not hopeful. As Bertrand Russell noted, "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so. "
*George Will continues: There is reason to believe that he is a rapist ("You better get some ice on that," Juanita Broaddrick says he told her concerning her bit lip), and that he bombed a country to distract attention from legal difficulties arising from his glandular life, and that. ... Furthermore, the bargain that he and his wife call a marriage refutes the axiom that opposites attract. Rather, she, as much as he, perhaps even more so, incarnates Clintonism
|
|
|
|
Those in power are getting awfully uncomfortable...
Well, unfortunately, Mia T's post are not something the Abbreviated-Correct folks would like!
You have to admit though, Mia's a diamond-in-the-rough. 
Thanks for the ping, Mia...it's much appreciated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
