Obama's 'Hillary' Offensive
President Obama’s political slow-roll related to Hillary Clinton’s unsecured, private server has officially begun. Unfortunately, conservatives don’t watch Mr. Obama’s usual sycophantic haunts like the low-rated MSNBC (where, for example, another liar — similarly disgraced former NBC anchor Brian Williams — was put out to pasture, apparently never to be heard from again). Recall Fox News and its motto “fair and balanced” (conservative-leaning). For that very reason, Mr. Obama has generally avoided this most watched cable network like the plague. For context, Mr. Obama has not been interviewed by that outfit since the beginning of 2014 by prime time host Bill O'Reilly. Even that was done begrudgingly: by tradition, the network broadcasting the Super Bowl always gets the game day presidential interview. So, why this anomalous pivot? Why did he condescend to a rare interview with “Fox News Sunday?”
To get his message across stentorian: the fix is officially in for the Democratic front-runner. At least as far as Mr. Obama is concerned, that is.
Today, he’s apologizing for Hillary: “She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy,” he said, adding, “What I also know is that there’s classified and then there’s classified.” That doublespeak sounds eerily like that of a former blue dress intern-chasing president — Hillary’s lothario hubby — who said related to his own inappropriate dalliance with Monica Lewinsky: “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” As Mr. Obama’s longstanding “magic” pen and phone pattern, law is reduced to silly putty in this president’s grip: “There’s stuff that is really top secret top secret, and then there’s stuff that is being presented to the president, the secretary of state, you may not want going out over the wire.” What masterful equivocation, what utter gobbledygook! That sounds precisely like another disgraced, scandal embroiled U.S. president. Naturally, I refer to Richard “Watergate” Nixon who said in a 1977 interview with David Frost: “Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.” How nice for him and Mr. Obama.
So, in the final analysis, we have not the trailblazing MLK healer of a nation (everyone “hoped” in vain for), we have our own 21st century Democratic version of Richard Nixon. Except he uses his ethnicity as a skillfully as magician’s sleight of hand to successfully avoid impeachment for his own ultra-Constitutional activities. Ah, the perpetual motion political maneuvering of Mr. Obama. Unbound by the Constitution, truth, the American way — and apparently all points in between. So, for he, our twice elected de facto “emperor," the point isn’t the unambiguous violation of man-made laws (above no one save God Himself), it’s the colossal rationalization that Hillary didn’t mean to do it. Boy, using that expensive Harvard law degree to catch the bird droppings in his befuddled brain is a real waste. But, who needs it for he who acts as crookedly as Nixon who also "was above the law”?
A republic is based on the respect for law or, as we have witnessed under Mr. Obama, it quickly disintegrates into chaos (read: Black Lives Matter) and acts unchecked beyond its strictures. For this reason, dispassionate history will not be so kind and forgiving as today’s generation to him. As a case and point, in his 1819 letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “The Constitution…is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” Mr. Jefferson was wary of a rogue judiciary, it would understandably never dawn on him that any duly elected U.S. president would act thusly. Indeed, Mr. Obama’s newest “American apology tour for one,” in actuality, only benefits two people. Her 2016 presidential prospects (she’s a lock for the nomination) dovetail with his need for a legacy-preserving successor.
So what are a few, covering lies between to “would be” presidents, one completely bereft of the American spirit, and one halfway there who is simply morally bankrupt? Mr. Obama’s “second apology tour” will fail as readily as his bended knee first one did with America’s geo-political foes in the war torn, terrorist-infested Middle East. Despite Mr. Trump’s obvious flaws, America wants a pro-American outsider like Ted Cruz; not Hillary, an ultimate Washington insider with an allergic reaction to truth-telling. And perhaps even “inadvertent” espionage.
Speaking of those newly charged with espionage, there is Lieutenant Commander Edward Lin, a Navy officer (naturalized in 2008, but born in Taiwan) charged with passing U.S. intelligence to his birth country, and perhaps also China. His presumably intentional disregard for law — and the security interests of the American people — is being met with a rather different standard of justice than Mrs. Clinton. Yet, as any lawyer knows, ignorance of law is no defense against it. To make an apt analogy to Leona Helmsley and paying taxes, law for “the president, the [former] secretary of state” is for the rest of us, the “little people,” not those who stoop from their gilded perches to “lead” us.
Despite “Bonnie and Clyde’s” gum flapping word parsing, 2,000 of Hillary’s server emails are classified, of those 22 contain “top secret” information and therefore cannot be released to the congressional committee investigating her actions. And given the strong likelihood that nefarious hackers (working within or beyond the purview of hostile, foreign governments) breached Mrs. Clinton non-governmental system, given his and hers matching track records of stonewalling and bold faced lies, how can these careless people be trusted? Per their constitutional responsibility, Republicans (who formerly impeached Bill Clinton for his lies) should have found the backbone to at least attempt to remove lawless Mr. Obama from office long ago. In any case, today is a new day. In this regard, make no mistake: Mrs. Clinton deserves an “orange is the new black” taxpayer-funded cell rather than her greatly desired return to “queenly” prominence, the White House in 2017.
The result of the November 4th presidential election is a pivotal heartbeat in our country’s continued viability as a free and law-based society. As a nation, our selection of the next commander-in-chief will demonstrate definitively whether the American people still value Western standards or a continuation of the ruinous Obama true-life “nanny” state. Put another way, true independence or more empty leftist’s lip service to American ideals. With liar Hillary, we will get top-down totalitarianism from Big Sister. On the other hand, it is not too late to opt for a true, Reaganesque conservative like Ted Cruz who will lead us back to the Founding Fathers’ intention of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
David L. Hunter is on Twitter and blogs at davidlhunter.blogspot.com. He is published in The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Patriot Post, FrontPage Mag, and extensively in Canada Free Press and American Thinker.