Where has honesty gone in our political arena? When I think of the political class, I think of people who have lost the ability to speak honestly, to speak truth, good or bad. Everyone is trying to spin, doctor or withhold the truth.
And this is across party lines.
Although both parties are guilty of this dishonesty, one in particular has raised lying to an art form: Democrats.
Hear me out.
Former President Bill Clinton was the first to have a hard time dealing with the truth. When confronted with his numerous affairs, he disavowed them all. When he left a souvenir on Monica Lewinsky’s dress, he was still claiming, “I did not have sex with those women.”
Fast forward to our current president, a man who has been awarded so many Pinocchio’s from the Washington Post that he should change his name to Geppetto. Democrats are boastful of having elected the first black president; maybe they should check President Barack Obama’s ancestry. At the risk of sounding racist, the president is the offspring of a white woman and a black man. So yes, he appears black, but whether it suits his agenda or not, the man is not the first black president.
The most famous of Obama’s lies was the one on healthcare, you know the one, “If you like your plan you can keep it.”
You can Google this and find all of them; the list is too long to publish in this letter.
Then you have Sen. Harry Reid, a man who stood in the well of the U.S. Senate and lied about former Gov. Mitt Romney’s taxes, and in a recent interview he was pleased with himself for this act of dishonesty. Wow! The height of hypocrisy.
Now the Democrats seem to be putting all their eggs in another candidate, one who has already proven herself to be distrustful. A recent poll has that 57 percent of Americans do not trust her.
Now I know many of you are not that well informed, but please do yourself a favor. Look into Whitewater, the Rose Law firm and her cattle futures trading. Most recently, it was her decision to do all Secretary of State business on her own server, in direct conflict with accepted government protocol. Why did Hillary Clinton choose this route? Simple, libel laws do not apply to things said on the now-destroy thousands of emails. Clinton argued they were personal. Why should she be the arbiter of these emails?
Since both her “personal” and official emails were on the same server, who is to say that some of the deleted emails didn’t have important information?
Look into the Clinton Foundation, a charity that does not even merit a score from the agencies that rate the effectiveness of charities. Charitynavigator.org does not provide a rating, their explanation revolving around the complexity of the foundation.
Not sure I get that. Charities are simple: collect as much as you can and give back as much as you can. The best charities give back more than 90 percent of what they collect. The Clinton Foundation gives back just less than 20 percent of the donations received from donors.
Many reporters have asked Clinton’s supporters to name some of her accomplishments, and you typically get back things like, she was this or she was that. Don’t they know these are titles and not actual accomplishments?
I know Democrats will ridicule the exploding Republican candidate field, but for my money, I will take almost any of them over Clinton, Bernie Sanders an avowed socialist, Martin O’WHO, and the last guy who joined the race by suggesting America needs to move to the metric system; surely he was just joking.
The next 18 months will be fun and I look forward to seeing liberal heads explode on a regular basis.
The writer lives in Myrtle Beach.