Page loading...

Page Redirection If you are not redirected automatically, please visit our Facebook page

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Hillary Clinton was fired from Watergate investigation for "lies" and "unethical behavior"

Despite Salon's recent whiny protestation that people should "stop comparing the Obama administration's recent scandals to Watergate," there's a couple parallels in such comparisons that are just too eery to ignore. 

For starters, the IRS scandal has echos of Watergate that should make anyone's skin crawl.

And then there's this, from Dan Calabrese:
I've decided to reprint a piece of work I did nearly five years ago, because it seems very relevant today given Hillary Clinton's performance in the Benghazi hearings. Back in 2008 when she was running for president, I interviewed two erstwhile staff members of the House Judiciary Committee who were involved with the Watergate investigation when Hillary was a low-level staffer there. I interviewed one Democrat staffer and one Republican staffer, and wrote two pieces based on what they told me about Hillary's conduct at the time. 
The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
Read on... 

But, really, what difference - at this point - does it make?

It matters

Friday, May 3, 2013

Federalism is the way forward for the GOP

It seems the GOP faces an insurmountable paradox in Washington D.C. On the one hand, Republicans argue to reduce the federal government's role in our daily lives. On the other hand, we're supposed to elect these same Republicans to federal positions of authority. Which means, at best, these folks are getting into office and hitting the pause button on the expansion of federal bureaucracy.

And while simply stopping government growth rather than rolling it back doesn't sound ideal, it seems like all the Party's been able to do recently is moderately slow the endless creep of federal intrusion into every nook and cranny of our existence. That approach simply isn't going to be enough to win the Presidency back.

But, then again, maybe Americans just need to another proof of concept from Conservatives before they're willing to give them back the keys to the White House.

Across the country, Republican governors and GOP state leadership are delivering real solutions and results to their constituencies while Blue states continue to linger in the residual effects of a recession brought about by their own Community Reinvestment Act-type social engineering.

And while Conservatives are running up the score at the state level, Conservative media, talking heads and celebrities continue to focus on national issues - where we simply do not have the media firepower to compete. And let's face it, there are too many national issues to defend at once - that's the whole point of the Left's Cloward-Piven Strategy: to overwhelm the government with an unending number of false "priorities" (gay marriage, amnesty for illegal immigrants, late-term abortions, marijuana legalization, limitations on the size of our soda drinks, global warming, etc.) so that we distract ourselves into a total collapse.

For Liberals, any one area of expansion awarded the Federal government is a victory. For conservatives, any one such expansion is a failure. It's hard to truly ever win on those terms, and I'm not entirely sure what we have to show for the past several decades of trying.

All politics is local, or so the saying goes. As evidenced in the recent gun control push, Federalism is a viable solution both to stemming the tide of Federal Government overreach and in shaping/informing local perception and understanding. So, why don't Republicans start putting a more concerted effort behind using Federalism to combat the burgeoning expansion of big government? Is the specter of the Civil War really still so prevalent that we're going to simply continue ignoring the 10th Amendment -- or is it simply that politicians in Federal office (Republican and Democrat) have convinced themselves that they, not the states they represent, know best?

Brawler's Search