Sunday, October 2, 2016

Transparent Dishonesty Part 2

The overused word transparency, used since 2008 on the campaign trail, was that “transparency” would be first and foremost if the Democrat candidate got elected. Both Obama and Hillary have used that word constantly. Well, how did that work out over the past 8 years? We have never had an administration like the administration that Obama has lorded over these past almost 8 years. It's been one “stonewall” after another from the sale of arms to the Mexican drug cartels (Attorney General Eric Holder said he knew nothing even though his Justice Department was in charge of the operation), the I.R.S. targeting conservative groups by holding up their tax exempt status, by denying any targeting for almost 4 years (it finally came out early this year that the administration admitted complicity- but no one was reprimanded or fired), and of course, the withholding of information and the lying about the Benghazi debacle by claiming a video was the cause of the death of 4 Americans which included our ambassador to Libya. The only thing transparent about all these events by this administration, was its “transparent dishonesty”.

This years presidential campaign is a continuation of the use of the word transparency as before, but it's not what the word generally means, it has been bastardized by Hillary Clinton by constantly hiding and lying about her involvement in using a private e-mail server instead of a required government server. She claimed that the State Department gave her permission to use it – it was a lie according to the Inspector General. She even went before a Congressional committee and repeated the lie (so far no consequences for lying under oath before the committee), but it took many FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests to get the pertinent documents, the one's that were supposedly deleted by Hillary and her cohorts. Is that observing the transparency that she so boldly proclaims over and over again? Only a fool or a blindly partisan supporter of Hillary would claim that Hillary was transparent in misleading the public about her activities regarding this matter.

It's amazing that both Obama and Hillary can go before the public and tell outright falsehoods with a straight face and with conviction. Both seem to be “congenital liars”. By repeating a lie over and over again, these two masterful prevaricators have convinced themselves that the lies they tell are actually facts in their sick minds. Even as far back as 1995, the late N.Y. Times columnist, William Safire, called Hillary Clinton a “congenital liar”. Things have not changed since except that now she is the presidential candidate of the Democrat Party. It seems that lying has paid off handsomely for her, but will the voters accept her and her lies in November?

The general public, which includes both Democrats and Republicans, have said (over 60% of those polled) that Hillary is a liar and untrustworthy. How can someone with that reputation be even considered to be our next president? Who is going to believe her when she says or does something in her capacity as president? If that unfortunate event ever takes place and she is President Hillary Clinton, it will be 4 years of chaos and turmoil, just what we don't need after 8 years of Obama's disastrous rule.

So when Hillary says that she will be the most transparent president in history if elected, say to yourself, transparent about what, her transparent dishonesty?

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Judge Jeanine: Do you want political correctness or truth?

Bookmark and Share

1 comment:

Gary Cohen said...

Imagine if we get a President Hillary Clinton, who will believe her when she negotiates with foreign countries, how will they know if she is telling the truth? She has trouble lying about the lies she has told about her lies. How can people with half a brain even consider a person as dishonest and untrustworthy as Hillary to be our president?