Share This Article with a Friend!


Hillary Clinton and the Death of Truth in Liberal America

Hillary Clinton

In the conservativehq.com article “A Congress of Lies” posted November 11, 2011 CHQ Chairman Richard A. Viguerie made the point that “The Tea Party rebellion came into being in large measure due to the perception among middle class taxpayers that America’s major establishment institutions were corrupt -- and there is no more compelling evidence of just how far the American political system has been corrupted by Washington’s insider culture, than how common and accepted lying has become among the political elite of Capitol Hill.”

Our friend Diana West, author of two “must read” books, American Betrayal and The Death of the Grown-Up, makes and develops a similar point, concluding that over the past 80 years or so Americans have developed a strange inability to become adults who render judgments of right and wrong. 

West makes a persuasive case that the root of this malaise began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s recognition of the Soviet Union and the body of lies that Americans have been fed ever since to justify normalizing a relationship with the abnormal.

West and Viguerie share a similar conclusion about the effect the endemic lying which now corrupts practically every aspect of American politics and culture, which West defines as “…this moral surrender to deception and self-deception that sent us down the long road to moral relativism, ‘political correctness,’ and other cultural ills that have left us unable to ask the hard questions…”

The latest, and perhaps final chapter of this surrender to moral relativism, and the elimination of allegiance to objective fact as the standard by which all matters must be judged, is playing out in the rapidly evolving scandal regarding foreign government contributions to the Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton’s speaking fees and policy-making by Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State as documented in Peter Schweizer's new book “Clinton Cash.”

Objectively, as far as we can tell from the pre-release excerpts published in establishment and conservative outlets, there is a wealth of facts indicating that Hillary Clinton violated the Memorandum of Understanding she had with the State Department and the Obama administration regarding the conduct of her relationship with the Clinton Foundation and its donors.

Objectively, as far as we can tell from the pre-release excerpts published in establishment and conservative outlets, there is a wealth of facts indicating that Hillary Clinton violated the constitutional and statutory prohibitions against accepting gifts from foreign governments.

None of these facts seem to interest Democratic Party elected officials and Party operatives who should have some allegiance to the higher interests of their Party and its principles.

None of these facts seem to interest major figures in the liberal sisterhood of powerful female media personalities, academics, activists and donors who make-up the core of Hillary Clinton’s political base.

And even more worryingly, none of these facts seem to interest major figures in the establishment media, such as former Clinton spokesman, now ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos.

As our friend Matt Boyle put it in his coverage of Peter Schweizer’s appearance* on ABC News’ This Week, Stephanopoulos was “floored” as two prominent journalists and the Republican Speaker of the House from his Clinton days, Newt Gingrich, laid out for him during a segment of the show just how bad the “Clinton Cash” book is for his old bosses.

During the show’s roundtable panel after "Clinton Cash" author Peter Schweizer appeared for a lengthy interview, Stephanopoulos teamed with Democratic strategist Donna Brazile (a leading member of the liberal sisterhood backing Hillary Clinton) in an attempt to discredit Schweizer.

Brazile admitted she doesn’t know what’s in the book. Yet, without having read it, she proceeded to drop a series of rhetorical attacks on Schweizer. She also offered the Clinton campaign advice on how to attempt to get past Clinton Cash.

“Well, George, I haven’t read the whole book—I’m sure it’s still being rewritten somewhere because the newspapers and other publications are already disputing some of the facts and the claims in his book,” Brazile said according to Boyle’s reporting. “But there are more drippings in this book than juice or sauce and what the campaign needs to do—and they did it last week—is go ahead and respond to these allegations. They’re scurrilous. We’re going to see more of them as the campaign goes along but respond to them and continue to reach out to voters and ignore all of this background noise. That’s what they need to do.”

When Newt Gingrich, a member of that segment’s panel said, “Look, this isn’t a political problem—this is a historical problem,” Gingrich said. “The Constitution of the United States says you cannot take money from foreign governments without explicit permission of the Congress. They wrote that in there because they knew the danger of corrupting our system by foreign money is enormous.

“You had a sitting Secretary of State who radically increased his speech fees and there is a whole series of dots on the wall now where people gave millions of dollars who oh, by the way, happened to get taken care of by the State Department. You raised a good standard.

“And of course, having been on the Watergate Committee, she knew exactly what to do. She erased 33,000 emails. Richard Nixon only erased 18 minutes. So you’re going to have a prima facie case that any jury would look at…”

Stephanopoulos and Brazile flatly refused to countenance any notion that what Hillary and Bill Clinton did presented a prima facie appearance of illegality; they refused to even accept that it was wrong for a government official to accept money from a foreign government.

To his great credit Gingrich continued to press the point. “My point is they took money from foreign governments while she was Secretary of State—that is clearly illegal,” Gingrich said. “This is not about politics. It’s illegal. It’s dangerous to America to have foreign governments get in the habit of bribing people who happen to be the husband of the Secretary of State or next president of the United States.”

“I think there’s a very simple case here—the Constitution says you can’t take this stuff, we have federal laws that say you can’t take this stuff,” Gingrich said. “If this was any person but Hillary Clinton, they’d be under indictment right now for a clearly straightforward problem.”

Bloomberg Politics’ Mark Halperin wrote what might well be the final epitaph for the death of objective truth among Democrats this way, “almost any Democrat who’s not Clintons’ payroll will tell reporters and others privately that these are serious issues,” but they are so corrupted by the death of truth and what Diana West calls “normalizing the abnormal” that, as far as we can tell, as of today none of have come out publicly and said the conduct of Bill and Hillary Clinton documented by Peter Schweizer in “Clinton Cash,” whether or not it is illegal, is wrong.

And if what’s documented in “Clinton Cash” isn’t wrong to Democrats, then nothing Bill and Hillary Clinton might do in the White House will be wrong either.

Please click the link to read Matt Boyle's article "Stephanopoulos Floored As Gingrich, Bloomberg Editors Detail Seriousness Of 'Clinton Cash'"

Share this