The American Dilemma and How We Can Fix It


Many years ago a friend who was studying to be a rabbi put forth an interesting situation and asked my opinion.  This was the scenario he presented.

You’re driving home on your way from work.  As you pause at a stop light, you see smoke rise in the sky.  It appears to be coming from an area where your home is located.  Almost in an involuntary way you exclaim, “Oh my God.  I hope that isn’t my house that’s on fire.”

The question my friend posed was, is that a moral thing either to think or say?

Naturally, the basis for this conundrum is that you certainly don’t want your family, your home or your possessions to be in danger.  But the implication is that you are perfectly content to be spared that loss and let it fall at the feet of one of your neighbors.

My answer was that even though I might have made the statement it didn’t imply that I wanted someone else to suffer a loss.  I simply hoped that there was nothing more than a garbage can on fire and that neither my nor my neighbors’ houses were threatened.

Over the years there’s been more smoke surrounding Hillary Clinton than can be seen at all the restaurants in the country which specialize in barbecue.  And as the adage goes, “Where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire”.  Unless you listen to Ms. Clinton and her camp.  I’m startled that wherever she goes the locals don’t declare that it’s Christmas for all the driven snow she brings with her.

Being a lawyer, Ms. Clinton naturally is drawn to a defense which is based on the law – and the fact that none of the allegations leveled against her have been “proven” – yet.  Part of the reason may be that among other allegations that have most recently surfaced about her method of doing business as Secretary of State she may have destroyed or attempted to destroy the evidence which might convict her if this matter actually goes to a court of law.

The latest flak is coming from the fact that in a small sample of emails which two IG’s randomly chose, ten percent were found to contain material that they determined contained “Classified” or “Top Secret” information.  And now the legalisms begin.  The Clinton camp is claiming that while those emails are “now” thus categorized, they weren’t at the time they were sent to then Secretary of State Clinton.  Of course, all of this would be moot if Ms. Clinton had followed protocol and conducted her correspondence on a government server.  But even that is beside the point.

Let’s think about the position she held for four years.  She was the second most important person in government who had responsibility for foreign affairs and ultimately safety at home as it might be imperiled by groups like ISIS.  One has to ask the question, was she so cavalier in maintaining an unsecured server because the only correspondence she anticipated receiving was the “Daily Sudoku Puzzle” or because she was exchanging cookie recipes?  If that is the case, it’s no wonder that our foreign policy during her watch has turned into such a shambles.

On the other hand, one would expect that a functioning Secretary of State would be privy to information, some of which would have been sensitive if not downright dangerous should it fall into the wrong hands.  Wouldn’t a rational person, entrusted with such a responsible position do everything in her power to make sure that information was secure?

So whether or not Ms. Clinton broke the law and might be prosecuted for dereliction of duty there is a far more fundamental question which anyone who is thoughtful should ask.  Is a person who exhibits such poor judgment as Secretary of State the kind of person we want in the Oval Office?

That’s not a matter of partisanship.  It’s a matter of common sense.

Comments on: "SMOKE, FIRE, HILLARY" (7)

  1. Uh no she wouldn’t, not necessarily. Especially if she were convinced that every single person whose soul she hadn’t bought was out to get her, And even more to the point, not if she was not putting the country ahead of her personal gain.

    “Dereliction of duty” is, I think, a given. If either or both of those other things can be proven the charge changes, or should, to “Treason against the United States”. It’s testing time for federal law enforcement, and we are watching. She reminds me quite a lot of Aaron Burr, too bad duelling is out of fashion.

  2. The postulation you offer in your first paragraph may exactly be Ms. Clinton’s thinking. At least that is her campaign’s avowed explanation for all of this. “They’re all out to get me … and have been for years.”

  3. The security of the emails is complicated by hackers who have way too much access to the official, supposedly foolproof, lines. And yes, there have been a lot of folks out to get her. Just listen to AM radio for their mouthpieces.

    • Thank you for taking your time to comment. I apologize for my delay in responding but, “Things happen.”
      I certainly agree with you that there is no foolproof method of protecting information, classified or otherwise. Recent intrusions into government “secured” servers certainly demonstrates that. But one can only conclude from that fact that an even less secure server is likely to be far more vulnerable. Why would any Secretary of State not expect to receive or to send communications that were likely to be sensitive. It seems to me that is the essence of the job. So why maintain this separate, private server?

      Ms. Clinton’s first explanation was that it was for her convenience and ease of use as it enabled her only to need one device for her communications. But then we found out that she, in fact, used three separate devices. In and of itself, this is probably not such a big deal – a mere “oversight” or “misremembrance” on her part. But these “oversights” seem to be so frequent that one might argue that they constitute a “pattern and practice” of misrepresentations – a term with which Ms. Clinton as an attorney should be familiar.

      • As we say, the plot thickens. So what’s ahead in the next act?

      • That’s an excellent question. Since I don’t have a crystal ball nor do I have access to what the FBI knows or might discover, anything I might speculate is just that – a theory.

        One scenario that I think is plausible is that they do discover that Ms. Clinton has violated at least one of over a dozen federal laws which might apply. But will that result in a referral to the Justice Department? Or if it does, will our current Attorney General act on it? I doubt it.

        If Clinton were to be elected president, Obama could use this information essentially black mail her to pursuing the same “policies” he has advocated for seven years.

        But that’s only a theory.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: