Of Laws and Liberals

I can't ever seem to wrap my brain around the liberal way of thinking and to be honest, if I do, it will probably scare the hell out of me. Not that I think they are as smart as they themselves seem to believe but deviousness is something that just comes easily to them.

Take the Joe Sestak job offer for instance. Sestak was offered a job--whether non-paying or paying is in doubt but is irrelevant--to drop out of the primary against Snarlin' Arlen Specter--the turncoat RINO. Sestak was quite clear that it was someone in the Obama administration that made the offer and it sounded as if it was an offer that would have set him up quite nicely. This week it came out that the offer was made by no other than Slick Willy Clinton who can't seem to keep his slimy tentacles out of our official business.

So how do leading liberal writers respond? They say ignore the law as Eric Alterman does here:

"The law," you say? Is someone going to arrest Clinton or Emanuel or even Obama for doing this, assuming they did it? Well, it turns out there is a law: "18 USC 600," which makes it illegal "to offer employment, position, compensation, or other benefit made possible by an Act of Congress in exchange for 'political activity,' including support for or opposition to a candidate, including in a primary election," as Columbia Law professor Richard Briffault explained to The Daily Caller.

Thing is, this is not the kind of law to which anyone has ever paid any attention before. And a good thing, too, as nobody would ever get a job. Has anyone noticed that Hillary Clinton stopped saying mean things about Barack Obama and is no longer a threat to his presidency since he appointed her secretary of State? Was that illegal? What about his choice of ex-Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Jr., who looked like a strong contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, to be his ambassador to China? Slammer time for that, too? And remember when the Obama administration was in talks with Republican Judd Gregg to make him secretary of Commerce? He was on again, off again, etc., but there was clearly a deal in place.

You see, every one does it so it's not really breaking the law. But this time, the smartest, savviest, most intelligent president ever is busted so it's become a big deal. A sitting president violated the law in a blatant way and got exposed for his efforts so it's not so easy just to forget about it and move along this time.

Liberals have a long history of this type of thinking. A recent example would include the immigration debate whereby they are saying that it's perfectly fine for aliens to sneak into our country, mooch off of our services and then remain here taking jobs from those who need them and generally giving us the finger while doing it. But we must have compassion they say, we'll just ignore the fact that they've broken the law and in fact we'll reward them for doing so.

The rule of law for liberals is great when it's a law they've written and like. They love government intrusion through regulation but turn a blind eye when it affects them.

You can't have it both ways lefties, you either abide by the law or you don't. They aren't deep critical thinkers, they are hypocrites and elixir salesmen who consider themselves above the laws that only apply to us lowly folks. This administration that was supposed to be open and transparent has become one that has not cleaned up the filth and scum in DC but instead has entrenched it.

Name a special prosecutor now, Mr. Holder. A crime has been committed and should be investigated. As with the aforementioned Clinton, it's a crime that people can understand. It's not illegal campaign contributions or a shady real estate transaction; no this is a simple quid pro quo done by a regime that said would change that thinking.