Square Root of 5

To me, a Democrat Senator's refusing to toe the Democrat party line would seem to be the epitome of independence.

Unfortunately, Senator Miller failed to show such independence when he voted "not guilty" along with all other Democrat Senators in the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. Not one single Democrat voted "guilty" even though many of them had to believe that President Clinton had twice committed perjury. First in his sworn Paula Jones deposition and then again in his sworn grand jury testimony. ("Testimony" — isn't that rooted in holding your testicles and promising to tell the truth? Signifying originally, "May you castrate me if I fail to tell the truth.")

Democrat Senators of the 106th Congress contributed appreciably to the breakdown of our traditional value of truth when they voted the party line, when they voted their politics rather than their principles. Or, did those Senators vote their principles — were their principles that character and sworn oaths don't matter? They've given me very little reason before or after the impeachment trial to think otherwise, to imagine that they give the least little damn for the truth or for abiding by sworn oaths.

Winning — that's what politics is all about, isn't it? Trials, too. The end justifies the means. Especially for liberals, liberals being more experienced than conservatives and more comfortable than conservatives with moral relativism. Liberals are experts at relativism, aren't they? But of course they are also the ones who are always right, too. So, dishonesty and lying are no big deal to them. Or to lawyers? Always the crème de la crème in any situation of this sort.

Do whatever it takes. Win the vote. At any cost. Win the election. Win the trial. Stay in power, regain power. Like a used car salesman's mantra: Make the sale, make the sale, make the sale. The difference: a used car salesman has the balls to tell you in writing that you can't rely on anything he says, that you can't rely on anything he doesn't put in writing. With President Clinton we couldn't even rely on the sworn deposition he put in writing.

Perhaps the Democrat Senators didn't expect Bill Clinton to keep the promise he made to Hillary Rodham when he married her. Perhaps they didn't expect him to uphold the oath he swore when he ascended to our highest office: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Perhaps they didn't expect him to abide by the oaths he took when he raised his right hand and swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Perhaps they didn't expect the truth, but I did. He was the President of the United States, after all. What was the deal? King's X? Particularly on "so help me God" — because the word "God" shouldn't have been part of the oath, anyway? When will the secularists and their legislative and judicial accomplices and enablers get around to tackling that wording?

I don't really expect all that much truth from politicians. I'm not that naive. However, I am sufficiently naive and old-fashioned enough that I do expect a President of the United States to uphold oaths sworn before me, God or no God. He should either uphold them or expect to suffer serious consequences when he doesn't. A President should be made to expect political castration by being impeached and convicted if he lies under oath. And to be ejected from office in the next election when he otherwise lies.

Perjury strikes at one of the foundations of our legal system: that the truth must be told under oath. To excuse such lying as just another indiscretion or to punish it mildly not only mocks our system, it also maligns the memory of our forefathers. To claim that such a criminal act is not a high Crime or Misdemeanor is revisionist history.

Can there really be any doubt that the framers of the Constitution would have considered Perjury to be a high Crime or Misdemeanor? Answer that question with me, with confidence and without hesitation, "No. Perjury — 'the deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath' — is a very serious crime." It is surely on a par with Bribery, even if it's not on a par with Treason.

No doubt, had the tables been turned, those Democrat Senators would have voted to impeach a Republican President. If such relativism doesn't give off the foul odor of dishonesty, what does?

What's that he said? "I did it just because I could. The Devil made me do it. So you should excuse me and let me off with mild or no punishment." What am I to conclude then — that Democrats believe in the Devil, but not in God? That should prove interesting.

"It's really kind of sad"? I'll tell you what's really kind of sad, Bobby me boy. Your continuing and thinly veiled hints that Senator Miller is getting old and senile. Did you think no one would notice? I did. Remember when you said in February that "It's a sad thing to watch"? I do. Shame on you. I'll tell you what else is kind of sad, too, a grown man who continues to use a boy's nickname.

All my best,

Erle W Machiavellean

PS. My use of Democrat rather than Democratic is intentional.