Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Heart of Dixie

    Can the United State withstand another "Team Clinton" Presidency?

    Can we withstand another "Team Clinton" Presidency or will it be the final nail in the coffin for freedom?

    Lets look at Bill Clinton first and then Hillary.

    From Discover the Networks.

    Bill Clinton
    • U.S. President, 1993-2001

    See also: Hillary Clinton William J. Clinton Foundation

    A member of the Democratic Party, William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III) served as the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001.

    Born in August 1946 in Hope, Arkansas, Clinton obtained a bachelor’s degree in Foreign Service at Georgetown University in 1968. He subsequently won a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford, where he studied philosophy, politics and economics. Clinton then enrolled at YaleLaw School, where he met fellow student Hillary Rodham, whom he would marry in October 1975. In 1972 Clinton worked on Democrat George McGovern’s presidential campaign. The following year, he graduated from Yale with a Juris Doctor degree.

    At that point, Clinton returned to his home state and took a job as a professor at the University of Arkansas. In 1974 he made an unsuccessful run for a seat in the House of Representatives. Two years later (in an election where he ran unopposed), he was voted into office as Arkansas attorney general.

    In 1978 Clinton was elected governor of Arkansas, thereby becoming the youngest governor in the United States. Two years later he ran for re-election but lost to Republican challenger Frank D. White. In 1982 Clinton won back the governor’s chair and held it for the next ten years.

    In 1992 Clinton won the Democratic Party's nomination for U.S. President. He ultimately won the general election over Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush by a popular-vote margin of 43.0 percent to 37.4 percent; the billionaire Ross Perot, who ran as an independent candidate, captured 18.9 percent of the vote. In 1996 Clinton was re-elected to a second term.

    During his years as President, Clinton appointed two Supreme Court Justices: Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 and Stephen Breyer in 1994.

    Clinton’s Failure to Address the Growing Threat of Islamic Terrorism, and His Degradation of the U.S. Military

    A notable hallmark of Clinton’s presidency was his failure to address the festering issue of Islamic terrorism, whose practitioners were gearing up to carry out a series of spectacular, high-impact attacks against the United States and its interests. On February 26, 1993, the al Qaeda organization (which ultimately would carry out the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York's Twin Towers and the Pentagon) struck the World Trade Center (WTC) for the first time. The terrorists' truck bomb created a crater six stories deep, killed six people, and injured more than a thousand. It was the first major terrorist act ever to take place on U.S. soil. The planners’ intent had been to cause one tower to fall and topple the other, killing tens of thousands of people in the process.

    Six Palestinian and Egyptian conspirators responsible for the attack were tried in civil courts and were given life sentences like common criminals, but its mastermind -- an Iraqi intelligence agent named Ramzi Ahmed Yousef -- escaped. Yousef's Iraqi identity indicated to U.S. authorities that the WTC attack involved more than individual terrorists; it involved hostile terrorist states. Nevertheless, the Clinton administration’s response was to absorb the injury and accept defeat. The President never visited the bomb site or tended to the victims. Instead, he warned against "over-reaction" to the incident. He also vowed that there would be vengeance, but there was none.

    In October 1993, eighteen American servicemen who were engaged in a humanitarian mission in Somalias were ambushed and killed, while another 80 were wounded. The bodyof one of the dead soldiers was dragged through the streets in an act calculated to humiliate his comrades and his country. Under Clinton’s leadership, America made no military response to the unprovoked carnage.

    Al Qaeda groups thereafter made unsuccessful attempts to blow up the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels and other populated targets in the United States. A scheme to hijack commercial airliners and use them as "bombs" (in a manner similar to the 9/11 attacks) was thwarted in the Philippines in 1995; the architect of that plan was the aforementioned Iraqi intelligence agent Ramzi Yousef.

    After Yousef's abortive plot, Clinton assigned Vice President Al Gore to work on improving airline security. A commission was formed, but under Gore’s leadership it focused heavily on protecting the “civil liberties” of terror suspects and eschewed any form of “profiling,” thereby diluting any effort to strengthen security measures.

    According to former Clinton adviser Dick Morris:

    "At a White House strategy meeting on April 27, 1995—two weeks after theOklahoma City bombing—the President was urged to create a ‘President’s List’ of extremist/terrorist groups, their members and donors ‘to warn the public against well-intentioned donations which might foster terrorism.’ [In 1993, the FBI had identified three charities connected to the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas that were being used to finance terrorist activities.] On April 1, 1996, Clinton was again advised to ‘prohibit fund-raising by terrorists [including Hamas specifically] and identify terrorist organizations.’”
    Clinton ignored these recommendations. FBI agents have stated that they were prevented from opening either criminal or national-security cases because of a fear that such a course of action would be seen as government-sponsored ‘profiling’ of Islamic charities.

    One former Clinton administration official told reporter Joe Klein, "Clinton spent less concentrated attention on national defense than any another President in recent memory." Dick Morris flatly charged, "Clinton’s failure to mobilize America to confront foreign terror after the 1993 attack [on the World Trade Center] led directly to the 9/11 disaster." According to Morris, "Clinton was removed, uninvolved, and distant where the war on terror was concerned."

    By Clinton’s own account, Monica Lewinsky (the young White House intern with whom Clinton carried on a sexual affair) was able to visit him privately more than a dozen times in the Oval Office. But according to a USA Today investigative report, James Woolsey, Clinton’s first CIA director, says he was never able to schedule a private meeting with Clinton after their initial interview.

    Letting Bin Laden Go Free

    In 1996 an American Muslim businessman and Clinton supporter named Mansoor Ijaz opened up an unofficial channel between the government of the Sudan and the Clinton administration. At the same time, the State Department was accusing the Sudan of harboring terrorists and was describing Osama bin Laden as “the greatest single financier of terrorist projects in the world.” According to Ijaz, who met with Clinton and his second-term national security adviser Sandy Berger:

    "[Sudanese] President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt’sIslamic Jihad, Iran’s Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas. Among the members of these networks were the two hijackers who [would later pilot] commercial airliners into the World Trade Center. The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening."
    President Bashir sent key intelligence officials to Washington in February 1996. Again, according to Ijaz, "the Sudanese offered to arrest bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to ‘baby-sit’ him—monitoring all his activities and associates." But the Saudis did not want him. Instead, Mansoor said, in May 1996 "the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.…."

    According to a London Sunday Times account, based on a Clinton administration source, this was only one of three occasions when the Clinton administration had the opportunity to seize bin Laden and failed to do so. Responsibility for those decisions to turn down bin Laden, said the Times, "went to the very top of the White House.” Clinton’s failure to grasp the opportunity, says Ijaz, "represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history."

    Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson served during the Clinton administration as one of the carriers of the “nuclear football,” a specially outfitted black briefcase that contains the launch codes for America’s nuclear weapons, in the event that a nuclear strike should be necessary. Reflecting on the missed opportunity to kill bin Laden, Patterson writes:

    “This lost bin Laden hit typified the Clinton administration’s ambivalent, indecisive way of dealing with terrorism. Ideologically, the Clinton administration was committed to the idea that most terrorists were misunderstood, had legitimate grievances and could be appeased, which is why such military action as the administration authorized was so halfhearted, and ineffective, and designed more for ‘show’ than for honestly eliminating a threat.”
    Clinton himself would later explain why he had turned down Sudan's offer to extradite bin Laden to America:

    "Bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
    More Islamist Attacks Against U.S. Interests

    One month after bin Laden relocated to Afghanistan in 1996, a 5,000-pound truck-bomb was detonated adjacent to the Saudi Arabian Khobar Towers housing complex, which was being used as a U.S. military barracks. Nineteen American soldiers died in the blast. Responsibilityfor this act of war seemed to rest with a Shiite extremist group, Saudi Hezbollah, which was supported by high-ranking officials in the Iranian government.

    President Clinton vowed: "The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished. Let me say again: We will pursue this. America takes care of our own." But because Clinton, at that time, was seeking to thaw U.S. relations with Iran, he never followed up on his pledge. As National Review Online’s Rich Lowry explains:

    “It is difficult to warm relations with a regime at the same time as pursuing its connections to terror. So by 1998 the administration appeared prepared to forgive and forget Khobar Towers…. The administration softened the State Department warning about travel to Iran, waived sanctions against foreign oil firms doing business there, and removed it from the list of major exporters of illegal drugs…. FBI director Louis Freeh, and those around him, began to suspect that the administration didn't care that much about finding the perpetrators because if connections with Iran were established it [the administration] would be forced to take, or at least consider, action against Iran. This meant that getting to the bottom of the case would present what the administration hated most: a difficulty, a risk.”
    Madeleine Albright biographer Thomas W. Lippman wrote: “American officials stopped saying in public that they suspected Iran of responsibility for the terrorist bombing of the U.S. Air Force residential compound in Saudi Arabia.”

    In April 1999, while the FBI was still trying to determine Iran’s role in the Khobar Towers plot, Clinton issued a statement that expressed, in part, his view that Iran’s hatred for America was rooted in some legitimate grievances. He said:

    "It may be that the Iranian people have been taught to hate or distrust the United States or the West on the grounds that we are infidels and outside the faith. And, therefore, it is easy for us to be angry and respond in kind. I think it is important to recognize, however, that Iran, because of its enormous geopolitical importance over time, has been the subject of quite a lot of abuse from various Western nations. And I think sometimes it's quite important to tell people, look, you have a right to be angry at something my country or my culture or others that are generally allied with us today did to you 50 or 60 or 100 or 150 years ago...."
    During the Clinton years, the idea that America was somehow responsible for most global distress became a familiar refrain of the President. In March 1998, for instance, Mr. Clinton, with a large delegation of African-American leaders in tow, made a pilgrimage to Uganda to apologize for the crime of American slavery. The apology was offered despite the fact that no slaves had ever been imported to America from Uganda or any East African state; that slavery in Africa preceded any American involvement by a thousand years; that America and Britain were the two powers responsible for ending the slave trade; and that America had abolished slavery more than 130 years before—at great human cost—while slavery still persisted in Africa, without African protest.

    In August 1998, four months after Clinton left Uganda, al Qaeda terrorists blew up two U.S. embassies -- in Kenya and Tanzania -- killing 245 people and injuring 5,000. Clinton’s response to those attacks was ill-conceived and ineffectual. At the time, he was preoccupied with preparing his defense before a grand jury convened because of his public lies about a sexual affair he had carried on with his young intern, Monica Lewinsky -- an affair that had first been reported in January 1998.

    Three days after Miss Lewinsky’s own grand jury appearance regarding that matter, Clinton, without consulting the Joint Chiefs of Staff or his national security advisors, launched cruise missiles into two Islamic countries which he identified as being allied to the terrorists and their leader Osama bin Laden. One of these missiles hit and destroyed a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan, killing one individual. Since the factory was the sole plant producing medicines for an impoverished African nation, there were almost certainly a number of collateral deaths.

    On October 12, 2000, the warship USS Cole was bombed by Islamic terrorists while re-fueling in Yemen, yet another Muslim country aligned with the terrorist enemy. Seventeen U.S. sailors were killed and 39 were injured. This, like each of the attacks cited above, was an act of war, yet the President and his cabinet refused to recognize it as such. Instead, they framed each incident as a crime that warranted a law-enforcement response rather than military retribution.

    Clinton’s national security advisor, Sandy Berger, described the official White House position toward these attacks as "a little bit like a Whack-A-Mole game at the circus. They bop up and you whack ’em down, and if they bop up again, you bop ’em back, down again."

    Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was unimpressed by Clinton's sporadic strikes against his regime. Saddam remained defiant, expelling United Nations weapons inspectors, firing at U.S. warplanes, and continuing to build his arsenal of mass destruction. But "the [a]dministration held no clear and consistent view of the Iraqi threat and how it intended to address it," observed Washington Post correspondent Jim Hoagland.

    Neglecting America's Security Needs

    Underlying the Clinton security failure was the fact that the administration was made up of people who for 25 years had discounted or minimized foreign totalitarian threats, opposed America’s armed presence abroad, and consistently resisted the deployment of America’s military forces to halt Communist expansion. National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was himself a veteran of the Sixties "anti-war" movement, which abetted the Communist victories in Vietnam and Cambodia and created the "Vietnam War Syndrome" that made it so difficult afterwards for American presidents to deploy the nation’s military forces.

    Berger had also been a member of "Peace Now," the leftist movement seeking to pressure the Israeli government to make concessions to Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) terrorists. Clinton’s first National Security Advisor, Anthony Lake, was a protégé of Berger. All three had met as activists in the 1972 McGovern presidential campaign, whose primary issue was opposition to the Vietnam War based on the view that the "arrogance of American power" was responsible for the conflict rather than Communist aggression.

    For nearly a decade before 9/11, the Clinton administration was aware that Americans were increasingly vulnerable to attacks which might involve biological or chemical weapons, or even nuclear devices bought or stolen from broken pieces of the former Soviet Union. This was the insistent message of Republican speeches on the floors of Congress and was reflected in the warnings not only of several government commissions, but also of Clinton’s own Secretary of Defense, William Cohen. In July 1999, for example, Cohen wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, predicting a terrorist attack on the American mainland:

    "In the past year, dozens of threats to use chemical or biological weapons in the United States have turned out to be hoaxes. Someday, one will be real."
    During its eight years, the Clinton administration hamstrung the government’s intelligence services in the name of civil liberties; shrunk the U.S. military in the name of fiscal responsibility; and prevented the Pentagon from adopting (and funding) a "two-war" strategy, because "the Cold War was over" and, in the White House’s judgment, there was no military threat in the post-Communist world that might make it necessary for the United States to be able to fight wars on two fronts simultaneously.

    In less than a three-year period under Clinton, America's military manpower decreased from 2.1 million to 1.6 million. Of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll by Clinton, some 286,000 (or 90 percent) were military cuts. Over the entire course of the Clinton years, the Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50. Moreover, the administration enacted a pay freeze on U.S. troops, 80 percent of whom earned $30,000 or less annually.

    Inattention to defense did not, however, prevent the Clinton administration from pursuing massive social experiments in the military in the name of gender and diversity reform, which included requiring "consciousness raising" classes for military personnel, redefining physical standards if women were unable to meet the traditional norms, and in general undermining the meritocratic benchmarks that are a crucial component of military morale.

    While budget cuts forced some military families to go on food stamps, the Pentagon spent enormous sums to re-equip ships and barracks to accommodate co-ed living. All these efforts further reduced the Pentagon’s ability to put a fighting force in the field—a glaring national vulnerability dramatized by the war in Kosovo. This diminished the crucial elements of fear and respect for American power in the eyes of adversaries waiting in the wings.

    During the Clinton years, the Democrats’ insistence that American power was somehow the disturber—rather than the enforcer—of international tranquility, prompted the White House to turn to multilateral agencies for leadership, particularly the discredited United Nations. While useful in limited peacekeeping operations, the UN was in large part a collection of theocratic tyrannies and brutal dictatorships which regularly indicted and condemned the world’s most tolerant democracies -- specifically the United States, England and Israel -- while supporting the very states providing safe harbors for America’s al Qaeda enemy.

    The Clinton deployments of American forces were often non-military in nature: a "democracy building" effort in Haiti that failed; flood relief and "peace keeping" operations that were more appropriately the province of international institutions. Even the conflict which Clinton belatedly engaged in the Balkans was officially characterized as a new kind of "humanitarian war," as though the old kinds of war for national interest and self-defense were somehow tainted.

    Also among Clinton’s deployments were half-hearted strikes using cruise missiles against essentially defenseless countries like the Sudan, or the sporadic bombing of Iraq when Saddam violated the terms of the Gulf peace. Clinton’s strikes failed in their primary objective—to maintain the UN inspections. On the other hand, a negative result of this "Whack-A-Mole" strategy was the continual antagonizing of Muslim populations throughout the world.

    During the 1990s, Bill Clinton’s most frequent foreign guest was Yasser Arafat, whose PLO supported al Qaeda, and whose allegiance to Iraq and betrayal of America during the Gulf War could not have been more brazen. Arafat's PLO had created the first terrorist training camps, invented suicide bombings, and been the chief propaganda machine behind the idea that terrorist armies were really missionaries for "social justice." Far from treating Arafat as an enemy of civilized order and an international pariah, the Clinton administration was busily cultivating him as a "partner for peace."

    Choosing Again Not to Kill Bin Laden

    Just ten hours before the first plane slammed into the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, Clinton told a group of businessmen in Melbourne, Australia that he had had an opportunity, near the end of his presidency, to kill Osama bin Laden when the latter was in Afghanistan—but had elected not to do so because innocent civilians also would have died as collateral damage. Said Clinton: “And I’m just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden—he’s very smart guy, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about him—and I nearly got him once. I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.”

    Chinagate and the Compromising of U.S. Intelligence

    When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, Chinese missiles were greatly limited in terms of their range and accuracy. But as journalist Richard Poe noted in 2003, “Thanks to Bill Clinton, China can now hit any city in the USA, using state-of-the-art, solid-fueled missiles with dead-accurate, computerized guidance systems and multiple warheads.”

    Poe explains that the Clinton administration willingly permitted China to obtain the technology necessary for this giant leap forward. In part this was due to Clinton’s globalist view of international relations, where "multipolarity" -- the notion that a balance of power among nations is preferable to the existence of a single superpower -- is the ideal. Acting out of that mindset, Clinton appointed the anti-nuclear activist Hazel O’Leary as his Energy Secretary. A self-identified advocate of "leveling the playing field" in terms of miltary capacity, O’Leary declassified some 11 million pages of military data; she also loosened security procedures at U.S. weapons labs. According to Poe, “Federal investigators later concluded that China made off with the 'crown jewels' of our nuclear weapons research under Clinton’s open-door policy -- probably including design specifications for suitcase nukes.”

    But declassification was not the only means by which President Clinton transferred missile technology and nuclear secrets to the Chinese. He also permitted those secrets to be sold directly to Beijing. Poe elaborates:

    "In his book The China Threat, Washington Times correspondent Bill Gertz describes how the system worked. Defense contractors eager to sell technology to China poured millions of dollars into Clinton’s campaign. In return, Clinton called off the dogs. Janet Reno and other counterintelligence officials stood down while Lockheed Martin, Hughes Electronics, Loral Space & Communications and other U.S. companies helped China modernize its nuclear strike force.

    "'We like your president. We want to see him reelected,' former Chinese intelligence chief General Ji Shengde told Chinagate bagman Johnny Chung.

    "Indeed, Chinese intelligence organized a massive covert operation aimed at tilting the 1996 election Clinton’s way.

    "Clinton’s top campaign contributors for 1992 were Chinese agents; his top donors in 1996 were U.S. defense contractors selling missile technology to China.

    "Clinton recieved funding directly from known or suspected Chinese intelligence agents, among them James and Mochtar Riady who own the Indonesian Lippo Group; John Huang; Charlie Trie; Ted Sioeng; Maria Hsia; Wang Jun and others."
    In a related move, Clinton in 1997 awarded a 25- to 50-year contract to Hutchinson Whampoa Ltd., a Hong Kong-based shipping firm with ties to Communist China's government and its People's Liberation Army. The contract authorized Hutchinson to control the two major ports on the Panama Canal's Atlantic and Pacific entrances. As Senator Trent Lott put it:

    “This administration is allowing a scenario to develop where U.S. national security interests could not be protected without confronting the Chinese communists in the Americas. U.S. naval ships will be at the mercy of Chinese-controlled pilots and could even be denied passage through the Panama Canal by Hutchinson, an arm of the People's Liberation Army. In addition, the Chinese Communist Party will gain an intelligence information advantage by controlling this strategic chokepoint. It appears that we have given away the farm without a shot being fired.”

    Noting the ominous implications of this, Richard Poe observed: “China can now strike U.S. targets easily from their bases in Panama, Vancouver and the Bahamas.”

    The Clinton Administration Erects a "Wall of Separation" between Law-Enforcement and Intelligence

    In 1995, while America’s intelligence agencies were still investigating the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, Clinton's Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick called for increased separation between intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, and sought to stifle inter-agency information sharing. In a 1995 memo to then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, titled “Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations,” Gorelick wrote the following:

    "We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."
    The wall between agencies was not new; it had been first created during the Carter administration via the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was enacted to defuse allegations of FBI espionage abuses. But Gorelick’s 1995 efforts served to strengthen the barrier and made it abundantly clear that cooperation between intelligence and law-enforcement agencies was forbidden.

    It should be noted that at the time Gorelick penned the aforementioned memo, Mr. Clinton was worried about ongoing FBI and CIA investigations into illegal Chinese contributions that had been made to U.S. presidential campaigns. Both the FBI and the CIA were churning up evidence damaging to the Democratic Party, its fundraisers, the Chinese, and ultimately the Clinton administration itself.

    It was also a period when the FBI had begun to systematically investigate technology theft by foreign powers, most notably Russia and China. For the first time, these investigations singled out the U.S. chemical, telecommunications, aircraft and aerospace industries for intelligence collection. Had FBI agents confirmed China's theft of weapons technology -- or its transfer of weapons technology to nations like Pakistan, Iran and Syria -- Clinton would have been forced by law and international treaty to react (and to thereby jeopardize the future flow of Chinese money into his political coffers).

    By the time Gorelick wrote the March 1995 memo that sealed off American intelligence agencies from each other and from the outside world, all of the most critical Chinagate investigations by American intelligence agencies were already underway. Some of their findings were damning:

    • In an investigation originally instigated by the CIA, the FBI was beginning its search for the source of the leak of W-88 nuclear warhead technology to China among the more than 1,000 people who had access to the secrets. Despite Justice Department stonewalling and the Department’s refusal to seek wiretap authority in 1997, the investigation eventually led to Wen Ho Lee and the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
    • The FBI first collected extensive evidence in 1995 linking illegal Democratic Party donations to China, according to the Congressional Record. But Congress and the Director of the CIA didn’t find out about the Justice Department’s failure to act upon that evidence until 1997, safely after the 1996 election.
    • According to classified CIA documents leaked to the Washington Times, between 1994 and 1997 the CIA learned that China had sold Iran missile technology, a nuclear fission reactor, advanced air-defense radar, and chemical agents. The Chinese had also provided Pakistan with 5,000 ring magnets, used in producing weapons-grade uranium. Moreover, China had provided uranium fuel for India's reactors.

    Gorelick's 1995 memo essentially emphasized Clinton's Presidential Decision Directive 24 (PDD 24), which he had signed the previous year (just one month after Gorelick began her tenure at the Justice Department. PDD 24 placed intelligence-gathering under the direct control of the President’s National Security Council, and ultimately the White House, through a four-level, top-down chain of command set up to govern (i.e., stifle) intelligence-sharing and cooperation between intelligence agencies. From the moment the directive was implemented, intelligence-sharing became a bureaucratic nightmare that required negotiating a befuddling bureaucracy that stopped directly at the President’s office.

    First, the directive effectively neutered the CIA by creating a National Counterintelligence Center (NCI) to oversee the Agency. NCI was staffed by an FBI agent appointed by the Clinton administration. It also brought multiple international investigations underway at the time under direct administrative control.

    The job of the NCI was to “implement counterintelligence activities,” which meant that virtually everything the CIA did, from a foreign intelligence agent’s report to polygraph test results, now passed through the intelligence center that PDD 24 created.

    NCI reported to an administration-appointed National Counterintelligence Operations Board (NCOB) charged with “discussing counterintelligence matters.” The NCOB in turn reported to a National Intelligence Policy Board, which coordinated activities between intelligence agencies attempting to work together. The policy board reported “directly” to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

    The result was a massive bureaucratic roadblock for the CIA -- which at the time had a vast lead on the FBI in matters of foreign intelligence -- and for the FBI itself, which was also forced to report to the NCOB. This hampered cooperation between the two entities.

    As a result of Clinton's PDD 24 and Gorelick's 1995 memo, the only place left to go with intelligence information -- particularly for efforts to share intelligence information or obtain search warrants -- was straight up Clinton and Gorelick’s multi-tiered chain of command. Consequently, information lethal to Clinton and the Democratic Party languished inside the Justice Department, trapped behind PDD 24 and Gorelick’s walls.

    The implications were enormous. In her letter of protest to Attorney General Reno over Gorelick’s memo, United States Attorney Mary Jo White spelled them out: “These instructions leave entirely to OIPR and the (Justice Department) Criminal Division when, if ever, to contact affected U.S. attorneys on investigations including terrorism and espionage.”

    President Clinton and his administration were not the only ones to benefit from keeping secret any information about Chinese espionage, campaign contributions, and acquisition of military technology. A number of American corporations benefitted as well.

    • In 1994, for instance, the McDonnell Douglas Corporation transferred military-use machine tools to the China National Aero-Technology Import and Export Corporation that ended up in the hands of the Chinese army. The sale occurred despite Defense Department objections. McDonnell Douglas was a client of the Miller Cassidy Larroca & Lewin, L.L.P. (now called Baker Botts), the Washington, DC law firm where Gorelick worked for 17 years and was a partner. Rayn Larroca, another partner in the firm, represented McDonnell in the Justice Department’s investigation of the technology transfer.
    • In 1995, General Electric, a former client of Gorelick’s, also had much to lose if the damaging information possessed by the CIA and the FBI were to have reached Congress. At the time, GE was publicly lobbying for a lucrative permit to assist the Chinese in replacing coal-fired power stations with nuclear plants. A 1990 law required that the President certify to Congress that China was not aiding in nuclear proliferation before U.S. companies could execute the business agreement.
    • Moreover, in 1995 Michael Armstrong, then the CEO of Hughes Electronics -- a division of General Electric and another client of Miller Cassidy Larroca & Lewin -- was publicly lobbying Clinton to switch satellite export controls from the State Department to the Commerce Department. After the controls were lifted, Hughes and another company gave sensitive data to the Chinese, equipment a Pentagon study later concluded would allow China to develop intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles aimed at American targets. Miller Cassidy Larroca & Lewin partner Randall Turk represented Hughes in the Congressional, State Department, and Justice Department investigations that resulted.

      The Cox Report, which detailed, for Congress, the facts about Chinese espionage during the period, revealed that FBI surveillance had caught Chinese officials frantically trying to keep Democratic donor Johnny Chung from divulging any information that would be damaging to Hughes Electronics. Chung funneled $300,000 in illegal contributions from the Chinese military to the Democratic National Committee between 1994 and 1996.

    In summation, Clinton and Gorelick erected their roadblocks to intelligence-sharing as a means of derailing the complex web of FBI and CIA investigations that ultimately could have implicated Clinton and the Democratic Party. A few years later, however, those very same roadblocks would prevent intelligence authorities from learning about the terrorist plots that would topple the Twin Towers on 9/11.

    Clinton's Failed North Korean Policy

    Evidence that North Korea was violating the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty surfaced within weeks of Clinton's first inauguration. After a year of inaction allowed Pyongyang to create at least one nuclear weapon, the emboldened Stalinists announced their formal withdrawal from the treaty. It seemed that North Korean officials were angling for a payoff.

    In an effort to deal with North Korea, Clinton named former President Jimmy Carter as his principal negotiator. Under the final terms of the Agreed Framework approved in October of 1994, Clinton agreed to provide North Korea with two light water nuclear reactors and a massive allotment of oil. The U.S. also agreed to ship 500,000 metric tons of oil annually in response to the North's pretense that it had developed the nuclear facility to generate power.

    Upon completing the "Agreed Framework" with North Korea in 1994, Clinton stated: "This agreement will help achieve a vital and long-standing American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula." Bill Gertz described the terms of the Agreed Framework well: "The agreement gave the North Koreans ten years to dismantle their weapons program and five years to turn over the existing stockpile of plutonium."

    But North Korea did not abide by the terms of the agreement.

    When Congressional Republicans backed a missile defense bill in September 1998, Senate Democrats filibustered the measure. Clinton offered a different "solution" during this time period. In August 1998, North Korea launched a Taepo Dong missile over Japan's northernmost island. Two months later, the United States re-opened direct, bilateral talks with North Korea -- rushing a generous $15 million aid package to Pyongyang in the meantime. Throughout his presidency, Bill Clinton met North Korean belligerence with tough words and fistfuls of dollars.

    Clinton's Role in Laying the Foundation for an Economic Crisis

    The Clinton administration was intimately involved in sowing the seeds of the devastating financial crisis that would hit the U.S. housing market and banking industry in 2008. As early as 1993, Clinton’s first year in office, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros and Attorney General Janet Reno expressed dismay over reports that the rejection rate of black mortgage applicants nationwide was considerably higher than that of their white counterparts. In response, Reno warned that thenceforth “no bank” would be “immune” to an aggressive Justice Department campaign to punish such “discrimination” in the lending market. For emphasis, then-Assistant Attorney General Deval Patrick pledged to work for the elimination of all racial disparities in mortgage-lending rejection rates.

    It should be noted that the aforementioned disparities were not actually due to discrimination of any kind. Instead, they reflected the realities of borrowers’ credit-worthiness, as determined by such objective factors as credit history, debt burden, income, net worth, age, and education.

    But instead of permitting these facts to change their outlook on the issue of mortgage lending, the Clinton White House moved ahead with its crusade to inject new energy into the so-called Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which, according to President Clinton, had failed to live up to its potential as a vehicle for increasing minority homeownership. Thus began the government policy of forcing lenders, under threat of severe sanctions, to make subprime loans to high-risk borrowers who failed to meet traditional loan criteria. It was a policy guaranteed to create a crisis. Eventually, it did.

    Clinton's Controversial Presidential Pardons

    On August 11, 1999, Clinton granted a presidential pardon to 16 members of the FALN, acronym for the Armed Forces of National Liberation—a violent terrorist organization (as designated by the FBI) that had been active in the U.S. from the mid-1970s through the early 1980s.

    The FALN was a Marxist-Leninist group whose overriding mission was to secure Puerto Rico's political independence from the United States. Toward that end, between 1974 and 1983 the group detonated nearly 130 bombs in such strategically selected places as military and government buildings, financial institutions, and corporate headquarters located mainly in Chicago, New York, and Washington, DC. These bombings were carried out as acts of protest against America's political, military, financial, and corporate presence in Puerto Rico. All told, FALN bombs killed six people—including the Chilean ambassador to the United States—and wounded at least 80 others.

    Congress condemned the clemencies by votes of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House. In the immediate aftermath of the pardons, a report by the Justice Department stated that the FALN posed an "ongoing threat" to national security. And in late October 1999 the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report from Attorney General Janet Reno stating that the FALN members' "impending release from prison" would "increase the present threat" of terrorism.

    A House Committee on Government Reform report stated in December 1999:

    "The 16 [FALN] terrorists appear to be most unlikely candidates. They did not personally request clemency. They did not admit to wrongdoing and they had not renounced violence before such a renunciation had been made a quid pro quo for their release. They expressed no contrition for their crimes, and were at times openly belligerent about their actions…. Notwithstanding the fact that the 16 did not express enough personal interest in the clemency process to file their own applications, the White House appeared eager to assist throughout the process. Meetings were held with supporters, and some senior staff [i.e., Holder] even suggested ways to improve the likelihood of the President granting the clemency. Overall, the White House appears to have exercised more initiative than the terrorists themselves."
    In the final days of his presidency, in January 2001, Clinton granted another very controversial presidential pardon to the billionaire financier Marc Rich -- a fugitive oil broker who had illegally purchased oil from Iran during the American trade embargo, and who then had proceeded to hide more than $100 million in profits by using dummy transactions in off-shore corporations. Rich later renounced his American citizenship and fled to Switzerland to avoid prosecution for 51 counts of racketeering, wire fraud, tax fraud, tax evasion, and the illegal oil transactions with Iran.

    Over the years, Rich's ex-wife Denise had funneled at least $1.5 million to Clinton interests. Some $1.2 million went to the Democratic National Committee, $75,000 went to Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign, and $450,000 helped finance the Bill Clinton Library in Arkansas. Mrs. Rich also had given expensive gifts to the Clintons and, according to some rumors, had a very close relationship with the President.

    Also in January 2001, President Clinton pardoned two former domestic terrorists: Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg. In the 1970s, Evans and Rosenberg had been members of the Weather Underground, a Marxist-Leninist cult that was launched under the name "Weatherman" in 1969. In 1981 the pair took part in the deadly Brinks armored-car robbery in Nyack, New York, where four men -- two security guards and two police officers -- were shot, three of them fatally. Three years later, Evans and Rosenberg were finally apprehended. At the time, they had 740 pounds of explosives (which they admitted were earmarked for bombings) in their possession. Rosenberg eventually was sentenced to 58 years in prison, Evans to 40 years.

    But in early 2001, New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler suddenly intervened on the incarcerated terrorists’ behalf. It seems that Rosenberg’s mother had assembled documents from her daughter’s parole hearings that purportedly showed the latter to be a model prisoner; the mother presented these materials to Rolando Matalon, her rabbi at New York’s liberal Congregation B’nei Jeshurun Rolando Matalon. Rabbi Matalon then gave the documents to Nadler, who was also a member of the congregation, and Nadler in turn passed them on for President Clinton to consider as evidence that Rosenberg might merit consideration for a presidential pardon.

    Clinton in fact decided to pardon not only Rosenberg (42 years before her sentence was due to end), but Evans as well (24 years early, in her case)—over the strong objections of Mary Jo White, the U.S. attorney in New York. After her release from prison, Rosenberg was given a job at Congregation B’nei Jeshurun. As attorney Alan Dershowitz put it, “This was a congregational victory.”

    Why did Clinton oblige Nadler’s request? Perhaps it was payback to the congressman, who, as a member of the Judiciary Committee in the 1990s, had used his influence to oppose the impeachment proceedings against the President.

    Clinton's Lack of Seriousness in Matters of National Security

    President Clinton's attitude toward American national security was demonstrated clearly by his February 1993 nomination of Morton Halperin for the new position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Democracy and Peacekeeping. Halperin withdrew his name from consideration in January 1994, however, when his nomination was stalled by both Republican and Democrat U.S. Senators who refused to consent to a nominee with so radical a history.

    Undeterred, Clinton thereafter appointed Halperin to several positions that required no Senate confirmation: Special Assistant to the President, Senior Director for Democracy at the National Security Council, consultant to the Secretary of Defense, consultant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and Director of Policy Planning for the U.S. State Department.

    A look at Halperin's background is instructive: From 1961 to 1966, he taught at Harvard University's Center for International Affairs. During this period, he advocated U.S. nuclear disarmament even if the Soviet Union did not likewise disarm. In any mutual arms reduction treaty with the Soviets, wrote Halperin in his 1961 treatise A Proposal for a Ban on the Use of Nuclear Weapons, "inspection was not absolutely necessary.… The United States might, in fact, want to invite the Soviets to design the inspection procedures if they seem interested in them."

    "The Soviet Union apparently never contemplated the overt use of military force against Western Europe," wrote Halperin in his 1971 Defense Strategies for the Seventies. "The Soviet posture … has been, and continues to be, a defensive and deterrent one … against a Western attack."

    During President Lyndon Johnson's administration (1964-1968, Halperin had been put in charge of compiling a classified history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. As David Horowitz and Richard Poe report:

    "This secret history later emerged [in June 1971] into public view as the so-called 'Pentagon Papers.' Halperin and his deputy Leslie Gelb assigned much of the writing to leftwing opponents of the war, such as Daniel Ellsberg who ... was already evolving into a New Left radical. … With Halperin's tacit encouragement -- and perhaps active collusion -- Ellsberg stole the secret history and released it to The New York Times. … Not surprisingly, 'The Pentagon Papers' echoed Halperin's longstanding position that the Vietnam War was unwinnable, and ridiculed Presidents Kennedy and Johnson for stubbornly refusing to heed those of their advisors who shared this opinion."

    In 1975 Halperin became Director of the Center for National Security Studies (CNSS), a spinoff of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). CNSS also is aligned with the National Lawyers Guild. Much of CNSS’s staff was derived from these two organizations. IPS Director Robert Borosage helped Halperin run CNSS.

    In the mid-1970s Halperin befriended Philip Agee, a former CIA agent-turned-Communist who publicly identified hundreds of American covert-intelligence operatives. At least one of those agents, Athens station chief Richard Welch, was murdered shortly thereafter. Halperin flew to Europe to help Agee find safe haven after Great Britain had expelled him. In the U.S., Halperin, who has described the CIA as "the subverter of everybody else's freedom,” opposed legislation to punish the outing of U.S. undercover agents as Agee had done.

    Also in the 1970s, Halperin served as director of the Washington, DC office of the American Civil Liberties Union, under whose auspices he defended the right of The Progressive magazine to publish secret details it had obtained of how to make an atomic bomb.

    In the June 9, 1979 issue of The Nation magazine, Halperin wrote the following with regard to the Soviet-Cuban military intervention in Angola: "Every action which the Soviet Union and Cuba have taken in Africa has been consistent with the principles of international law."

    In Target America -- James L. Tyson's 1981 expose of the Soviet Union's massive "propaganda campaign designed to weaken and demoralize America from the inside" -- the author stated:

    "Halperin has emerged as probably the leading 'expert' on intelligence matters among the Far Left Lobby groups. He and his organizations have had a constant record of advocating the weakening of U.S. intelligence capabilities. His organizations are also notable for ignoring the activities of the KGB or any other foreign intelligence organization. His criticism of American intelligence misdeeds would give the impression that our agencies have been committing these crimes simply for their own villainous reasons in a world where the U.S. faces no external enemies whatever. A balance sheet analysis of Halperin's writings and testimonies ... gives Halperin a score of 100% on the side of output favorable to the Communist line and 0% on any output opposed to the Communist line."

    According to a May 2000 World Net Daily report:

    “Halperin, according to a well-respected former State official, was suspected of working for the communists in the '60s and '70s. ‘He was a person we knew to be pro-Soviet and not a person to be trusted,’ said the official, who worked in intelligence during the height of the Cold War. ‘Halperin has been known on embassy [briefing] cards as a Soviet or communist agent.’”


    In December 1998, Bill Clinton became the second President in American history to be impeached by Congress. The series of events that led to his impeachment were traceable back to a May 6, 1994 lawsuit filed by Paula Corbin Jones, who had been an Arkansas state employee during the years when Clinton was governor there. Jones’ suit charged that in 1991 Clinton had violated her federal civil rights by inviting her to his hotel room, where he made a crude sexual overture that Jones rejected.

    Clinton’s attorneys tried to block the Jones lawsuit from going forward until after the President’s tenure in the White House was complete, but in May 1997 the Supreme Court ruled (in 9-0 vote) that the case should proceed without delay. On December 5, 1997, Jones’ lawyers first identified one Monica Lewinsky, who (at age 21) had worked as a White House intern in 1995, as a potential witness in the case.

    On January 17, 1998, Clinton appeared before a grand jury where Ms. Jones’ attorneys deposed him about the plaintiff's charges. During the deposition, Clinton was also questioned about Miss Lewinsky, with whom it was alleged that he had maintained an ongoing sexual relationship in the Oval Office. Clinton denied that he had engaged in "sexual relations" with Lewinsky, and also testified that he could not recall whether he had ever been alone with the young intern at any time. Lewinsky, for her part, submitted through her attorneys a sworn affadavit to the Jones legal team; in that affadavit, she stated, in part:

    "I have never had a sexual relationship with the President, he did not propose that we have a sexual relationship, he did not offer me employment or other benefits in exchange for a sexual relationship, he did not deny me employment or other benefits for rejecting a sexual relationship."

    Special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, on authorization from Attorney General Janet Reno, launched an investigation into the Lewinsky matter. In July 1998 Lewinsky, after Starr had granted her immunity from prosecution, acknowledged that she in fact had a sexual relationship with the President that did not include intercourse. On August 17, 1998, Clintontestified for more than four hours before Starr's grand jury. In his testimony, he admitted the Lewinsky relationship but denied that he had perjured himself in the Paula Jones deposition because, in his view, the oral sex in which he had engaged with Lewinsky did not constitute “sexual relations.”

    On September 9, 1998, Starr submitted a final report to Congress in which he concluded that there was "substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment"; those acts consisted of Clinton's perjury in the Jones litigation, and his urging Lewinsky "to file an affidavit that the President knew would be false."

    On November 13, 1998, Clinton and Paula Jones reached an out-of-court settlement where the President agreed to pay her $850,000 to drop her charges.

    In December 2008 the House of Representatives approved two Articles of Impeachment against the President. Article I alleged that Clinton had "willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury" investigating his actions with both Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. Article II charged that the President had "prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice" by attempting to delay, impede, and conceal evidence related to the Jones case.

    On January 7, 1999 began the Senate trial to determine whether Clinton would be convicted of the aforementioned charges and removed from office. On Article 1, 45 Senators voted to convict, and 55 (including all 45 Democrats) voted to acquit. On Article 2, the vote was evenly split, 50-50, with every Democrat as well as five Republicans voting to acquit.


    Massive Speaking Fees

    After his presidency was over, Clinton became an active public speaker. By February 2013, he had delivered 471 speeches, for which he was paid an average of $189,000 apiece -- or approximately $89 million in total.

    The Clinton Foundation

    In 2001 Bill Clinton established the William J. Clinton Foundation -- now called the the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation -- “to alleviate poverty, improve global health, strengthen economies, and protect the environment.” For an in-depth look at the Foundation's numerous, serious scandals, click here.

    Urging Dialog with Hamas

    In January 2006 Clinton urged the Bush administration to establish a dialogue with Hamas in the wake of its upset victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, saying it would be a mistake to discontinue contact with the terror group. "You've got to find a way to at least open doors," Clinton told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. "And I don't see how we can do it without more contact." Clinton added that Hamas might "acquire a greater sense of responsibility, and as they do we have to be willing to act on that." Addressing complaints that Hamas had vowed to destroy Israel, Clinton explained: "We need to be practical here. ... It took the Palestinian Authority years before they took [the same vow] out of their charter." Clinton also suggested that Palestinians who had voted for Hamas were not necessarily endorsing terrorism: "For every one person who said they voted for Hamas because they wanted to see Israel destroyed, there were one hundred who said they just wanted a change and better life."

    Supporting the Occupy Wall Street Movement

    In the fall of 2011, Clinton expressed support for the anti-capitalism rallies which werestaged in cities across the United States by Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and other activist groups. Said Clinton: "The Occupy Wall Street crowd basically is saying, 'I'm unemployed and the people that caused this have their jobs again and their bonuses again and their incomes are high again. There's something wrong with this country. This is not working for me.' So I think it can be a good positive debate." To view a list of additional noteworthy individuals and organizations that endorsed the OWS movement, click here.

    Blaming "Poverty" and "Inequality" for Islamic Terrorism

    In a February 2012 speech in Nigeria, Clinton addressed the topic of the ongoing violence committed by Boko Haram -- an Islamic organization seeking to overthrow the Nigerian government and create an Islamic state. The group had already: (a) bombed or burned hundreds of Christian churches in the preceding several years, most when they were packed for service; (b) stated its intent to cleanse northern Nigeria of all Christian presence; (c) openly threatened to poison the food eaten by Christians; and (d) stormed areas where Christians and Muslims were intermingled, singling the Christians out before slitting their throats. Clinton said that “inequality” and “poverty” were “what’s fueling all this stuff.” Moreover, he warned the government that “It is almost impossible to cure a problem based on violence with violence.”

    Clinton Supports Organizing For Action

    During the third weekend in January 2013, some 4,000 committed Barack Obama campaign supporters convened at an Organizing For Action (OFA) event in Washington, DC to discuss how OFA's potential could best be harnessed to advance President Obama's agendas going forward. Clinton was the keynote speaker at a Saturday closed-door meeting, dubbed the “Road Ahead” conference, which was sponsored by Business Forward. Invitations for this meeting were sent jointly by Obama’s National Finance Committee, the Presidential Inaugural Committee, the Center for American Progress, and Media Matters.

    Endorsing Bill de Blasio

    In 2013, Clinton endorsed the New York City mayoral candidacy of far-left Democrat Bill de Blasio. Bill and Hillary Clinton both attended de Blasio's swearing-in ceremony as New York City mayor on January 1, 2014. Mr. Clinton, in fact, officially administered the oath-of-office to de Blasio, using a bible once owned by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

    Immense Wealth

    As of mid-2014, Bill and Hillary Clinton's combined net worth was estimated at somewhere between $100 million and $200 million. Among other things, they had earned anywhere from $31 million to $37 million in advance payments for books they had authored since 2003. Mrs. Clinton, for her part, routinely earned $200,000 per speech after resigning as Secretary of State. Mr. Clinton, meanwhile, had earned $106 million in speaker's fees between 2001 and 2013, including $17 million for 72 speeches he gave in 2012 alone; he once charged $750,000 for a single speech.

    The Clintons spent this money lavishly. During the summers of 2011 through 2013, for instance, they rented out extremely expensive homes in the Hamptons for their family vacations. One example: The Clintons paid $200,000 per day to rent out a six-bedroom, $11 million mansion in the summer of 2013.

    Chelsea Clinton Indicates That Her Parents Have Never Cared About Money, and That They View the Public Sector As Superior to the Private Sector

    In a November 2014 interview with Katie Couric, Bill Clinton's daughter Chelsea indicated not only that her parents had little interest in money, but also that they understood little about the private sector. Moreover, she gave voice to her parents' belief that the public sector is much better-equipped than the private sector to help needy people. Said Chelsea: “I certainly spent my twenties rebelling, for me, by working in the private sector and trying really hard to care about things that my parents didn't care about. And I'm grateful for those years that I spent, because I learned things I hadn't learned around my dinner table. But ultimately I am my parents' daughter, and I ultimately cared most about what they cared most about -- enabling people to have better lives through our energies and our efforts than thay otherwise would have.

    ortions of this profile are extracted and/or adapted from the following articles:

    * David Horowitz, How the Left Undermined America's Security before 9/11 (March 24, 2004)
    * Richard Poe, The Idiot's Guide to Chinagate (May 26, 2003)
    * Thomas Ryan The Writing on "The Wall" (August 22, 2005)
    * Jean Pearce, How Chinagate Led to 9/11 (May 25, 2004)
    * Ben Johnson, Appeasing North Korea: The Clinton Legacy (January 3, 2003)
    * Ben Johnson and Gordon Cucullu, On North Korea: Don't Blame Bush (February 11, 2005)

  2. #2
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Heart of Dixie
    Hillary Clinton

    • Was First Lady of the United States during the presidency of her husband, Bill Clinton
    • Served as Democratic U.S. Senator representing New York State from 2001-2009
    • Was Named U.S. Secretary of State by President-elect Barack Obama in December 2008

    See also: Bill Clinton Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation

    Born in Chicago on October 26, 1947, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton grew up in Park Ridge, Illinois, a solidly Republican suburb of Chicago. In 1964 she supported Republican conservative Barry Goldwater for U.S. President. The following year, she enrolled at Wellesley College in Massachusetts, where her political views would undergo a radical transformation.

    Rodham was deeply influenced by a 1966 article titled "Change or Containment," which appeared in Motive, a magazine for college-age Methodists. Authored by the Marxist/Maoist theoretician Carl Oglesby, who was a leader of the Students for a Democratic Society, this piece defended Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, and Maoist tactics of violence. Its thesis was that "certain cultural settings" (most notably American capitalism) were inherently inequitable and oppressive, and thus caused people to feel "pain and rage" that sometimes erupted into violence -- like that of "the rioters in Watts or Harlem" -- which was "reactive and provoked" rather than aggressive or malicious. Hillary later said that the Motive article had played a key role in her metamorphosis from Goldwater Republican in 1964 to leftist Democrat in 1968. During her years as First Lady of the United States, Mrs. Clinton would tell a Newsweekreporter that she still treasured the Oglesby piece.[1]

    Following the June 1968 assassination of Democratic presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy, Hillary ended her affiliation with the Wellesley campus Young Republicans and volunteered in New Hampshire to work on the presidential campaign of antiwar candidate Eugene McCarthy. When McCarthy later dropped out of the Democratic primary, Hillary threw her support behind the Party's eventual nominee, Hubert Humphrey. From that point forward, wrote Barbara Olson in her 1999 book Hell to Pay, "Republicans were the enemy and the enemy was allied with evil -- the evils of war, racism, sexism, and poverty."[2]

    In late August 1968, when the so-called Chicago Seven incited massive countercultural protests and violent riots near the venue of that year's Democratic National Convention (in Chicago), Hillary was in Chicago for three nights during the mayhem.


    In 1969 Hillary wrote her 92-page Wellesley senior thesis on the theories of radical Chicago organizer Saul Alinsky. A great admirer of Alinsky's activist tactics, Hillary met with the famed author several times in 1968 to interview him personally. She concluded her thesis bystating:
    "Alinsky is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such, he has been feared -- just as Eugene Debs [the five-time Socialist Party candidate for U.S. President] or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of political faiths -- democracy."
    Her conclusion also included this sentence: “If the ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, the result would be social revolution.”

    Ultimately, Hillary's investigation of Alinsky's methods and ideals led her to believe that President Lyndon Johnson's federal antipoverty programs did not go far enough in redistributing wealth among the American people and did not give sufficient power to the poor.

    When Hillary graduated from Wellesley in 1969, she was offered a job with Alinsky'sIndustrial Areas Foundation (IAF) in Chicago. She opted instead to enroll at Yale Law School. Nevertheless, she would maintain her allegiance to Alinsky's teachings throughout her adult life. She also continued to correspond with him, as the two maintained a very friendly relationship steeped in mutual admiration. In a letter dated July 8, 1971, Hillary penned a letter to Alnsky that began: “Dear Saul, When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation? I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people. You are being rediscovered again as the New Left-type politicos are finally beginning to think seriously about the hard work and mechanics of organizing. I seem to have survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact."

    According to a March 2007 Washington Post report: "As first lady, Clinton occasionally lent her name to projects endorsed by the [IAF].... She raised money and attended two events organized by the Washington Interfaith Network, an IAF affiliate."


    At Yale, Hillary was strongly influenced by the radical theoretician Duncan Kennedy, founder of the academic movement known as critical legal studies, which, drawing on the works of the Frankfurt School, viewed law as a "social construct" that corrupt power structures routinely exploited as an instrument of oppression to protect and promote their own bourgeois values at the expense of the poor and disenfranchised. Advocates of critical legal studies were interested in revolutionary change and the building of a new society founded on Marxist principles.

    During her time at Yale, Hillary became a prominent figure in the campus protest movement. She wore a black armband in remembrance of the students killed at Kent State in May 1970; she led demonstrations against the Vietnam War; and she led rallies demanding that tampons be made available in the women's restrooms on campus.

    Hillary served as one of nine editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action, where she worked collaboratively with Mickey Kantor (who, more than two decades later, would serve as U.S. Trade Representative and U.S. Commerce Secretary under President Bill Clinton) and Robert Reich (who would serve as Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary from 1993 to 1997). "For too long," said the Yale Review, "legal issues have been defined and discussed in terms of academic doctrine rather than strategies for social change." The publication was replete with articles by or about such radicals as William Kunstler, Charles Reich (author of The Greening of America); Jerry Rubin (who wrote a piece exhorting parents to "get high with our seven-year-olds," and urging students to "kill our parents"); and Charles Garry (the civil rights attorney who defended Black Panther Party members accused of murder). The Fall and Winter 1970 editions of the Yale Review, on which Hillary worked as associate editor, focused heavily on the trials of Black Panthers who had been charged with murder. Numerous cartoons in those issues depicted police officers as hominid pigs.[3]

    One of Hillary's Yale professors, Thomas Emerson (known as "Tommy the Commie"), introduced her to the aforementioned Charles Garry. Garry helped Hillary get personally involved in the defense of several Black Panthers (including the notorious Bobby Seale) who were then being tried in New Haven, Connecticut for the torture, murder, and mutilation of one of their own members. Though evidence of the defendants' guilt was overwhelming, Hillary -- as part of her coursework for Professor Emerson -- attended the Panther trials and arranged for shifts of fellow students to likewise monitor court proceedings and report on any civil-rights abuses allegedly suffered by the defendants. (Those abuses could then be used, if the Panthers were to lose their case, as grounds for appeal.) Striving to neutralize what she considered the pervasive racism of the American legal system, "Hillary was," as Barbara Olson observed in Hell to Pay, "a budding Leninist."[4]

    In 1970, Hillary chaired a meeting where Yale Law School students voted in favor of joining a national strike against the Vietnam War.


    In 1972 Hillary worked on George McGovern's presidential campaign and led a voter registration drive in San Antonio, Texas.

    Also in 1972, she went to Berkeley to work as an intern at her hand-picked law firm: Treuhaft, Walker, and Bernstein. Founded by current or former members of the Communist Party USA, this firm had long acted as a legal asset not only for the CPUSA but also for the Black Panthers and other Bay-area radicals. Founding partner Bob Treuhaft, head of the California Communist Party, had been labeled one of the nation’s most “dangerously subversive” lawyers. According to historian Stephen Schwartz, "Treuhaft is a man who dedicated his entire legal career to advancing the agenda of the Soviet Communist Party and the KGB." Hillary did yeoman's work while learning at the feet of Treuhaft and his fellow masters. Associates say that Hillary, during her tenure with the firm, helped draftees get themselves declared conscientious objectors so they could avoid serving in Vietnam; they also contend that Hillary served VA interns seeking to avoid taking a loyalty oath to the United States.

    Also in the early 1970s, Hillary developed a close acquaintanceship with Robert Borosage, who would later become a major figure in such leftist organizations as the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), the Campaign for America's Future, and Institute for America's Future. Hillary herself (along with Bill Clinton) would go on to develop close political ties with IPS; moreover, she would give that organization a great deal of money to further its cause.

    In the early 1970s as well, Hillary began what would develop into a lifelong friendship withMarian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children's Defense Fund (CDF). After graduating from Yale Law School in 1973, Hillary moved to Washington and took a full-time position as a staff lawyer with CDF.

    Edelman went on to help Hillary secure a coveted research position with the Carnegie Council on Children, where the young attorney assisted Yale psychology professor Kenneth Keniston in the production of a report (titled All Our Children) advocating a dramatic expansion of social-welfare entitlements and a national guaranteed income -- all in the name of children's rights. Moreover, the report maintained that the traditional nuclear family was not inherently preferable to any other family structure, and that society had an obligation to honor, encourage, and support alternate arrangements such as single-parent households. What really mattered, said the Council, was the network of professionals -- teachers, pediatricians, social workers, and day-care workers -- who would collectively play the most vital role in raising children properly. In short, the Carnegie Council preached that childrearing was less a parental matter than a societal task to be overseen by "public advocates" -- judges, bureaucrats, social workers and other "experts" in childrearing -- who could intervene between parents and children on the latter's behalf. According to the report, the role of parents should be subordinate to the role of these experts.[5]

    Viewing America as an authoritarian, patriarchal, male-dominated society that tended to oppress women, children, and minorities, Hillary wrote a November 1973 article for theHarvard Educational Review advocating the liberation of children from "the empire of the father." She claimed that the traditional nuclear family structure often undermined the best interests of children, who "consequently need social institutions specifically designed to safeguard their position." "Along with the family," she elaborated, "past and present examples of such arrangements include marriage, slavery, and the Indian Reservation system." She added: "Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal disease, or employment, and others where the decision or lack of one will significantly affect a child's future should not be made unilaterally by parents."[6]

    Decades later, Hillary would take up these themes again in her 1996 book It Takes a Village, which stressed the importance of the larger community of adults -- many of whom are paid caretakers whose labors are funded by American taxpayers -- in childrearing.


    in the summer of 1973, Hillary took the bar exam in both Arkansas (where she passed the test) and Washington, DC (where she failed). A total of 817 people took the DC bar exam that summer; 551 of them passed, and 266 failed.


    In 1973-74 Hillary became a key inside member (along with more than 40 other attorneys) of the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry staff, which sought to advance the movement to impeach President Richard Nixon for his role in the Watergate scandal. With single-minded zealotry, Hillary worked on the investigation anywhere from twelve to twenty-four hours per day, seven days a week.[7] While preparing the articles of impeachment, however, she was eventually fired from the Committee staff because of her unethical behavior. The Committee's general counsel and chief of staff, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman, supervised Hillary's work on the Watergate investigation in 1974 andconcluded that she was a "liar" and "an unethical, dishonest lawyer." Her brief, Zeifman elaborated, was so rife with fraud that she would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge. For extensive details pertaining to these charges, click here.


    In 1975 Hillary defended Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old man accused of raping and beating a 12-year-old girl. (Taylor specifically requested that he be represented by a female attorney.) So brutal was the assault, the victim spent five days in a coma immediately afterward; then months recovering from the physical thrashing that accompanied the rape; and over 10 years in psychotherapy. At the time of the attack, doctors told her she would probably never be able to bear children.

    Hillary knew for certain that Taylor was guilty of this crime, as she made clear years later when she discussed the case in a 1980s interview with Arkansas journalist Roy Reed. “He [Taylor] took a lie detector test!” Mrs. Clinton recalled. “I had him take a polygraph test, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.”

    Notwithstanding her knowledge of the man's guilt, Hillary obtained a plea bargain for Taylor by taking advantage of a prosecutorial error -- the prosecutors had cut out and examined the blood-covered section of Taylor's underwear that proved his guilt, but then discarded the fabric, making it impossible for the defense to examine it. Because of this misstep, Hillary sensed an opportunity to have the evidence dismissed and to press for a plea deal.

    But before actually doing that, Hillary consulted with a New York-based forensic scientist with a reputation for helping defendants such as Taylor by providing testimony in court designed to cast doubt on the physical evidence. She commissioned the investigator to examine the remaining, undiscarded portion of Taylor's underwear, and the investigator determined that the prosecution would be unable, based on that, to prove that Taylor was guilty. Armed with that opinion, Hillary returned to the Arkansas prosecutor and pushed for a plea bargain.

    In the 1980s interview, a laughing Mrs. Clinton recounted to Reed that she had told the prosecutor: "Well, this guy’s ready to come from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice." When Reed asked Clinton about the outcome of the case, she replied, nonchalantly, “Oh he plea bargained. Got him off with time served in the county jail, he’d been in the county jail about two months.” (Those two months were subtracted from the perpetrator's one-year prison sentence.)

    (To hear an audio recording of Clinton's interview with Roy Reed, click here or here.)

    Subsequent to the Taylor trial, a Newsday examination of court files, investigative files, and interviews with witnesses revealed that Hillary had also attacked the young victim's character during the trial by calling into question her motives and her honesty.

    “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing,” Hillary wrote in an affidavit at the time of the trial. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.” In addition, Hillary wrote that a child psychologist had told her that children in early adolescence “tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences,” particularly when they come from “disorganized families, such as the complainant.”

    In June 2014, Daily Beast reporter Josh Rogin tracked down the victim (now 52 years old) from the 1975 rape case, interviewed her, and issued the following report:
    ... The victim in the 1975 sexual abuse case that became Clinton’s first criminal defense case as a 27-year-old lawyer has only spoken to the media once since her attack, a contested, short interaction with a reporter in 2008, during Clinton’s last presidential campaign run. Now 52, she wants to speak out after hearing Clinton talk about her case on newly discovered audio recordings from the 1980s, unearthed by the Washington Free Beacon and made public this week.

    In a long, emotional interview with The Daily Beast, she accused Clinton of intentionally lying about her in court documents, going to extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape, and later callously acknowledging and laughing about her attackers’ guilt on the recordings.

    “Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” the victim said.... The victim said if she saw Clinton today, she would call her out for what she sees as the hypocrisy of Clinton’s current campaign to fight for women’s rights compared to her actions regarding this rape case so long ago.

    “I would say [to Clinton], ‘You took a case of mine in ’75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.” ...

    The victim vigorously denied Clinton’s accusations [about the girl having made previous false accusations and fantasizing about older men] and said there has never been any explanation of what Clinton was referring to in that affidavit. She claims she never accused anyone of attacking her before her rape.

    “I’ve never said that about anyone. I don’t know why she said that. I have never made false allegations. I know she was lying,” she said. “I definitely didn’t see older men. I don’t know why Hillary put that in there and it makes me plumb mad.”

    “She lied like a dog on me. I think she was trying to do whatever she could do to make herself look good at the time.... She wanted it to look good, she didn’t care if those guys did it or not. Them two guys should have got a lot longer time. I do not think justice was served at all.” ...

    “When I heard that tape I was pretty upset, I went back to the room and was talking to my two cousins and I cried a little bit. I ain’t gonna lie, some of this has got me pretty down,” she said. “But I thought to myself, ‘I’m going to stand up to her. I’m going to stand up for what I’ve got to stand up for, you know?” ...

    She described being afraid of men for years and dealing with anger issues well into her adulthood. At one point, she turned to drugs, a path that ultimately led her to prison. Now 52, she has never married or had children. She said she has been sober for several years and has achieved a level of stability, although she remains unemployed and living on disability assistance....

    The victim doesn’t remember ever meeting Clinton in 1975; she says her memories from that ordeal are spotty. But she does recall feeling exasperated by the law enforcement and legal proceedings to the point where she told her mother she just wanted it to be over so she could try to resume her childhood.

    “I had been through so much stuff I finally told them to do whatever,” she remembered. “They had scared me so bad that I was tired of being put through it all. I finally said I was done… I thought they had both gotten long-term sentences, I didn’t realize they got off with hardly nothing.” ...
    (NOTE: In the 1980s interview with Roy Reed, Mrs. Clinton said that she had accepted Taylor's case as a favor to the prosecutor. But years later, in July 2014 -- after the Reed interview had been made public -- Clinton issued a videotaped statement contradicting that assertion: She said: "I was appointed by the local judge to represent a criminal defendant who had been accused of rape. I asked to be relieved of that responsibility, but I was not, and I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did.... When you're a lawyer, you often don't have a choice as to who you will represent ...")


    In October 1975 Hillary married Bill Clinton, whom she had met during her student days at Yale Law School.


    In 1976 Mrs. Clinton worked for Jimmy Carter's successful presidential campaign. Soon thereafter, she found employment as an attorney with the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas, where she would continue to work until 1992. According to political analyst and former Clinton advisor Dick Morris, "She [Hillary] had no job offers in Arkansas and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already teaching there. She only joined the prestigious Rose Law Firm after Bill became Attorney General, and made partner only after he was elected governor."

    In 1978 President Carter appointed Mrs. Clinton to the board of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), a federally funded nonprofit organization that functioned primarily as a vehicle for expanding the social welfare state and broadening the mandate for social welfare spending. According to Dick Morris: "The appointment was in exchange for Bill’s support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy. Hillary became [board] chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter’s choice to be chairman.

    Under Mrs. Clinton's leadership, LSC's annual budget more than tripled, from $90 million to $321 million. LSC used these taxpayer funds in a variety of ways -- most notably to print political training manuals showing "how community organizations and public interest groups can win political power and resources," and to finance training programs that taught political activists how to harass their opposition.[8]

    During Mrs. Clinton's years on the LSC board, the Corporation also worked to defeat a California referendum that would have cut state income taxes in half; it called for the U.S. government to give two-thirds of the state of Maine to American Indians; it paid Marxist orators and folk singers to wage a campaign against the Louisiana Wildlife Commission; it joined a Michigan initiative to recognize "Black English" as an official language; and it sought to force the New York City Transit Authority to hire former heroin addicts so as to avoid "discriminat[ing]" against "minorities" who were "handicapped."[9]

    As the 1980 presidential election drew near, and it became clear that Ronald Reagan might defeat the incumbent Jimmy Carter, LSC redirected massive amounts of its public funding into an anti-Reagan letter-writing campaign by indigent clients. After Reagan was elected in November 1980, LSC immediately laundered its assets -- some $260 million -- into state-level agencies and private groups so as to keep the funds away from the board that Reagan would eventually appoint. Hillary Clinton left LSC in 1981. [10]


    Bill Clinton served as Governor of Arkansas from 1978 to 1980, and again from 1982 to 1992. Thus Mrs. Clinton spent a total of twelve years as Arkansas's First Lady. During that time, she continued her legal practice as a partner in the Rose Law Firm. In 1978 she became a board member of the Children's Defense Fund (CDF), and from 1986 to 1992 she served as chair of the CDF Board.

    From 1982 to 1988 Mrs. Clinton also chaired the New World Foundation (NWF), which had helped to launch CDF in 1973. During her years at NWF's helm, the Foundation made grants to such organizations as the National Lawyers Guild, the Institute for Policy Studies, theChristic Institute, Grassroots International, the Committees in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (which sought to foment a Communist revolution in Central America), and groups with ties to the most extreme elements of the African National Congress.


    Hillary's Senior Thesis Is Made Off-Limits to the Public

    When Bill Clinton became U.S. President in 1993, the Clintons asked Wellesley College to shield Hillary Rodham's aforementioned senior thesis (about Saul Alinsky) from public access. In compliance, Wellesley president Nannerl Overholser Keohane approved a policy that would make the senior thesis of every Wellesley alumna available in the college archives for anyone to read -- except for those written by either a "president or first lady of the United States."

    Commencement Address

    In the spring of 1993, shortly after her husband took his oath of office, Mrs. Clinton delivered the commencement address at the University of Texas. In her speech, she stated: "We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West."

    Hillary and Michael Lerner ("The Politics of Meaning")

    That same year, Mrs. Clinton latched onto the phrase "the politics of meaning," an opaque concept coined by Michael Lerner that blended radical politics with New Ageish human potentialism. She invited Lerner to the White House, briefly making him her "guru" until the ridicule which this caused made her retreat from the connection. (In her autobiography, Mrs. Clinton strenuously avoids any mention of Lerner, or of Lerner's Tikkun magazine.)

    The "Travelgate" Scandal

    In May 1993, Mrs. Clinton became involved in a major controversy when she and President Clinton determined that seven employees of the White House Travel Office should be fired -- an unusual occurrence in an office where employees typically remained in their posts for many years. In turn, the Clintons gave the Travel Office business -- and the commissions that came with it -- to a cousin of President Clinton’s, Catherine Cornelius, who had a travel agency of her own.

    Because simply handing over government business to a relative would have been politically untenable, so the Clintons concocted a story suggesting that the Travel Office had been rife with corruption, and that the workers there needed to be fired. While an audit of the Travel Office's finances found the record-keeping to have been below par, there was no evidence of corruption or embezzlement. Nonetheless, the FBI was pressured to make arrests, and the local U.S. Attorney was charged with prosecuting the employees for corruption.

    White House denials of any scheme, and leaks by those involved, led to a firestorm of media criticism. Most of the Travel Office employees were eventually given other government jobs or retired. A prosecution for corruption of the head of the Travel Office, Billy Dale, ended in an acquittal. Clinton’s cousin was removed as new head of the Travel Office. A later report written by Independent Counsel Robert Ray concluded that, while she did not make any knowingly-false statements under oath, First Lady Hillary Clinton had made a number ofinaccurate statements concerning the firings and her role in them.

    The Health Care Task Force Scandal

    Also during her early years as First Lady, Mrs. Clinton was put in charge of the 500-member Health Care Task Force which tried, in secret meetings and by stealth, to socialize medical care in the United States, a sector that represented approximately one-seventh of the U.S. economy. This modus operandi was in violation of so-called "sunshine laws," which forbid such secret meetings from taking place when non-government employees are present. Mrs. Clinton was sued by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons for these violations. The trial judge, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, ultimately ruled against her and the Clinton administration. In December 1997 Lamberth issued a 19-page reportcondemning as "reprehensible" the duplicity exhibited by Mrs. Clinton's Task Force. "The Executive Branch of the government, working in tandem, was dishonest with this court, and the government must now face the consequences of its misconduct," said Lamberth. "It is clear," he added, "that the decisions here were made at the highest levels of government. There were no rogue lawyers here misleading the court."

    The linchpin of Mrs. Clinton’s healthcare plan was a mandate forcing all Americans to purchase insurance, and imposing a penalty on those who failed to comply. In November 2013, MIT professor John Gruber, who was a chief architect of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), said that Hillary Clinton's 1990s-era plan was "much more interventionist" than Obamacare, "much to the left of Obamacare," and "would have more radically changed our healthcare system."

    Hillary and Radical Clerics
    During the 1990s, Mrs. Clinton spent eight years faithfully attending Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington, D.C., which was then pastored by the Rev. Dr. J. Philip Wogaman. Wogaman had made his political worldview clear in his many writings and sermons over the years. For instance, in 1990, a year after the fall of the Berlin Wall, hewrote that “Christian socialism's critique of the excesses and brutalities and idolatries of the free market still need to be heard.” On an earlier occasion, he had lauded the “modest but real economic success” of Communist Cuba and China. As long ago as 1967, Wogaman had written: "The USSR is characteristic of the more tolerant Communist arrangements for religion. In Russia there are specific constitutional guarantees of freedom of worship, and some provision has even been made for the upkeep of churches and theological seminaries."

    By no means was Wogaman the only radical cleric to be admired by Mrs. Clinton. In her 2004 memoir, Living History, Mrs. Clinton praised Rev. William Sloane Coffin Jr., who had served as Yale’s chaplain during Hillary's years at the law school, for his “articulate moral critique of American involvement” in Vietnam. That critique involved his traveling to Hanoi in 1972. Seven years later, he would make a friendly trip to Tehran, capital of the first modern Islamic theocratic state which had just stormed a U.S. embassy and kidnapped dozens of his fellow countrymen.

    Hillary's Nasty, Disrespectful Treatment of Secret Service & Military Personnel

    In his 2014 book The First Family Detail, bestselling author Ronald Kessler writes that during Mrs. Clinton's years as First Lady, she was known and despised by Secret Service agents and military personnel for the nasty treatment, explosive temper, and imperious attitude she conveyed toward them. “Agents say being on Hillary Clinton’s detail is the worst duty assignment in the Secret Service,” writes Kessler. “Being assigned to her detail is a form of punishment.” In August 2014, the Daily Mail provided the following details from Kessler's book:

    • “‘We were basically told, the Clintons don’t want to see you, they don’t want to hear you, get of the way,’ according to a former Secret Service agent.”
    • “She didn’t like law enforcement officers or the military, former Secret Service agent Lloyd Bulman stated. ‘She was just really rude to almost everybody. She’d act like she didn’t want you around, like you were beneath her.’ She went years without speaking to some agents.”
    • “In response to a cheerful ‘Good morning, ma’am,’ by a former uniformed officer, Hillary’s response to him was ‘**** off.’”
    • “While publicly courting law enforcement organizations, privately she felt disdain. She wanted state troopers and local police to wear suits and drive unmarked cars. No military aides could wear their uniforms in the White House. If agents driving her went over a bump, she’d swear at them.”
    • “Glad-handing on the road on her Senatorial campaign, when they arrived at a 4-F Club in the land of dairy cows in upstate New York, she saw cows and people in jeans. That enraged her and she asked a staffer, ‘What the f*** did we come her for? There's no money here.’”
    • “White House deputy counsel Vince Foster, who committed suicide in June 1993, was on the receiving end of a virulent verbal attack by Hillary. She disagreed with a legal opinion he made and humiliated him in a meeting, stating he would never be more than a hick-town lawyer and wasn’t ready for the big time. ‘The put-down that she gave him in that big meeting just pushed him over the edge’, [former FBI agent Coy] Copeland says. She blamed Foster for all of the Clinton's problems and stated he had failed the couple....”

    The Monica Lewinsky Scandal

    A few days after rumors of Bill Clinton's extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky first made headlines in January 1998, Mrs. Clinton made a January 27 appearance on NBC'sToday Show, where she told interviewer Matt Lauer that the allegations had been fabricated by "this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced [that he would run] for President." Mrs. Clinton would echo this theme many times thereafter. In a June 8, 2003 interview with Barbara Walters, for instance, shecharacterized the Republicans who had led the 1998 impeachment of her husband as "a right-wing network" that "was after his presidency" and had resorted to "perverting the Constitution."

    Lucrative Book Deal

    In the final month of Bill Clinton's presidency, Hillary Clinton held an open auction, which evolved into what the New York Times described as a “frantic weeklong bidding war” on the proposal for her forthcoming memoir, Living History. The winner of the bidding was Simon & Schuster, which paid Mrs. Clinton an $8 million advance for the book. At the time, this represented the second-largest advance ever given to an author, exceeded only by the $8.5 million advance that was paid for Pope John Paul II’s book in 1994.


    When New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's 1998 announcement that he planned to retire from public life in 2000, Mrs. Clinton resolved to run for the seat Moynihan would be vacating. In October 1999 Hillary and Bill Clinton bought a house in Chappaqua, New York; their $1.35 million mortgage was secured by Democratic fundraiser Terry McAuliffe. Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign was managed by Bill de Blasio.

    In the 2000 U.S. Senate race in New York, Mrs. Clinton defeated Republican Rick Lazio by a 55-to-43 percent margin. Clinton carried the heavily Democratic New York City by 74 percent to 25 percent, which was more than enough to compensate for her losses in the suburbs (by 53-to-45 percent) and upstate (50-to-47 percent).

    Notably, Clinton ran on the tickets of both the Democratic Party and the far-left Working Families Party (WFP), which was closely allied with ACORN. After receiving WFP's endorsement, Clinton, vowing to wage a “people's grassroots campaign,” told a cheering crowd of WFP-affiliated supporters: “I consider this the beginning of a partnership.”

    During her campaign, Clinton spoke at numerous WFP events, most memorably at the Party's debut convention, held March 26-27, 2000 in Albany—an event which theCommunist Party USA newspaper People's Weekly World approvingly called “a turning point in New York politics.” Also in attendance at the convention was a delegation of theDemocratic Socialists of America, many of whose members belong to WFP.

    “Candidates know that when they're on our [WFP] line, they're committed to certain things,” said Bertha Lewis, who, at that time, served as WFP's co-chair and ACORN-New York's executive director. Just days before Mrs. Clinton won her Senate seat in November 2000, Lewis noted: “Hillary knows that if she wins, we're going to be knockin' on her door. She won't be able to hide.” Of the 3.4 million popular votes Mrs. Clinton received from New Yorkers in that Senate election, WFP delivered 103,000.

    That same year, WFP also endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore, winning 80,000 votes for him. “[T]here have been few candidates in history more supportive of our issues than Al Gore and Hillary Clinton,” proclaimed WFP campaign literature.

    9/11 and the Iraq War

    On September 12, 2001, Senator Clinton joined President Bush in condemning the previous day's terrorist attacks. On May 16, 2002, however, she went to the Senate floor to charge that Bush had known in advance about a possible 9/11-type plot but had done nothing to prevent it. "We have learned that President Bush had been informed last year, before September 11, of a possible plot by those associated with Osama bin Laden to hijack a U.S. airliner," saidMrs. Clinton.

    In October 2002, Senator Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution which authorized President Bush to use military measures, if necessary, to force Saddam Hussein to comply with a United Nations Security Council Resolution to disarm. She was firm in her belief that Saddam posed a clear and serious threat to American national security, both in terms of his weapons programs and his affiliations with terrorists. On October 10, 2002, she said from the Senate floor:
    "In the four years since the [weapons] inspectors left [Iraq], intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaedamembers, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. Now this much is undisputed.... Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret."
    In September 2003, six months after the U.S. had routed Saddam's forces on the battlefield, Mrs. Clinton proudly defended her vote for the Iraq Resolution. According to a WashingtonTimes report: "she said the intelligence she saw leading up to the war was consistent with intelligence from previous administrations and she checked out information with trusted Clinton administration officials." Moreover, Senator Clinton credited her husband for having bequeathed to President Bush the military that had so swiftly deposed Saddam.[11]

    But a month later, as the U.S. struggled to suppress a ferocious insurgency in Iraq, Senator Clinton condemned President Bush's foreign policy as "aggressive unilateralism" that had been implemented "as a first resort against perceived threats and not as a necessary final resort."[12] With ever-increasing stridency, she began to charge that Bush had misled her, the Congress, and the American people about the extent of the threat posed by Saddam. In November 2005 she wrote an open letter to her constituents, which stated, in part:
    "In October 2002, I voted for the resolution to authorize the Administration to use force in Iraq. I voted for it on the basis of the evidence presented by the Administration, assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations-sponsored inspections ...

    "Their assurances turned out to be empty ones, as the Administration refused repeated requests from the U.N. inspectors to finish their work. And the 'evidence' of weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda turned out to be false.

    "Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority to use force against Iraq. And if Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed, given the lack of a long-term plan, paltry international support, the proven absence of weapons of mass destruction, and the reallocation of troops and resources that might have been used in Afghanistan to eliminate Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and fully uproot the Taliban."
    But Mrs. Clinton's claim that she had been deceived into supporting the war, and that she had turned against it only upon subsequently becoming aware of that deception, was untrue. As David Horowitz explains:
    "Starting in July 2003 ... the Democratic National Committee ran a national TV ad whose message was: 'Read his lips: President Bush Deceives the American People.' This was the beginning of a five-year, unrelenting campaign to persuade Americans and their allies that 'Bush lied, people died,' that the war was 'unnecessary' and 'Iraq was no threat.' ...

    "In fact, the claim that Bush lied in order to dupe Democrats into supporting the war is itself the biggest lie of the war. Every Democratic Senator who voted for the war had on his or her desk before the vote a 100-page report, called 'The National Intelligence Estimate,' [NIE], which summarized all America's intelligence on Iraq that was used to justify the war. We live in a democracy; consequently, the opposition party has access to all our secrets. Democrats sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which oversees all of America's intelligence agencies. If any Democrat on that committee ... had requested any intelligence information Iraq, he or she would have had that information on his or [her] desk within 24 hours. The self-justifying claim that Bush lied to hoodwink the Democrats is a fraudulent charge with no basis in reality."
    In June 2007, New York Times reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta, Jr., authors of Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton, wrote that Mrs. Clinton refused to say whether she had ever read the complete NIE report, which ... included caveats about Saddam's weaponry and doubts about any alliance he may have had with terror groups like al Qaeda.

    Senator Clinton also took a highly noteworthy position against President Bush's January 2007 decision to deploy an additional 21,500 troops in a military "surge" designed to turn the tide of the Iraq War -- which had devolved into a bloody, deadly quagmire -- back in America's favor:

    • In December 2006, when Bush was still contemplating the surge, Clinton said: “Everyone knows there is no military solution to the difficulties we face in Iraq. There has to be a broad-based comprehensive approach that includes resolving some of the political issues, bringing the region together.”
    • According to The Daily Mail, Mrs. Clinton opposed the proposed surge because she "could not afford to be seen as hawkish when other Democrats -- especially [Barack] Obama, her presumed principal opponent [for the Democratic presidential nomination] -- were blaming President Bush for putting ever-more boots on the ground in the Middle East."
    • In January 2007, Clinton told NBC's Today Show that the surge was "taking troops away from Afghanistan, where I think we need to be putting more troops, and sending them to Iraq on a mission that I think has a very limited, if any, chance for success."
    • In August 2007, Clinton said: "The surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to take steps to ensure a political solution to the situation. It has failed to do so. The White House's report in September won't change that. It is abundantly clear that there is no military solution to the sectarian fighting in Iraq. We need to stop refereeing the war, and start getting out now."
    • When General David Petraeus issued a September 2007 report on the remarkably successful results that the surge was yielding, Clinton told Petraeus that his assertions required "a willing suspension of disbelief." Clinton also said that the charts (outlining the surge's progress) that Petraeus had brought to the House and Senate that same week provided merely "anecdotal" evidence and "don't ... tell the whole story."
    • In April 2008, Clinton told Good Morning America that the troop surge had not worked: "Let's remember what we were told about this surge a year ago. That the whole purpose for it was to give the Iraqi government the space and time to do what it needed to do when it came to allocating oil revenues, improving services, coming to some political reconciliation. That hasn't happened."

    In fact, the surge proved to be a monumentally important strategy that finally enabled the U.S. to emerge victorious in the war. Prior to the surge, it had not been uncommon for 3,000 or more Iraqi civilians and security-force members to die at the hands of terrorist violence during any given month. By May 2008, the monthly mortality figure stood at 19, and it fluctuated between 7 and 25 deaths per month over the ensuing 14 months.

    On January 7, 2014, The Daily Mail reported that in his soon-to-be-released memoir, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, Robert Gates -- who had served as Secretary of Defense under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama -- wrote that Mrs. Clinton's opposition to the troop surge had been based on how she thought that position would affect her own political fortunes. For example, Gates described a "remarkable" exchange that he had witnessed, where "Hillary [speaking retrospectively] told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary" and could not afford to be perceived as pro-war. Gates added that Obama had likewise "conceded vaguely that [his] opposition to the Iraq surge had been political." "To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me," wrote Gates, "was as surprising as it was dismaying."

    Economic Policies

    During her years in the Senate, Mrs. Clinton consistently voted against proposed income-tax cuts -- most notably the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 -- depicting them as fiscally irresponsible measures that were designed to help only the wealthy. At a fundraiser in 2004, she told a crowd of financial donors: "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you ... We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

    After the passage of the aforementioned tax cut in 2001, Senator Clinton often stated that it had harmed the U.S. economy. In April 2003, for example, she claimed, "there is no escaping the wrongheaded, very destructive economic policies that this [Bush] administration has chosen to inflict on our country." The following month, she told the U.S. Senate: "We are in danger of being the first generation of Americans to leave our children worse off than we were."[13]

    Contrary to her claims, however, the post-tax cut U.S. economy immediately produced federal tax revenues of unprecedented heights. As Steve Forbes said on March 20, 2006: "In 2003 ... those tax cuts ... set off the boom that we are having today, strong economy. We're the largest growing economy among large economies in the world. We've created ... nearly five million jobs and we've had a 4 percent-plus growth rate. That would not have happened without the tax cuts." Similarly, CNBC's Larry Kudlow said in February 2006: "[T]he reality is that the Bush tax-cut incentives continue to propel economic growth."


    During her years in the Senate, Mrs. Clinton cast numerous important votes on the issue of immigration:

    • In March 2002 she co-sponsored a bill to extend the deadlines by which illegal aliens living in the United States would be required to obtain visas. "This is good news indeed," she said of the bill's passage. "Instead of being forced to return to their home country to apply for permanent residence status, many immigrants will be able to seek permanent resident status while working in the U.S."[14]
    • In October 2003 she favored granting temporary protected status to illegal Haitian immigrants.
    • In September 2004 she co-sponsored an agricultural jobs bill offering illegal farmworkers a speedy path to citizenship.
    • In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, she co-signed a September 2005 letter asking Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to prevent the deportation of any illegal aliens whose immigration status came to the government's attention "after they [had] sought assistance" from the American taxpayers.[15]
    • In 2005 she opposed the REAL ID Act, which stipulated that all driver's license and photo ID applicants must be able to verify they are legal residents of the United States, and that the documents they present to prove their identity must be genuine. It also contained provisions to prevent terrorists from abusing asylum laws, and to streamline the deportation of immigrants convicted of terrorism-related offenses.
    • In June 2007, she voted against a bill that would have prohibited illegal aliens convicted of serious crimes from gaining legal status.
    • That same month, she voted in favor of a bill to establish restrictions on admission into the United States for immigrants who have previously been convicted of criminal gang activity, child abuse, human trafficking, obstruction of justice, domestic violence, or a felony count of driving under the influence.
    • Also in June 2007, she voted in favor of the Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which would have provided a path to legalization for all illegal aliens residing in the United States.

    In 2005 Senator Clinton gave a speech to members of the National Council of La Raza, an organization that supports open borders as well as expanded rights and amnesty for illegal aliens. She told them: "You are doing your part to make sure that every child in every American family has access to the tools necessary to live out their dreams, to a have piece of the American dream, but I don't know that your government is doing its part, right now -- I'm not sure we are doing everything to make your job easier, to make sure the opportunities and society are alive and well for everyone." Mrs. Clinton further expressed her support for the Dream Act, legislation that would allow illegal aliens to attend college at in-state tuition rates -- which are much lower than those paid by out-of-state U.S. citizens. "We need to open the doors of college to immigrant children who came here did well and deserved to go on with their education," she said.[16]

    In 2006 Senator Clinton appeared with Senators Kennedy, McCain, and Schumer before a group of illegal Irish immigrants who had come to Capitol Hill to lobby the U.S. government for amnesty. "It is so heartening to see you here," she told them. "You are really here on behalf of what America means, America's values, Americans' hopes."[17]

    Overall Voting Record

    For an overview of Mrs. Clinton's voting record on issues of particular import during her years in the Senate, click here.

    Viewing Conservatives As Racists

    Depicting herself and fellow leftists as the champions of the downtrodden, Mrs. Clinton has often characterized Republicans and conservatives as being inclined toward racism and discrimination. At a Martin Luther King Day celebration in January 2006, for example, shetold a black audience at Harlem's Canaan Baptist Church: "When you look at the way the [Republican-controlled] House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation. And you know what I'm talking about. It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard." She went on to condemn Republicans' "constant exploitation of race." Al Sharptonlater praised her comments.


    Throughout her adult life, Mrs. Clinton has embraced the worldviews and ideals of radical feminism. Following the February 2006 death of Betty Friedan, the longtime communist who co-founded the National Organization for Women, Mrs. Clinton said that Friedan's activism and writing had "opened doors and minds, breaking down barriers for women and enlarging opportunities for women and men for generations to come. We are all the beneficiaries of her vision."


    Also in February 2006, Senator Clinton spoke at the South Bronx Overall Economic Development Corporation, where she criticized the concept of school vouchers:
    "First family that comes and says 'I want to send my daughter to St. Peter's Roman Catholic School' and you say 'Great, wonderful school, here's your voucher.' Next parent that comes and says, 'I want to send my child to the school of the Church of the White Supremacist ...' The parent says, 'The way that I read Genesis, Cain was marked, therefore I believe in white supremacy...You gave it to a Catholic parent, you gave it to a Jewish parent, under the Constitution, you can't discriminate against me...' So what if the next parent comes and says, 'I want to send my child to the School of the Jihad?...' I won't stand for it."

    Ties to ACORN

    A longtime supporter of the pro-socialist, notoriously corrupt community organizationACORN, Mrs. Clinton has spoken at numerous ACORN conferences and boasted about her ties to the group. Speaking at ACORN’s 2006 national convention, for instance, Clinton looked back fondly on her memories of the group’s early days in Arkansas. After noting that she herself had founded a group called Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, which dealt with many of the same issues as ACORN, she hailed ACORN for its outstanding work. "I thank you for being part of that great movement," she said, "that progressive tradition that has rolled across our country."

    Re-Elected to the Senate in 2006

    As November 2006 approached, Mrs. Clinton campaigned for re-election to the U.S. Senate. During her 2000 campaign, she had pledged to bring 200,000 new jobs to New York State. By late 2006, however, New York had lost 112,000 jobs and its jobless rate had risen by 0.7 percent. Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton won the 2006 election by a wide margin over a weak Republican opponent, John Spencer.


    In 2001 Bill Clinton established the William J. Clinton Foundation -- now called the the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation -- “to alleviate poverty, improve global health, strengthen economies, and protect the environment.” Hillary Clinton served as one of the Foundation's board members during the time period following her 2013 resignation as secretary of State and preceding her 2015 announcement that she was running for president. For an in-depth look at the Foundation's numerous, serious scandals, click here.


    In January 2007, two months after her re-election to a six-year term in the Senate, Mrs. Clinton announced that she planned to run for U.S. President in 2008.

    On the campaign trail, candidate Clinton said that to restore "fiscal responsibility to government," she would like to return "high-income tax rates to the 1990s levels."

    In April 2007 Mrs. Clinton spoke at an event held by Al Sharpton's National Action Network, where she stated that her own presidential bid was possible only because of the dedicated work of longtime civil-rights leaders who had fought on behalf of those traditionally excluded from power positions in American life. She specifically cited Jesse Jackson and Children's Defense Fund founder Marian Wright Edelman (both of whom were on the dais that day). "I have enjoyed a long and positive relationship with Reverend Al Sharpton and National Action Network," said Mrs. Clinton, "and I don't ever remember saying 'no' to them and I intend to remain their partner in civil rights as I clean the dirt from under the carpet in the Oval Office when I am elected President."

    That same month, Senator Clinton appointed Raul Yzaguirre, who served as President and CEO of the National Council of La Raza from 1974 to 2004, to co-chair her 2008 presidential campaign and to direct her outreach efforts to Hispanic voters.

    Another notable co-chair of Mrs. Clinton's campaign was Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, supporter of the radical Chicano student organization MEChA.

    In May 2007, Mrs. Clinton outlined an economic vision of "shared prosperity" that would focus on the redistribution of wealth by raising the incomes of, and benefits for, lower earners. She lamented the "economic policy dynamics [that] are generating rising income inequality," and expressed her desire to make "corporations pay their fair share of taxes." She did not note that corporate taxes in the U.S. were already among the highest for OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries. Moreover, her claim that "the percentage of taxes paid by corporations have fallen" was incorrect. In fact, the percentage of taxes paid by corporations was 11.5 percent in 2006, considerably higher than the 8.2 percent figure for 2000, the last year of Bill Clinton's presidency.

    Also in May 2007, Senator Clinton emphasized the importance of replacing the conservative notion of an "ownership society" with one based on communal responsibility and prosperity. She lamented that the contemporary American economy left "it all up to the individual" in "the 'on your own' society" which tended to increase the income gap between the "rich" and the "poor." Though Mrs. Clinton depicted the American middle class as a shrinking entity, Democratic economist Stephen Rose notes (in his 2007 book, Social Stratification in the United States) that once people outside their prime working years - i.e., the elderly and the young -- are excluded from the equation, the median income of American families is approximately $63,000.

    At a June 4, 2007 event hosted by Sojourners, the Jim Wallis-founded evangelical Christian ministry that preaches radical leftwing politics and has long championed communist causes, Mrs. Clinton said, "...I certainly think the free market has failed. We've all failed." She further said she would repeal the Bush tax cuts to help finance universal, government-funded health care.

    In July 2007, Senator Clinton voiced her opposition to a new Supreme Court ruling that public school systems may not achieve or preserve racial integration through measures -- such as busing or quotas -- that take explicit account of students' racial backgrounds.According to Clinton, this decision "turned the clock back" on the history of hard-won gains in the realm of civil rights; it represented "a setback for all of us who are on the long march toward racial equality and the building of a stronger, more unified America"; and it demonstrated the John Roberts-led Supreme Court's "willingness to erode core constitutional guarantees."

    Mrs. Clinton added that "all students benefit from racially diverse classrooms," and that "[r]ecent evidence shows that integrated schools promote minority academic achievement and can help close the achievement gap." Her claims are contradicted, however, by the scholarship of Thomas Sowell, who has found that "[n]ot only is there no hard evidence that mixing and matching black and white kids in school produces either educational or social benefits, there have been a number of studies of all-black schools whose educational performances equal or exceed the national average"; that black students who have been bussed into white schools have seen no discernible rise in their standardized test scores -- "not even after decades of busing"; and that "[n]ot only is there no hard evidence" for the dogma "that there needs to be a 'critical mass' of black students in a given school or college in order for them to perform up to standard," but "such hard evidence as there is points in the opposite direction."

    Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign was endorsed by the Working Families Party (WFP), a front group for ACORN. WFP had also endorsed Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign, during which she spoke at numerous WFP events -- most memorably at the party's debut convention in March 2000, an event which the Communist newspaper People's Weekly World approvingly called "a turning point in New York politics." "[T]here have been few candidates in history more supportive of our issues than Al Gore and Hillary Clinton," said WFP campaign literature.

    The Clinton campaign suffered a significant embarrassment in September 2007 when it wasrevealed that one of its major donors, Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu, had stolen more than $50 million from hundreds of investors in a 10-year Ponzi scheme. By that point, Hsu had earned the title of "HillRaiser" along with numerous other leading financial backers of Mrs. Clinton's presidential run. Indeed, earlier that year Hsu had co-hosted a Beverly Hills fundraiser that took in $1 million for Mrs. Clinton, and he was scheduled to co-host yet another Clinton fundraiser later in September. Hsu's arrest, howeverm forced Mrs. Clinton toreturn more than $800,000 she had received from donors linked with Hsu. (In 2009, Hsu was sentenced to more than 24 years in prison for what the judge called his "conniving use of the political process.")

    Hillary Denounces "Economic Inequality" and "The Top One Percent"

    At a “Take Back America” conference in June 2007, Mrs. Clinton said: Let’s finally do something about the growing economic inequality that is tearing our country apar.t” “The top 1 percent of our households,” she added, “held 22 percent of our nation’s wealth.”

    Clinton Lies About Having Come Under "Sniper Fire" in Bosnia Twelve Years Earlier

    During her 2008 presidential campaign, Mrs. Clinton cited a 1996 trip she that had made (as First Lady) to Tuzla, Bosnia, as an example of an instance where she had gained the type of valuable foreign-policy experience that would make her "ready on day one" to serve as America's commander-in-chief. But in recounting that trip, she falsely stated that she and her daughter, Chelsea, had come under hostile fire shortly after landing at the airport and thus were forced to run for cover. "I remember landing under sniper fire," Clinton said in a March 24th campaign speech in Washington. "There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." She also told this tale in several interviews during the campaign.

    News footage of the 1996 event, however, showed that there was no sniper fire whatsoever. Reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who was present on the trip, aired a video which showed Clinton deboarding the plane in Tuzla, waving to onlookers, and shaking hands with a young schoolgirl. When initially confronted with these facts, Clinton dismissed her misrepresentation as a "minor blip" and said that she simply had a “different memory” of the event. But as controversy over the story grew, she decided to address the matter more directly and told a Pittsburgh radio station: "You know I have written about this and described it in many different settings and I did misspeak the other day. This has been a very long campaign. Occasionally, I am a human being like everybody else."

    Clinton also told the Pittsburgh
    Tribune-Review that she had misspoken because she had been "sleep-deprived" by her rigorous campaign schedule. But in fact, as the LondonTelegraph reported: “ Her schedule showed she had no public engagements the day before her Washington speech and she spent the night in her Embassy Row home.” Added theTelegraph on March 25, 2008: “She insisted it was the 'first time in 12 years' she had spoken inaccurately about the trip. But her Bosnia anecdote has been a regular feature of her stump speeches.”

    Clinton Drops out of the Presidential Race

    On June 5, 2008, after a hotly contested primary with Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton dropped out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, as it had become apparent that Obama's lead was insurmountable.

    Massive Spending on Taxpayer-Funded Charter Flights

    From 2004-08, Mrs. Clinton spent $300,000 on taxpayer-funded chartered flights, including $150,000 in 2006, her U.S. Senate re-election year, by which time she was widely viewed as a likely presidential contender for 2008. According to The Hill, "Senators are allowed to use taxpayer dollars for charter flights to and from official events, but her spending is in stark contrast to what other 2008 presidential contenders from the Senate spent over that time.... By comparison, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and then-Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) didn’t fly any charter planes with taxpayer money from 2005 to 2008.... Then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) flew two charter flights totaling $8,400 during those four years." Clinton’s spokesman, Nick Merrill, told USA Today that the chartered flights were consistent with Clinton's “tireless work on behalf of New York.”


    Mrs. Clinton has close ties to the billionaire financier George Soros and his so-called "Shadow Democratic Party," or Shadow Party. This term refers to a nationwide network of unions, non-profit activist groups, and think tanks that actively campaign for the Democrats and leftist causes. The Shadow Party was conceived and organized principally by Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Harold McEwan Ickes -- all identified with the Democratic Party left.

    A New York hedge fund manager with a personal fortune estimated at about $7.2 billion (aside from the billions of dollars in investor assets controlled by his management company), Soros is one of the world's wealthiest and most powerful individuals. Since 1979, his foundation network -- whose flagship is the Open Society Institute (OSI) -- has given billions of dollars in grants to a multitude of organizations whose objectives are consistent with those of Soros. The major agendas of those organizations can be summarized as follows:

    • promoting the election of leftist political candidates throughout the United States
    • promoting open borders, mass immigration, and a watering down of current immigration laws
    • promoting a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes
    • promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for illegal aliens
    • financing the recruitment and training of future activist leaders of the political Left
    • promoting socialized medicine in the United States
    • promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism
    • promoting racial and ethnic preferences in academia and the business world alike

    Hillary Clinton shares each of the foregoing Soros agendas.

    At a 2004 "Take Back America" conference in Washington, DC, Mrs. Clinton introduced Soros with these words:
    "Now, among the many people who have stood up and said, 'I cannot sit by and let this happen to the country I love,' is George Soros, and I have known George Soros for a long time now, and I first came across his work in the former Soviet Union, in Eastern Europe, when I was privileged to travel there, both on my own and with my husband on behalf of our country. ... [W]e need people like George Soros, who is fearless, and willing to step up when it counts."[18]

    Mrs. Clinton also has particularly close ties to a vital think tank called the Center for American Progress (CAP), which was founded jointly by George Soros, Morton Halperin, and John Podesta. Soros and Halperin first proposed CAP's creation in 2002 to promote generally the cause of the Left and the Democratic Party. But CAP's overarching objective is considerably more specific than that: As an inside source told reporter Christian Bourge of United Press International, CAP is in fact "the official Hillary Clinton think tank."

    Another key organizational ally of Mrs. Clinton is Media Matters For America (MMFA), headed by David Brock. Media Matters is financed, in part, by the Open Society Institute as well as the Soros-funded Democracy Alliance.

    Like Media Matters, Hillary Clinton supports the re-establishment of the so-called Fairness Doctrine (or a law whose ultimate effect would be the same), just as she did during her years as First Lady. This Doctrine would dilute, restrict, or limit the message of influential conservative broadcasters and, consequently, influence the thinking and the voting decisions of the American people.

    Mrs. Clinton is a former Board of Advisors member of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS).


    Hillary Clinton's alliances with organizations like CAP, MMFA, and ACS serve as indicators of her most deeply held political beliefs and objectives. David Horowitz has provided the following incisive analysis of Mrs. Clinton's broad agendas and the tactics she employs in pursuit of them:
    "It is possible to be a socialist, and radical in one's agendas, and yet moderate in the means one regards as practical to achieve them. To change the world, it is first necessary to acquire cultural and political power. And these transitional goals may often be accomplished by indirection and deception even more effectively than by frontal assault. ... New Left progressives [such as] Hillary Clinton ... [share the] intoxicating vision of a social redemption achieved by Them ... For these self-appointed social redeemers, the goal -- 'social justice' -- is not about rectifying particular injustices, which would be practical and modest, and therefore conservative. Their crusade is about rectifying injustice in the very order of things. 'Social Justice' for them is about a world reborn, a world in which prejudice and violence are absent, in which everyone is equal and equally advantaged and without fundamentally conflicting desires. It is a world that could only come into being through a re-structuring of human nature and of society itself. ... In other words, a world in which human consciousness is changed, human relations refashioned, social institutions transformed, and in which 'social justice' prevails. ... In short, the transformation of the world requires the permanent entrenchment of the saints in power. Therefore, everything is justified that serves to achieve the continuance of Them. ... The focus of Hillary Clinton's ambition ... is the vision of a world that can only be achieved when the Chosen accumulate enough power to change this one."

    In May 2007, Dick Morris summarized Hillary Clinton's accomplishments as a U.S. Senator as follows:
    "Other than totally meaningless legislation like changing the names on courthouses and post offices, she passed only four substantive pieces of legislation. One set up a national park in Puerto Rico. A second provided respite care for family members helping their relatives through Alzheimer’s or other conditions. And two were routine bills to aid 9-11 victims and responders which were sponsored by the entire NY delegation."


    On December 1, 2008, President-elect Barack Obama named Hillary Clinton to be the Secretary of State in his forthcoming administration. According to the public-interest organization Judicial Watch, however, Mrs. Clinton was technically ineligible for this post because of a stipulation in the Ineligibility Clause of the U.S. Constitution. That clause prohibits any active member of Congress from being appointed to an office that has benefited from a salary increase during that legislator's current term in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. An Executive Order increasing the salary for Secretary of State had been indeed signed by President Bush in January 2008, when Mrs. Clinton was in the early stages of her second Senate term.

    Mexican Drug Wars

    In March 2009, Mrs. Clinton suggested that Mexico's drug war was, in large measure, the fault of the United States. "Our [America's] inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police, of soldiers and civilians," said Clinton. She contended further that illegal drugs had been coming from Mexico into the U.S. to feed "our insatiable demand" for such substances, and in exchange American weapons had been flowing south.

    In reality, however, the Mexican drug cartels acquire their weaponry not from the U.S. but rather from the black market, from such nations as Venezuela and Iran, and from Hezbollah-type terror groups wishing to destabilize North America. Moreover, in many cases they simply "procure" their weapons from less-than-savory elements within the Mexican military—weapons which in all likelihood did come from the U.S. through legal channels.


    In March 2009, Secretary Clinton articulated the Obama administration's wish to reach out, in peace negotiations, to supposedly moderate members of the Taliban. Said Mrs. Clinton: “We must support efforts by the government of Afghanistan to separate the extremists of al Qaeda and the Taliban from those who joined their ranks, not out of conviction but out of desperation. They should be offered an honorable form of reconciliation and reintegration into a peaceful society if they are willing to abandon violence, break with al Qaeda and support the constitution.”

    North Korea
    In a March 26, 2009 television interview, Fox News reporter Greta Van Susteren questioned Mrs. Clinton about North Korea's recent announcement that it would soon be test-launching a communications satellite, a launch that regional powers believed was actually intended to test a long-range missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. "What are we going to do about North Korea?" Susteren asked. Clinton responded:
    "... I have been very clear, President Obama has been very clear, we would like to get back to the kind of talks that led to the initial steps in their de-nuclearization. The six-party framework that involves all of the neighbors, each of whom have a stake in what happens in North Korea -- we have offered that. I sent word that we would like to have our special envoy for North Korean policy go to Pyongyang. They didn't want him to come.

    "So we're working hard. And if they're watching you [on TV], I'm sure that since you were there [Susteren had visited North Korea], you made a big impression, went to a karaoke bar in Pyongyang. (laughter) They probably still remember you. If they're watching -- if anybody from North Korea is watching this program with you, Greta ... You know, we'd love for them to begin to talk about what we can do together to fulfill the framework of the six-party talks."
    Planned Parenthood and the Margaret Sanger Award

    In March 2009, Mrs. Clinton was the recipient of Planned Parenthood's Margaret SangerAward. When accepting the honor, Clinton said: "I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision … And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her." She added: “The 20th-century reproductive-rights movement, really embodied in the life and leadership of Margaret Sanger, was one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race.”

    America's Culpability for Global Warming

    During a July 2009 visit to Mumbai, India, Mrs. Clinton said the following about America's culpability for creating the air pollution allegedly responsible for global warming: “We acknowledge – now with President Obama – that we have made mistakes in the United States, and we along with other developed countries have contributed most significantly to the problem that we face with climate change. We are hoping a great country like India will not make the same mistakes.”

    Delegitimizing the George W. Bush Presidency

    While visiting Nigeria in August 2009, Mrs. Clinton was asked to comment about that country's latest presidential election, which was marred by violence, ballot stuffing and other irregularities. She replied: "In 2000, our presidential election came down to one state where the brother of the man [George W. Bush] running for President was the governor of the state [of Florida]. So we have our problems too. Our democracy is still evolving."

    Supporting High Tax Rates

    In a May 2010 speech to the Brookings Institution, Mrs. Clinton spoke about the virtues of high taxation rates: "The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [America currently does] — whether it's individual, corporate or whatever [form of] taxation forms." She went on to cite Brazil as a model: "Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere and guess what — they're growing like crazy. And the rich are getting richer, but they're pulling people out of poverty."

    Deriding the "Extremism" of Conservatives

    On January 10, 2011, Mrs. Clinton, who was traveling through the Middle East in an effort to build diplomatic relationships with leaders in the region, taped a town hall segment for a talk show in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. She made reference to Jared Loughner, a deranged young man from Arizona, who, earlier that day, had attempted to assassinateDemocratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in a shooting spree that left 6 dead and 14 wounded. Asserting that exremism was a problem in the U.S. as well as in the Middle East, she said:
    "Look, we have extremists in my country. A wonderful, incredibly brave young woman Congress member, Congresswoman Giffords was just shot in our country. We have the same kinds of problems. So rather than standing off from each other, we should work to try to prevent the extremists anywhere from being able to commit violence."
    In a subsequent interview with CNN, Clinton said:
    “Based on what I know, this is a criminal defendant who was in some ways motivated by his own political views, who had a particular animus toward the congresswoman. And I think when you cross the line from expressing opinions that are of conflicting differences in our political environment into taking action that’s violent action, that’s a hallmark of extremism, whether it comes from the right, the left, from Al Qaeda, from anarchists, whoever it is. That is a form of extremism.”
    But Loughner's crime was rooted not in any coherent political worldview, but rather in his profound mental illness. Moreover, Mrs. Clinton's narrative concerning Loughner's politics did not comport with the facts. A young woman named Caitie Parker, who had attended high school and college with the gunman, said of Loughner: "As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal and oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy." Among Loughner's favorite bookswere Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto and Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf; he was anardent atheist who strove to create chaos; and he believed that the U.S. government (under President Bush) was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

    Nuclear Iran

    In a May 2011 interview, Mrs. Clinton said "there's a small space for doubt" about Iran's intention to build a nuclear bomb "because there are some contrary indicators." "There is no doubt in my mind that they want nuclear energy and nuclear power," she added, "which they are entitled to, to be able to use it for peaceful purposes. The real problem is once you do that and you get what's called a breakout capacity, it's not long before you could do the other [build a bomb]. So that's why this is so important to address now."

    Pressed to comment on a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran was clearly headed toward building a bomb, Mrs. Clinton expressed uncertainty:
    "Well, they ... we ... we are doing this (pushing for sanctions) because we think they're heading there. But whether they want to get what's called the breakout capacity and stop, knowing that they could then move forward, that's where the question comes."
    Addressing the Organization of Islamic Cooperation

    In July 2011, Mrs. Clinton addressed the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)—the bloc of 57 Muslim countries and territories that seek to outlaw, everywhere in the world, any and all criticism of Islamic people, practices, legal codes, and governments. In her speech, Clinton vowed that the Obama administration, in its effort to help the OIC “protec[t] the rights of all people to worship the way they choose,” would “use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.” On behalf of the Obama State Department, she negotiated with the OIC a resolution that would make it unlawful to engage in speech that incites “discrimination” and “hostility” toward “religion.”

    But as former Assistant United States Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy points out: “Religionhere does not mean religion; it means Islam.” “At that very moment in July 2011,” McCarthy expands, “Christians were under siege in Egypt, Syria, Sudan, Iraq, and Iran—being gradually purged from those Islamic countries just as they’d been purged from Turkey, which hosted Mrs. Clinton’s speech.” Adds McCarthy, “the resolution negotiated by the Obama State Department and the OIC violates the First Amendment.”

    Flip-Flopping on Whether the U.S. Should Have Armed Syrian Rebels Against Assad

    In a February 2012 interview with CBS, Mrs. Clinton argued passionately against the viability of arming opposition forces who were fighting against President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. When pressed to explain why the Obama administration was not arming the Syrian rebels, Clinton said: “What are we going to arm them with, and against what? You are not going to bring tanks over the borders of Turkey, Lebanaon and Jordan — that’s not going to happen. So maybe at the best you can smuggle in, you know, automatic weapons.” “And to whom are you delivering them?” she continued. “We know that al-Qaeda [leader Ayman al] Zawahiri is supporting the opposition in Syria. Are we supporting al-Qaeda in Syria? Hamasis now supporting the opposition. Are we supporting Hamas in Syria?” “Despite the great pleas that we hear from those people who are being ruthlessly assaulted by Assad,” Clintonconcluded, “if you are a military planner or if you are a secretary of state and you are trying to figure out do you have the elements of an opposition that is actually viable, we don’t see that.”

    Two years later, in her memoir (Hard Choices) about her years as secretary of state, Clinton contradicted the foregoing remarks and claimed that she had been a strong advocate for arming the Syrian opposition in 2012, but that President Obama ultimately opposed the policy. Then, in an August 2014 interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, Clintonstated that the Obama administration’s failure to aid the Syrian opposition had subsequently led to profoundly negative consequences -- most notably the recent takeover of much of Iraq by the barbaric, genocidal terror group ISIS, which had originally coalesced in Syria.Said Clinton: “The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.”

    Hillary Clinton and the Muslim Brotherhood

    In July 2012, author and former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy noted the following items about the relationship between Hillary Clinton's State Department and the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the ideological wellspring of Hamas and al Qaeda:

    • "The State Department has an emissary in Egypt who trains operatives of the Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations in democracy procedures."
    • "The State Department announced [in November 2011] that the Obama administration would be 'satisfied' with the election of a Muslim Brotherhood–dominated government in Egypt."
    • "Secretary Clinton personally intervened to reverse a Bush-administration ruling that barred Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the Brotherhood’s founder and son of one of its most influential early leaders, from entering the United States."
    • "The State Department and the administration recently hosted a contingent from Egypt’s newly elected parliament that included not only Muslim Brotherhood members but a member of the Islamic Group (Gama’at al Islamia), which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization."
    • "On a just-completed trip to Egypt, Secretary Clinton pressured General Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, head of the military junta currently governing the country, to surrender power to the newly elected parliament, which is dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the newly elected president, Mohamed Morsi, who is a top Brotherhood official.

    In the summer of 2012,controversy arose over the fact that Secretary Clinton's closest aide and advisor, Huma Abedin, has longstanding intimate ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Refusing to Designate the Islamic Organization Boko Haram As a Terrorist Group

    Throughout her time as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly refused to designate Boko Haram -- an Islamic group seeking to overthrow the Nigerian government and create an Islamic state -- as a "foreign terrorist organization." Her refusal came despite the fact that Boko Haram had already: (a) bombed or burned hundreds of Christian churches over the years, most when they were packed for service; (b) stated its intent to cleanse northern Nigeria of all Christian presence; (c) openly threatened to poison the food eaten by Christians; and (d) stormed areas where Christians and Muslims were intermingled, singling the Christians out before slitting their throats.

    Mrs. Clinton's logic was voiced by her husband, former U.S. president Bill Clinton, whosaid, in a February 2012 speech in Nigeria, that “inequality” and “poverty” were “what’s fueling all this stuff”—a reference to Boko Haram’s terror—and warned the government that “It is almost impossible to cure a problem based on violence with violence.”

    Mrs. Clinton and the 9/11/12 Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi

    On the day of September 11, 2012, Islamist protesters stormed the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, where they destroyed the American flag and replaced it with a black Islamist flag that read, "There is one God, Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet." The protesters said they were angry over an obscure YouTube film -- known alternately as Innocence of Muslims orMuhammad, Prophet of the Muslims -- that was critical of the Prophet Muhammad and had been produced recently in the U.S.

    Throughout 2012, violent jihadist activity had become increasingly commonplace in Benghazi and elsewhere throughout Libya and North Africa. At or near the U.S. mission in Benghazi, for instance, there were many acts of terrorism featuring the use of guns, improvised explosive devices, hand grenades, rocket-propelled grenades, and car-bombs, along with explicit threats against Americans issued by known terrorists like al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri. As a result of such developments, U.S. personnel at the U.S. mission in Benghazi had repeatedly asked the Obama administration -- i.e., the State Department -- for increased security provisions during 2012, but all of these these requests were either denied or ignored.

    It should be noted, however, that when Hillary Clinton herself had visited Benghazi onOctober 18, 2011, she clearly was well aware of the many dangers that already existed in the city. Her cognizance of those threats was evidenced by the fact that in advance of her visit, she had the Defense Department pre-position military assets off the coast of Libya, in case she was to encounter danger and need rescue.

    On the night of September 11, 2012 -- at approximately 9:42 p.m. Benghazi time -- a large group of heavily armed Islamic terrorists attacked the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya with much greater violence. In the process, they killed the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, 52-year-old Chris Stevens, and three other Americans. Two days later, Mrs. Clinton spoke out against the killings but prefaced her remarks by condemning the aforementioned YouTube video, which she said had been used as a pretext for the violence. In short, she advanced the notion that the attack was an unplanned, unforseeable escalation of an impromptu protest over an obscure anti-Muslim YouTube video, rather than a pre-planned, carefully orchestrated act of terrorism led by an al Qaeda-affiliated group. Said Clinton:
    "Let me state very clearly -- and I hope it is obvious -- that the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. And as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims. And we have the greatest respect for people of faith. To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage...."
    On September 13, 2012, Mrs. Clinton delivered a televised statement denouncing not only the violence in Benghazi but also the “disgusting and reprehensible” video allegedly responsible for it, and stating “very clearly” that “the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video.” “We absolutely reject its content and message,” said Clinton, emphasizing America’s great “respect for people of faith.”

    At a September 14 receiving ceremony where the bodies of the four dead Americans were returned to the United States, Clinton spoke to the grieving families of the deceased. In the course of her remarks, she referenced an “awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.” Afterward, she told the father of Tyrone Woods, the former Navy SEAL who had been killed in the attack, “We will make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”

    For nearly two weeks, Mrs. Clinton and the rest of the Obama administration continued to characterize what occurred on September 11 in Benghazi not as an act of terrorism, but as a spontaneous, unplanned uprising that evolved unexpectedly from what had begun as a low-level protest against a YouTube video. In reality, however, within mere hours after the September 11 attack, U.S. intelligence agencies had already gained more than enough evidence to conclude unequivocally that it was a planned terrorist incident, and that the video had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

    On January 23, 2013 -- Fully 134 days after the September 11 attack in Benghazi -- Mrs. Clinton went before Congress to testify as to what she knew about the incident. During the course of her testimony, she stated that she had been unaware of Ambassador Stephens' August 15, 2012 cable stating that there was a clear and growing danger of terrorism against Americans in Benghazi.

    In the course of her testimony, Mrs. Clinton said: "I want to make clear that no one in the State Department, the intelligence community, any other agency, ever recommended that we close Benghazi. We were clear-eyed about the threats and the dangers as they were developing in eastern Libya and in Benghazi." (This testimony was later contradicted, however, by Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who headed the U.S. military’s efforts to improve diplomatic security in Libya. Wood testified that he personally had recommended that the Benghazi mission be closed, in light of the fact that more than 200 attacks -- including approximately 50 in Benghazi -- had been carried out against American interests in Libya.)

    The most dramatic moment in the congressional hearing occured when Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson asked Mrs. Clinton to explain why the State Department had spent so long characterizing the attack as an unplanned, unforseeable escalation of an impromptu protest over an obscure anti-Muslim YouTube video, rather than a pre-planned, carefully orchestrated act of terrorism led by an al Qaeda-affiliated group. Clinton yelled back: “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”

    At another point in the hearing, Senator Rand Paul asked Mrs. Clinton whether the United States had ever been involved in procuring weapons in Libya and transferring them to other countries including Syria. Clinton replied, "I do not know. I have no information on that."

    A March 25, 2013 New York Times story subsequently indicated that the Obama administration had in fact been sending arms from Libya, through intermediary nations and ultimately to Syria, since early 2012. Yet another Times article, in fact, described Mrs. Clinton as one of the driving forces who had called for arming the Syrian rebels in precisely that manner.

    (For complete details about the key events that occurred before, during, and after the attack in Benghazi -- as well as Mrs. Clinton's words and actions during those periods -- click here.)

    Continued below

  3. #3
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Heart of Dixie
    Hillary Clinton - Continued
    Revelations About Massive Coverup of Incriminating Benghazi Files

    In September 2014, former Deputy Secretary of State Raymond Maxwell reported that in late 2012 he had witnessed -- in the basement of the State Department’s Foggy Bottom headquarters -- a Sunday meeting in which Cheryl Mills (Secretary of State Clinton’s chief of staff) and Jake Sullivan (Clinton's deputy chief of staff) were overseeing and directing staffers who were busy culling through boxes and purging documents that might implicate Clinton or her top people in the Benghazi attacks. "When he arrived," reported Fox News, "Maxwell says he observed boxes and stacks of documents. He says a State Department office director, whom Maxwell described as close to Clinton’s top advisers, was there. His [Maxwell's] aide was also there, and though she worked for him, he [Maxwell] was not told of her Sunday file purging duties."

    According to Maxwell: "She [the aide] told me, ‘Ray, we are to go through these stacks and pull out anything that might put anybody in the [Near Eastern Affairs] front office or the seventh floor in a bad light.’" ("Seventh floor" was State Department shorthand for then-Secretary of State Clinton and her principal advisers.) Added Maxwell: “I asked her [the aide], ‘But isn’t that unethical?’ She responded, ‘Ray, those are our orders.’ ”

    Following Maxwell's revelations, Republican congressman Jason Chaffetz said that Clinton’s team had clearly scrubbed documents before investigators could examine them. He told Fox News: "They were essentially creating two piles: The things the Accountability Review Board and that Congress would see and anything else that would shed quote ‘bad light’ on Hillary Clinton and her senior management that they were put in a different pile and they were never to be seen." Chaffetz also said that Maxwell had come to him and Congressman Trey Gowdy more than a year earlier to tell them the same story.

    Criticizing Israel

    Speaking at a forum at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy in Washington, DC on December 7, 2012, Mrs. Clinton praised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for having worked with her in 2009 toward a moratorium on building new Jewish settlements in the West Bank. She then said the following:

    “I’m not making excuses for the missed opportunities of the Israelis, or the lack of generosity, the lack of empathy that I think goes hand-in-hand with the suspicion. So, yes, there is more that the Israelis need to do to really demonstrate that they do understand the pain of an oppressed people in their minds, and they want to figure out, within the bounds of security and a Jewish democratic state, what can be accomplished.

    “And I think that, unfortunately, there are more and more Israelis and Palestinians who just reject that idea out of hand: Why bother? Why try? We’ll never be able to reach an agreement with the other. But in the last 20 years, I’ve seen Israeli leaders make an honest, good-faith effort and not be reciprocated in the way that was needed.”
    Clinton also criticized Israel’s newly announced plan to build 3,000 new housing units in east Jerusalem and the West Bank: “In light of today’s announcement, let me reiterate that this administration — like previous administrations — has been very clear with Israel that these activities set back the cause of a negotiated peace.”

    Reports of Immense Sums of Financial-Aid Dollars to Afghanistan Squandered Because of Obama/Clinton Policy

    On April 20, 2014, The Washington Times reported that according to internal government documents, "top officials at the U.S. Agency for International Development repeatedly cited former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for setting into motion a policy to waive restrictions on who could receive U.S. aid in Afghanistan, resulting in millions of dollars in U.S. funds going directly into the coffers of Afghan ministries known to be rife with corruption." Added the Times:

    References to Mrs. Clinton’s role in the policy first appeared in a November 2012 USAID action memo, which outlined how U.S. officials made a “strategic foreign-assistance decision” two years earlier to provide “at least 50 percent of U.S. Government assistance directly to the” Afghan government.

    The decision was “reaffirmed by Secretary of State Clinton” in July 2010, according to the memo, which highlighted her actions as justification for why USAID should waive an internal policy that otherwise would have required the agency to first assess the risk that such “direct assistance” might be lost to fraud, waste or outright theft.

    USAID conducted such assessments anyway in recent years and reached sobering conclusions about the overall effects of billions of dollars that the U.S. has spent on nation building in Afghanistan....

    A report by the Government Accountability Office [GAO] in July 2011 asserted that Washington “more than tripled its awards of direct assistance to Afghanistan” about the time the USAID memo says Mrs. Clinton was pushing the policy.

    The GAO report claimed that, despite concerns over whether the funds would be used “as intended,” total direct assistance from the Defense Department to the Afghan Defense and Interior ministries “grew from about $195 million in fiscal year 2009 to about $576 million in fiscal year 2010.” With regard to USAID, the GAO report said the agency’s “direct assistance” grew from roughly $470 million in 2009 to more than $1.4 billion in 2010....

    Potentially more striking, however, is the manner in which USAID’s scathing ministry assessments point to the actions of Mrs. Clinton as a main justification for why the agency channels money directly to ministries known to have management and accountability problems.

    A “Background” section at the opening of each assessment includes similar language to that used in USAID’s November 2012 action memo, asserting that the Obama administration made a “public strategic foreign-assistance decision” in 2010 that was later “reaffirmed” by Mrs. Clinton.

    Under normal circumstances, USAID officials wrote in documents, the flow of American funds directly into a foreign government’s coffers “must not be authorized” if there is “clear evidence of vulnerabilities to corruption and the partner country government fails to respond or agree to appropriate risk mitigation remedy measures.”

    But, the officials wrote, the Obama administration’s policy and Mrs. Clinton’s reaffirmation of it at a July 2010 conference in Kabul replaced the requirement that USAID adhere to an internal guideline known as ADS 220, which would have demanded that the agency assess risks associated with giving money directly to the Afghans.

    Resigns As Secretary of State

    On February 1, 2013, Mrs. Clinton stepped down from her post as Secretary of State, saying that she looked forward to getting away from the pressures of government life. She was replaced by U.S. Senator John Kerry.

    Assessing Clinton's Performance as Secretary of State

    By the end of Mrs. Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, America's relations with Russia, Israel, most of Europe, and virtually every Muslim-majority nation in the Middle East haddeteriorated significantly.

    Indeed, a March 2013 Gallup poll (measuring attitudes across 130 countries) indicated that the international perception of American leadership had fallen to its lowest point since the start of the Obama administration. The median worldwide approval rate for U.S. leadership was just 41%, down from 49% in 2009. According to The Hill: “The declines were driven primarily by souring opinions of the United States in Europe and Africa.” Among the more noteworthy reults: approval rates were just 13% in Russia, 17% in Egypt, 34% in Spain, 36% in Poland, 37% in France, and 38% in Taiwan.

    Mrs. Clinton's Self-Assessment of Her Performance as Secretary of State

    On April 3, 2014, Hillary Clinton spoke at the Women of the World Summit in New York City and was asked, by the moderator of the event, the following: “When you look at your time as Secretary of State, what are you most proud of? And what do you feel was unfinished, and maybe have another crack at one day?” In her reply, Clinton was unable to provide any specifics regarding what she had achieved:

    “Look, I really see my role as Secretary, in fact leadership in general in a democracy, as a relay race. When you run the best race you can run, you hand off the baton. Some of what hasn’t been finished may go on to be finished, so when President Obama asked me to be Secretary of State, I agreed.

    “We had the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, we had two wars. We had continuing threats from all kinds of corners around the world that we had to deal with. So it was a perilous time frankly. What he [Obama] said to me was, ‘Look, I have to be dealing with the economic crisis, I want you to go out and represent us around the world.’ And it was a good division of labor because we needed to make it clear to the rest of the world, that we were going to get our house in order. We were going to stimulate, and grow, and get back to positive growth and work with our friends and partners.

    “So I think we did that. I’m very proud of the stabilization and the really solid leadership that the administration provided that I think now, leads us to be able to deal with problems like Ukraine because we’re not so worried about a massive collapse in Europe and China — trying to figure out [what] to do with all their bond holdings and all the problems we were obsessed with. I think we really restored American leadership in the best sense. That, once again — people began to rely on us as setting the values, setting the standards. I just don’t want to lose that because we have a dysfunctional political situation in Washington. Then of course, a lot of particulars, but I am finishing my book so you’ll be able to read all about it.”
    Endorsing Bill de Blasio for NYC Mayor

    In 2013, Mrs. Clinton endorsed the New York City mayoral candidacy of far-left DemocratBill de Blasio. Hillary and Bill Clinton both attended de Blasio's swearing-in ceremony as New York City mayor on January 1, 2014.

    The Trayvon Martin Killing

    In July 2013, Mrs. Clinton reacted passionately when George Zimmerman, a "white Hispanic" neighborhood-watch captain in Sanford, Florida was acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges connected to a February 26, 2012 incident in which he had shot and killed a 17-year-old African American named Trayvon Martin in self-defense. Speaking at the 51st annual convention of the black sorority group Delta Sigma Theta, Clinton said: “My prayers are with the Martin family and with every family who loves someone who is lost to violence. No mother, no father, should ever have to fear for their child walking down a street in the United States of America.” Adding that the jury verdict had “brought heartache, deep painful heartache” to many people, she stated: “As we move forward as we must, I hope this sisterhood will continue to be a force for justice and understanding.”

    The Voting Rights Act

    During the same Delta Sigma Theta speech (in July 2013), Mrs. Clinton denounced the Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    • Section 5 relegated a number of mostly Southern states and localities to second-class status by presuming that they were too corrupt and racist to administer elections fairly, and thus requiring their governments to get approval (called "pre-clearance") from the Justice Department or a federal court before making changes in their voting procedures. Changes could include such things as relocating a polling place, reconfiguring district lines in a county, or instituting Voter ID laws. To obtain pre-clearance, a state, county, or local government entity was required to demonstrate to federal authorities that the voting change in question did not have a racially discriminatory purpose, and would not have a disparate impact on nonwhites.
    • Section 4 of the Act laid down the criteria under which states and localities were covered by the statute. Initially, the section covered jurisdictions that: (a) had maintained “a test or device” -- e.g., literacy and knowledge tests, good moral character requirements, or the need for vouchers from registered voters -- as a prerequisite to voting as of November 1, 1964, and (b) had experienced a less-than-50% voter registration or turnout in the 1964 presidential election.

    that the Voting Rights Act was now in “real jeopardy,” Mrs. Clinton said: “The Supreme Court struck at the heart of the Voting Rights Act. For more than four decades this law has helped overcome constitutional barriers to voting. Again and again it has demonstrated its essential role in protecting our freedoms.... [The Supreme Court decision is] going to make it difficult for poor people, elderly people, minority people and working people to do what we should be able to take for granted.”

    Striking a similar theme the following month, Clinton told a meeting of the American Bar Association: “In 2013, so far, more than 80 bills restricting voting rights have been introduced in 31 states.” These were generally bills calling for Voter ID requirements at polling places, shortening early-voting periods, eliminating same-day voter registration, and preventing the arbitrary extension of voting hours. Clinton charged that North Carolina’s new electoral integrity law -- which instituted precisely those four provisions -- “reads like the greatest hits of voter suppression.” Such measures, she lamented, were part of a Jim Crow-like effort to “disproportionately impact African-Americans, Latino and young voters” -- i.e., to disenfranchise those groups. Added Clinton: "[A]nyone who says that racial discrimination is no longer a problem in American elections must not be paying attention." Moreover, she described threat of voter fraud (in the absence of Voter ID requirements) as a "phantom epidemic."[19]

    Clinton Says Freed Taliban Terrorists Pose No Threat to Americans

    In a June 2014 interview, Mrs. Clinton was asked to comment on the potential consequences of a deal in which the Obama administration had recently freed five senior Taliban commanders and high-value terrorists who had been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay since 2002, in exchange for the release of Bowe Bergdahl, an American Army soldier who had deserted the military in 2009 and spent the next five years with the Taliban. Said Clinton:

    "These five guys are not a threat to the United States. They are a threat to the safety and security of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s up to those two countries to make the decision once and for all that these are threats to them. So I think we may be kind of missing the bigger picture here. We want to get an American home, whether they fell off the ship because they were drunk or they were pushed or they jumped, we try to rescue everybody."

    "We Cannot Let a Minority of People Hold a Viewpoint that Terrorizes the Majority of People"

    On June 17, 2014, Mrs. Clinton held a staged townhall meeting on CNN television. At one point in the proceedings, the subject turned to the Second Amendment, gun rights, and the National Rifle Association. Said Clinton: "We cannot let a minority of people hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people." Bryan Preston of PJ Media noted that in that statement, Clinton had "directly assaulted the First and Second Amendments simultaneously."

    The Clintons' Immense Wealth

    One of the more lucrative activities Mrs. Clinton pursued after leaving the State Department was public speaking, for which she earned approximately $200,000 per speech. In many cases, the contracts Clinton signed prior to making these speeches gave her the authority to approve or reject virtually every element of the proceedings. For example, her contract for a 2014 speech at SUNY-Buffalo stipulated that Mrs. Clinton had to be "the only person on stage during her remarks"; specifically demanded the provision of a "presidential glass panel teleprompter"; gave Clinton the exclusive right to approve "sets, backdrops, banners, scenery, logos, [and] settings"; gave her "sole discretion" over the content of her talk; stated that she "may elect to reschedule or cancel her appearance ... for any reason whatsoever and at any time prior to the engagement"; awarded her 20 complimentary VIP tickets and a university-paid stenographer -- at a price of $1,000 -- solely for her personal records; authorized her speaking agency to veto any potential question-and-answer moderators; and allowed only those moderators -- never members of the audience -- to address Mrs. Clinton directly.

    As of mid-2014, Bill and Hillary Clinton's combined net worth was estimated at somewhere between $100 million and $200 million. Among other things, they had earned anywhere from $31 million to $37 million in advance payments for books they had authored since 2003. And, as noted above, Mrs. Clinton routinely earned $200,000 per speech after resigning as Secretary of State. Mr. Clinton, for his part, had earned $106 million in speaker's fees between 2001 and 2013, including $17 million for 72 speeches he gave in 2012 alone; he once charged $750,000 for a single speech.

    The Clintons spent this money lavishly. During the summers of 2011 through 2013, for instance, they rented out extremely expensive homes in the Hamptons for their family vacations. One example: The Clintons paid $200,000 per day to rent out a six-bedroom, $11 million mansion in the summer of 2013.

    In a June 2014 interview with Britain's Guardian newspaper, Mrs. Clinton was asked whether her condemnation of income inequality in the United States was credible, given her immense wealth. According to the Guardian, Mrs. Clinton emitted a "burst of laughter" and said she found the question "painful." She then answered the question as follows: "But they [Americans] don’t see me as part of the problem, because we [the Clintons] pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work."

    A Longtime Supporter of High Estate Taxes, Hillary and Bill Seek to Minimize Their Own

    In June 2014, Bloomberg News revealed that Hillary and Bill Clinton's rhetoric in favor of high estate tax rates for the wealthy was entirely inconsistent with their own personal money-management activities. First, some background:

    In her failed 2008 presidential run, Mrs. Clinton spoke out in favor of requiring wealthier people pay a higher estate tax by capping the per-person exemption at $3.5 million and setting the top rate at 45 percent. During one campaign stop, she fielded a question from a woman who opposed Clinton's plan to pay for universal retirement accounts by freezing the estate tax at a high level. The woman explained that inherited money had already been taxed when it was earned, and that it should not be taxed again simply to fund Mrs. Clinton's program. In response, Clinton said that high estate taxes were actually consistent with traditional American values:

    "People disagree about this, but the estate tax, which came into being by Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt and others, and has been part of our tax system for a very long time is there for a real simple reason: In America, we’ve never liked the idea of massive inherited wealth. Part of the reason why America has always remained a meritocracy where you have to work for what you get, where you have to get out there, make your case to people, come up with a good idea, is that we never had a class of people sitting on generation after generation after generation of huge inherited wealth."

    During a presidential debate in 2007, Mrs. Clinton expanded upon the theme that "tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans" were unjust. She explained, for example, that tax revenues from the wealthy were vital to the government, which "should be investing [those revenues] in new energy" and "should be investing in college affordability, universal pre-K …”

    Against this backdrop came Bloomberg News' report on June 17, 2014:

    "Bill and Hillary Clinton have long supported an estate tax to prevent the U.S. from being dominated by inherited wealth. That doesn’t mean they want to pay it. To reduce the tax pinch, the Clintons are using financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth. These moves, common among multimillionaires, will help shield some of their estate from the tax that now tops out at 40 percent of assets upon death. The Clintons created residence trusts in 2010 and shifted ownership of their New York house into them in 2011, according to federal financial disclosures and local property records.

    "Among the tax advantages of such trusts is that any appreciation in the house’s value can happen outside their taxable estate. The move could save the Clintons hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate taxes, said David Scott Sloan, a partner at Holland & Knight LLP in Boston. 'The goal is [to] really be thoughtful and try to build up the nontaxable estate, and that’s really what this is,' Sloan said. 'You’re creating things that are going to be on the nontaxable side of the balance sheet when they die.'"

    Rationalizing Why Hamas Hides Missiles in Civilian Areas

    In a late July 2014 interview, Fusion TV news anchor Jorge Ramos asked Hillary Clinton about the then-raging conflict in Gaza, where Israel was conducting a military operation designed to degrade Hamas's capacity to launch deadly missiles into Israel. When Ramos asked Clinton if she thought that Israel had responded "disproportionately" or "appropriate[ly]," Clinton did not answer directly. She said that "Hamas, which has its back against the wall, decided to once again fire rockets into Israel"; that "Israel has a right to self-defense, but I and everybody who is seeing these terrible pictures on our TV hope there can be a ceasefire"; and that Hamas was hiding rockets in civilian facilities -- at least in part -- because there were few other options, due to Gaza's limited geographic size. Said Mrs. Clinton:

    "I'm not a military planner but Hamas puts its missiles, its rockets in civilian areas, part of it is that Gaza is pretty small and it's very densely populated, they put their command and control of Hamas military leaders in those civilian areas."

    Revelation That Mrs. Clinton and Her State Department Were Responsible for Enabling Hamas to Build Terror Tunnels in Gaza

    In the summer of 2014, Israel engaged in a massive military operation designed to weaken the destructive capacity of Hamas terrorists who were launching more than 100 potentially deadly missiles per day from Gaza, deep into Israel. In the course of that military incursion, Israel discovered that Hamas, in recent years, had constructed a massive network of at least 60 underground missile storage-and-transport tunnels throughout Gaza. A number of those tunnels extended, underground, into Israeli territory -- for the purpose of launching terror attacks, murders, and kidnappings aginst unsuspecting Israeli citizens. According to a Wall Street Journal report quoting Israeli military officials, Hamas had spent between $1 million and $10 million to build each of those tunnels, using as many as 350 truckloads of cement and other supplies per tunnel. To frame it another way, the materials used for each tunnel could have built 86 homes, or 19 medical clinics, or seven mosques, or six schools. But Hamas had other priorities.

    Then, in a bombshell revelation in August 2014, Dennis Ross, the senior Mideast policy adviser to Secretary of State Clinton from 2009-2011, admitted that it was he who had been assigned the task of pressuring Israel to ease up on its military blockade of Gaza after Israel’s withdrawal from that region in 2005. “I argued with Israeli leaders and security officials, telling them they needed to allow more construction materials, including cement, into Gaza so that housing, schools and basic infrastructure could be built,” Ross revealed in theWashington Post. “They countered that Hamas would misuse it, and they were right.” Ross’s admission showed that it was Clinton who had sent her personal envoy to push for a policy that ultimately enabled Hamas to build the terror tunnels.

    Not that Mrs. Clinton's State Department had been acting independently of the White House on the issue of cement. For example, Vice President Joe Biden had told interviewer Charlie Rose, on Bloomberg TV in 2010: “We have put as much pressure and as much cajoling on Israel as we can to allow them to get building materials” and other forbidden items into Gaza.

    U.S. Taxpayers Spend $55,000 on Hillary's Book Tour Expenses in a Single Month

    In August 2014 The Daily Mail reported that during the previous month, the U.S. federal government had spent more than $55,000 on travel expenses related to Mrs. Clinton's book tour (for her newly published Hard Choices). Among these expenses were a $3,668 charge for a single night's lodging in a luxurious suite at the Four Seasons George V Hotel in Paris; another $35,183 for lodging in Paris; $11,291 for Secret Service protection in Paris; and a $5,100 rental fee for three Mercedes-Benz executive limousine vans during one day in Berlin. Hotel costs for Clinton's stay in the German capital were not known to The Daily Mail. Tim Miller, executive director of the America Rising PAC, said: "Hillary's book tour through Europe was a fiscal double whammy -- lining her pockets with outrageous speaking fees [typically over $200,000 per appearance] and billing the taxpayers for thousands in travel."

    Hillary Denies That "Businesses Create Jobs"

    Appearing at an October 2014 Boston rally for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley, Mrs. Clinton told listeners not to give credence to the notion that “businesses create jobs.” “Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses create jobs,” she said, adding: “You know that old theory, ‘trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”

    Chelsea Clinton Indicates That Her Parents Have Never Cared About Money, and That They View the Public Sector as Superior to the Private Sector

    In a November 2014 interview with Katie Couric, Hillary Clinton's daughter Chelsea indicated not only that her parents had little interest in money, but also that they understood little about the private sector. Moreover, she gave voice to her parents' belief that the public sector is much better-equipped than the private sector to help needy people. Said Chelsea: “I certainly spent my twenties rebelling, for me, by working in the private sector and trying really hard to care about things that my parents didn't care about. And I'm grateful for those years that I spent, because I learned things I hadn't learned around my dinner table. But ultimately I am my parents' daughter, and I ultimately cared most about what they cared most about -- enabling people to have better lives through our energies and our efforts than thay otherwise would have.

    "Black Lives Matter"

    In December 2014, Mrs. Clinton spoke out about two recent, high-profile cases where white police officers had been involved in altercations with black suspects who died as a result:

    • One incident occurred on August 9, when a white officer shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown, a black male who had forcibly robbed a convenience store in a St. Louis suburb (Ferguson, Missouri) just 10 minutes before his death.
    • The other incident occurred on July 17, when a 43-year old African American named Eric Garner died in Staten Island, New York, after having resisted several white police officers' efforts to arrest him for illegally selling “loosies,” single cigarettes from packs without tax stamps. One of the officers at the scene put his arms around the much taller Garner's neck and took him down to the ground with a headlock/chokehold. While lying facedown on the sidewalk surrounded by four officers, Garner repeatedly said, "I can't breathe." A black female NYPD sergeant supervised the entire altercation and never ordered that officer to release the hold. Garner was pronounced dead approximately an hour later at a local hospital. City medical examiners subsequently concluded that he had died as a result of an interplay between the police officer’s hold and Garner’s multiple chronic infirmities, which included bronchial asthma, heart disease, obesity, and hypertensive cardiovascular disease.

    Both of these incidents gained national publicity and sparked massive anti-police protests in cities across the United States, where demonstrators chanted such slogans as "Black Lives Matter," and "Hands Up, Don't Shoot."

    While receiving an award from the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice & Human Rights at a December 16th gala in New York City, Hillary said: "Yes, black lives matter." Wondering aloud what Kennedy would say about "the thousands of Americans marching in our streets demanding justice for all" and "the mothers who've lost their sons," she added: "What would he say to all those who have lost trust in our government and our other institutions, who shudder at images of excessive force, who read reports about torture done in the name of our country, who see too many representatives in Washington quick to protect a big bank from regulation but slow to take action to help working families facing ever greater pressure?"

    Scandal of the Clinton Foundation's Foreign Donors

    In an effort to prevent foreign governments, organizations, and individuals from influencing the policy decisions of American national leaders, campaign-finance laws prohibit U.S. political candidates from accepting money from such sources. But as the Washington Postnoted in February 2015, the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation “has given donors a way [i.e., an avenue by which] to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political [donation] limits.” Most notably, as of February 2015, foreign sourcesaccounted for about one third of all donors who had given the Clinton Foundation more than $1 million, and over half of those who had contributed more than $5 million to the Foundation.

    While all donations from foreign sources raised ethical red flags, contributions that were made during Mrs. Clinton's tenure (2009-13) as Secretary of State may have been even more significant, given the possibility that such funds could have been used to buy immediate political influence.

    For details about these foreign donors and the implications of their contributions to the Foundation, click here.

    Clinton's Improper Use of Personal, Rather Than Government, Email Account

    In March 2015, it was reported that throughout her entire four-year tenure as Secretary of State (SOS), Mrs. Clinton had never acquired or used a government email account, and instead had transmitted -- in violation of government regulations -- all of her official government correspondences via a personal email address that she registered on the very same day as her confirmation hearings for SOS began. The personal email address -- traced back to a private email server which was housed inside Mrs. Clinton's home in Chappaqua, New York. That server was registered under the namesof: (a) "Eric Hothem," the same aide who, at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency, had wrongfully carted off furniture from the White House, claiming that it was "Clinton’s personal property"; and (b) Justin Cooper, another former Clinton staffer.

    On March 4, 2015, the Daily Mail reported: "Jonathan Mayer, a PhD candidate in computer science & law lecturer at Stanford University, said that Mrs. Clinton may have told her Internet service provider that she was starting a small business to allow her to set up the server. He said that Internet companies like Time Warner are wary about allowing individuals to do so as they might be hackers looking to send spam."

    Following the revelations regarding Mrs. clinton's emails, author and columnist Ben Shapiroobserved: "In other words, Hillary knew she would be secretary of state conducting official business, and coincidentally opened a private email account at the same time to guard her from Freedom of Information Act requests." Matt Devost, the president & CEO of the global cybersecurity firm FusionX, told Bloomberg News that by maintaining her own server, Clinton had the ability to wipe all of her data without a trace. "You erase it and everything’s gone," said Devost.

    The circumstances under which Mrs. Clinton's wrongful use of the personal email account first came to light, were not entirely clear. Some news reports indicated that Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett had leaked the story to the press, in retribution for what she viewed as Mrs. Clinton's political disloyalty to president.

    Other reports said that the revelations grew out of a House Committee probe into the Benghazi terrorist attacks of September 11, 2012. The New York Times explained in March 2015: "As State Department lawyers sifted last summer through a new batch of documents related to the Benghazi attacks, they repeatedly saw something that caught their attention: emails sent to and from a personal account for Hillary Rodham Clinton. The lawyers, according to current and former State Department officials, were working to respond to a request from a specially appointed House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Libya. But they noticed that among the 15,000 documents they examined, there were no emails to or from an official departmental account for Mrs. Clinton. 'This all raised the question to us: What else are we missing, and what do we need to comply' with the request, said one official briefed on the matter."

    But Clinton and her advisors deceptively stated that the revelation about the former SOS's emails had arisen in response to a mundane State Department request (in October 2014)—as part of a Department initiative to find ways to improve its own record keeping. Clinton claimed that all former secretaries dating back to the late 1990s had been asked to turn over records of all their correspondences -- not under a cloud of suspicion or scandal, but merely as part of an effort to improve transparency.

    Rather than comply with the demand that all of Clinton's emails be turned over to the state Department and, in turn, the House Committee investigating Benghazi, Clinton's advisersreviewed her emails and decided which ones to make available and which ones to delete. According to Clinton, she and her staff deleted more than 30,000 of the emails in question, calling them "personal" and not "work-related."

    In response to the disclosures regarding Mrs. Clinton's four-year breach of protocol and regulations, National Security Archive director Thomas Blanton said, “Personal emails are not secure. Senior officials should not be using them.” Jason Baron, ex-director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration, said that Clinton's transgression was “inconceivable,” adding: “It is very difficult to conceive of a scenarioshort of nuclear winterwhere an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level-head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business. I can recall no instance … when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business.” The use of such an email address would effectively shield her from subsequent Freedom of Information Act requests.Ari Fleischer, who served as White House spokesman under George W. Bush, told Newsmax TV he was certain that foreign agents had routinely read Mrs. Clinton's emails dealing with sensitive government business. "If it's done from a personal account, I guarantee you China, Russia and Iran have them." Asked if Mrs. Clinton had violated federal law, Fleischer replied: "If you or I get subpoenaed, we have no choice, we turn everything over. You're not supposed to have a team around you who decides what you turn over, what you don't and what people are told exist and what doesn't exist. The sleaziness of this aside and the fact that you have a government official who is doing business in the way that was designed to hide their business, there's another issue here that is terribly serious.... If it's a personal email, it's simple for it to get hacked by a foreign adversary. Think of a Secretary of State for every day that she's in office, is cc'ing Iran, Russia, China and other adversaries on every single email that she sends and every one that she receives."Clinton's use of a personal email account for her State Department business was in direct contradiction to a 2011 State Department cable in which, citing security concerns, she had instructed Department employees to “avoid conducting official Department from your personal e-mail accounts.”Clinton's effort to keep all of her emails private was particularly noteworthy in light of the fact that she had previously -- during her days as First Lady -- gone on record saying that she tried not to leave any sort of paper trail, given the possibility that anything she wrote might one day be subpoenaed. Indeed, in a 1996 interview with Jim Lehrer of PBS, Clinton made it explicitly and emphatically clear that she avoided documenting official White House business in writing, for that very reason:

    LEHRER: “Are you keeping a diary, [are] you keeping good notes of what’s happening?”
    CLINTON (laughing): “Heavens no! It would get subpoenaed! I can't write anything down.”
    After remaining silent on the email issue for several days, Mrs. Clinton addressed it for the first time on March 10, 2015, in a hastily arranged press conference at the United Nations. There, she claimed that her reason for having used a personal email account was that she found it “easier,” “better,” “simpler” and more convenient to “carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.” “Looking back, “ she added, “it would've been better for me to use two separate phones and two email accounts. I thought using one device would be simpler and, obviously, it hasn't worked out that way.”

    But in an interview at the Silicon Valley Conference for Women just two weeks earlier, Mrs. Clinton had told Re/code’s Kara Swisher that she carried more than one device with her:

    SWISHER: “I want to ask the big question: iPhone or Android?”
    CLINTON: “iPhone. OK, in full disclosure –”
    SWISHER: “BlackBerry?”
    CLINTON: “And a BlackBerry.” (Later in the conversation, Clinton said, “I don’t throw anything away, I’m like two steps short of a hoarder. So I have, you know, an iPad, a mini iPad, an iPhone and blackberry.”)

    Also at the March 10 press conference, Mrs. Clinton explained that she had decided which emails were of a “personal” nature and discarded them, before sending the rest to the State Department: “[A]fter I left office, the State Department asked former secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies of work- related emails from our personal accounts. I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related, which totalled roughly 55,000 printed pages, even though I knew that the State Department already had the vast majority of them. We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work- related emails and deliver them to the State Department. At the end, I chose not to keep my private personal emails — emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes. No one wants their personal emails made public, and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy.”

    Below are the transcripts of a few exchanges Clinton had with reporters at the press conference:

    QUESTION: Can you explain how you decided which of the personal e-mails to get rid of, how you got rid of them and when?...

    CLINTON: … In going through the e-mails, there were over 60,000 in total, sent and received. About half [i.e., approximately 30,000 emails] were work-related and went to the State Department and about half were personal that were not in any way related to my work. I had no reason to save them, but that was my decision because the federal guidelines are clear and the State Department request was clear. For any government employee, it is that government employee’s responsibility to determine what’s personal and what’s work-related. I am very confident of the process that we conducted and the e-mails that were produced.

    QUESTION: Did you or any of your aides delete any government- related e-mails from your personal account? And what lengths are you willing to go to to prove that you didn’t? Some people, including supporters of yours, have suggested having an independent arbiter look at your server, for instance.

    CLINTON: We did not. In fact, my direction to conduct the thorough investigation was to err on the side of providing anything that could be possibly viewed as work related.... The server contains personal communications from my husband and me, and I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private and I think that the State Department will be able, over time, to release all of the records that were provided. (NOTE: In other words, she refused to turn over the server to authorities. Moreover, her reference to “personal communications from my husband and me” contadict's Mr. Clinton's earlier claim that he had sent a grand total of only two emails in his entire life, both during his days as president.)

    QUESTION: Madam Secretary.... This wasn’t Gmail or Yahoo or something. This was a server that you owned. Is that appropriate? Is it — was there any precedent for it? Did you clear it with any State Department security officials? And do they have — did they have full access to it when you were secretary?...

    CLINTON: Well, the system we used was set up for President Clinton’s office. And it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches. (NOTE: The Secret Service has nothing to do with protecting email accounts from hackers.)

    QUESTION: Were you ever — were you ever specifically briefed on the security implications of using — using your own email server and using your personal address to email with the president?

    CLINTON: I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material. (NOTE: In response to this claim by Clinton, a former senior State Department official who served before the Obama administration said: “I would assume that more than 50 percent of what the secretary of state dealt with was classified. Was every single email of the secretary of state completely unclassified? Maybe, but it’s hard to imagine.”)

    Another major question related to Mrs. Clinton's email scandal was whether or not she had signed an exit statement (Form OF-109) from the State Department affirming that she had turned over all public information to the government. (All high-ranking government officials are required -- when they come into office -- to sign a statement ensuring that 100% of their government-related records will remain with the government, and when the officials leave office, they sign an exit statement (OF-109) affirming that they have complied with this requirement.) When Fox News reporter Ed Henry asked Clinton (on March 16, 2015) if she had signed the exit statement, the former SOS merely waved while walking quickly past Henry and said, “Hi everybody, nice to see you.” At a press briefing that same day, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki was asked the same question and replied: "I don't have an update on this … We're still working on it." This was at least the third time in a week that Psaki had been asked whether Clinton had signed the exit statement. Finally, on March 17, Psaki said, “[W]e have reviewed Secretary Clinton’s official personal file and administrative files and do not have any record of her signing any of the 0F-109.”

    On March 23, 2015, Mrs. Clinton unveiled a new strategy for dealing with the email scandal: she publicly joked about it. Speaking at a political journalism awards ceremony at Syracuse University, she said: "I am well aware that some of you may be a little surprised to see me here tonight. You know my relationship with the press has been at times, shall we say, complicated.... But I am all about new beginnings. A new grandchild, another new hairstyle, a new email account -- why not a new relationship with the press? So here goes. No more secrecy. No more zone of privacy -- after all, what good does that do me? But first of all, before I go any further, if you look under your chairs, you’ll find a simple non-disclosure agreement. My attorneys drew it up. Old habits ... last."

    Also in March 2015, the House select committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, subpoenaed Mrs. Clinton's server, asking her to hand it over to a third party that could determine which emails were personal and which were government records. But on March 27, Clinton lawyer David Kendall told the committee that the server no longer contained copies of any emails Clinton had sent during her time in office. According to the New York Times: "After her representatives determined which emails were government-related and which were private, a setting on the account was changed to retain only emails sent in the previous 60 days, her lawyer ... said. He said the setting was altered after she gave the records to the government."

    The House committee’s chairman, Representative Trey Gowdy, complained: “Not only was the secretary the sole arbiter of what was a public record, she also summarily decided to delete all emails from her server, ensuring no one could check behind her analysis in the public interest.” Added Gowdy:

    “After seeking and receiving a two-week extension from the Committee, Secretary Clinton failed to provide a single new document to the subpoena issued by the Committee and refused to provide her private server to the Inspector General for the State Department or any other independent arbiter for analysis. We learned today, from her attorney, [that] Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server. While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department.”

    On March 30, 2015, it was learned that in fact Mrs. Clinton -- contrary to her claim that she preferred to conduct all her email correspondences via a single device -- had actually emailed her staff on an iPad as well as a BlackBerry during her time as secretary of state.

    Hillary Announces Her Presidential Campaign

    In a video announcing her candidacy on April 12, 2015, Mrs. Clinton said:
    “Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top. Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion. So you can do more than just get by, you can get ahead and stay ahead, because when families are strong, America is strong.”
    Hillary Lies About the Immigration Status of Her Grandparents

    During an April 16, 2015 talk in Norwalk, Iowa, in which she promoted the idea that immigrants had always come to the United States in pursuit of economic opportunity, Mrs. Clinton repeated a claim she had made in a 2014 speech as well – that all four of her grandparents had immigrated to the United States. Said Clinton:

    “We are turning down people [immigrants] who really want to work. I mean, they are here to work. And a lot of them now have children who are American citizens and they are doing the best they can to try to make a good life for themselves and their families. And you know, I think if we were to just go around this room, there are a lot of immigrant stories. All my grandparents, you know, came over here, and you know my grandfather went to work in a lace mill in Scranton, Pennsylvania and worked there until he retired at 65.... So I sit here and I think, well, you’re talking about the second, third generation. That’s me, that’s you. And we are saying to all these other people who want the same dreams and the same aspirations and the willingness to work hard just like our families did that no, we’re not going to make it easy for you, we’re not going to make it legal for you. And I just think that’s such a short term, unfortunate outcome for us and well as for you.”
    But in fact, only one of Mrs. Clinton's grandparents – her paternal grandfather, Hugh Rodham Sr. – was born outside outside of the United States (in England). Her paternal grandmother was born in Pennsylvania in 1882; her maternal grandmother was born in Illinois in 1902; and her maternal grandfather was born in Illinois in 1918.

    In an effort to subsequently explain away Mrs. Clinton's lie, her spokesperson said that “her [Clinton's] grandparents always spoke about the immigrant experience and, as a result, she has always thought of them as immigrants.”

    Pledging to "Topple" the Top 1 Percent

    During her first week as a 2016 presidential candidate, Mrs. Clinton spoke of the wealthy and powerful, saying: “The deck is stacked in their favor. My job is to reshuffle the cards.” She spoke about the importance of "toppling” of the wealthiest 1 percent.

    Depicting Women As Victims of a Sexist Society

    In an April 23, 2015 speech at the "Women in the World" summit in New York City, Mrs. Clinton emphasized the need to overhaul
    “religious beliefs” in order to protect women's rights to birth control, abortion and "health care." She also spoke of the need to help illegal-immigrant woment become U.S. citizens, and of how women are victimized by widespread discrimination in the workplace. Asserting that "far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth," she stated that "deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed" in order to give women full access to "reproductive health care and safe childbirth." Defending illegal immigrants, she impugned “those who offer themselves as leaders who would deport mothers working to give their children a better life, rather than risk the ire of talk radio.... We move forward when women who came to this country in search of a better life can earn a path to citizenship." She also derided the Christian-run company Hobby Lobby for waging a legal battle designed to evade the Obamacare mandate that would have forced the company to provide its employees with health insurance that covered the costs of contraception and abortifacients. "There are those who offer themselves as leaders," said Clinton, "… who see nothing wrong with denying women equal pay, who offer themselves as leaders who would de-fund the country’s leading provider of family planning [a reference to Planned Parenthood, America's leading abortion mill] and want to let health insurance companies once again charge women [for abortifacients] just because of our gender.”

    Clinton Demands an End to "Mass Incarceration" of Blacks; Calls for Criminal-Justice Reforms

    In April 2015, as the city of Baltimore was being overrun by black riots in response to the death of a black criminal suspect while he was in police custody, Mrs. Clinton -- in a keynote speech at the David N. Dinkins Leadership & Public Policy Forum, took the occasion to call for an end to "mass incarceration," and for reforms to the criminal-justice system. Her remarks included the following:

    [Y]et again, the family of a young black man is grieving a life cut short. Yet again, the streets of an American city are marred by violence. By shattered glass and shouts of anger and shows of force. Yet again a community is reeling, its fault lines laid bare and its bonds of trust and respect frayed. Yet again, brave police officers have been attacked in the line of duty. What we’ve seen in Baltimore should, indeed does, tear at our soul.

    And, from Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable.
    Walter Scott shot in the back in Charleston, South Carolina. Unarmed. In debt. And terrified of spending more time in jail for child support payments he couldn’t afford.

    Tamir Rice shot in a park in Cleveland, Ohio. Unarmed and just 12 years old.
    Eric Garner choked to death after being stopped for selling cigarettes on the streets of this city.
    And now Freddie Gray. His spine nearly severed while in police custody.
    Not only as a mother and a grandmother but as a citizen, a human being, my heart breaks for these young men and their families.
    We have to come to terms with some hard truths about race and justice in America.
    There is something profoundly wrong when African American men are still far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes, and sentenced to longer prison terms than are meted out to their white counterparts.
    There is something wrong when a third of all black men face the prospect of prison during their lifetimes. And an estimated 1.5 million black men are “missing” from their families and communities because of incarceration and premature death.
    There is something wrong when more than one out of every three young black men in Baltimore can’t find a job.
    There is something wrong when trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve breaks down as far as it has in many of our communities.
    We have allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance. And these recent tragedies should galvanize us to come together as a nation to find our balance again....
    [L]et’s remember that everyone in every community benefits when there is respect for the law and when everyone in every community is respected by the law. That is what we have to work towards in Baltimore and across our country....
    We must urgently begin to rebuild the bonds of trust and respect among Americans.... The inequities that persist in our justice system undermine this shared vision of what America can be and should be.
    I learned this firsthand as a young attorney just out of law school... Then, as director of the University of Arkansas School of Law’s legal aid clinic, I advocated on behalf of prison inmates and poor families. I saw repeatedly how our legal system can be and all too often is stacked against those who have the least power, who are the most vulnerable.
    I saw how families could be and were torn apart by excessive incarceration. I saw the toll on children growing up in homes shattered by poverty and prison....
    We also have to be honest about the gaps that exist across our country, the inequality that stalks our streets. Because you cannot talk about smart policing and reforming the criminal justice system if you also don’t talk about what’s needed to provide economic opportunity, better educational chances for young people, more support to families so they can do the best jobs they are capable of doing to help support their own children....
    The second area where we need to chart a new course is how we approach punishment and prison.
    It’s a stark fact that the United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, yet we have almost 25 percent of the world’s total prison population. The numbers today are much higher than they were 30, 40 years ago, despite the fact that crime is at historic lows.
    Of the more than 2 million Americans incarcerated today, a significant percentage are low-level offenders: people held for violating parole or minor drug crimes, or who are simply awaiting trial in backlogged courts.
    Keeping them behind bars does little to reduce crime. But it is does a lot to tear apart families and communities.
    One in every 28 children now has a parent in prison. Think about what that means for those children.
    When we talk about one and a half million missing African American men, we’re talking about missing husbands, missing fathers, missing brothers.
    They’re not there to look after their children or bring home a paycheck. And the consequences are profound.
    Without the mass incarceration that we currently practice, millions fewer people would be living in poverty.
    And it’s not just families trying to stay afloat with one parent behind bars. Of the 600,000 prisoners who reenter society each year, roughly 60 percent face long-term unemployment.
    And for all this, taxpayers are paying about $80 billion a year to keep so many people in prison.
    The price of incarcerating a single inmate is often more than $30,000 per year—and up to $60,000 in some states. That’s the salary of a teacher or police officer.
    One year in a New Jersey state prison costs $44,000—more than the annual tuition at Princeton.
    If the United States brought our correctional expenditures back in line with where they were several decades ago, we’d save an estimated $28 billion a year. And I believe we would not be less safe. You can pay a lot of police officers and nurses and others with $28 billion to help us deal with the pipeline issues.
    It’s time to change our approach. It’s time to end the era of mass incarceration. We need a true national debate about how to reduce our prison population while keeping our communities safe.

    Clinton Favors Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants

    In May 2015, Mrs. Clinton announced that she favored “a full and equal path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants in the United States. This was a dramatic departure from her stated position in 2008, when she did not even support the mainstream Democratic position of permitting illegals to have driver’s licenses. She pledged that if she were to be elected president, she would extend the Obama executive orders (DACA and DAPA) that protected millions of illegal aliens from deportation for a period of two years. "I will fight for comprehensive immigration reform and a path to citizenship," Clinton told a Las Vegas roundtable of illegal immigrant high-school students. "I want to do everything we can to defend the president's executive orders ... As president I would do everything possible under the law to go even further." In addition, she said:

    • "We should put into place a simple, straightforward and accessible way for parents of DREAMers ... to make their case and to be eligible for the same deferred action as their children. But that's just the beginning."
    • When they [Republicans] talk about [granting] 'legal status' instead of 'citizenship,' that is code for second-class status."
    • "It's foolish to talk as though we're going to deport 11 or 12 million people. That is not going to happen. It's beyond absurd."

    These remarks were a stark contrast from Mrs. Clinton's position in 2003, when she had told the John Gambling Radio Show: "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.Certainly we’ve got to do more at our borders. And people have to stop employing illegal immigrants."


    [1] Barbara Olson, Hell to Pay (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 1999), p. 59.

    [2] Ibid., p. 37.

    [3] Ibid., pp. 59-61.

    [4] Ibid., pp. 56, 62.

    [5] Ibid., pp. 102-104.

    [6] Ibid., pp. 105-107.

    [7] Ibid., pp. 120-122.

    [8] Ibid., p. 128.

    [9] Ibid., pp. 128-129.

    [10] Ibid., pp. 129-130.

    [11] Amanda B. Carpenter, Dossier on Hillary Clinton (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2006), p. 162.

    [12] Ibid., pp. 162-163.

    [13] Ibid., p. 56.

    [14] Ibid., p. 125.

    [15] Ibid., p. 126.

    [16] Ibid., p. 131.

    [17] Ibid., pp. 131-132.

    [18] Cited in David Horowitz and Richard Poe, The Shadow Party, p. 53.

    [19] The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) noted that Mrs. Clinton “must have missed the May 2013 Census Bureau study on ‘The Diversifying Electorate—Voting Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin in 2012 (and Other Recent Elections).’” That government report showed that minority voter turnout nationwide had been surging in recent years. Black Americans, for example, had a voter turnout rate of just 53 percent in 1996. But that rate increased in each of the next four presidential elections. Said WSJ:

    “In 2012, black turnout as a share of all eligible voters exceeded the turnout of non-Hispanic white voters—66.2% to 64.1%. Nearly five million more African-Americans voted in 2012 (17.8 million) than voted in 2000 (12.9 million). In both 2008 and 2012, black voters even exceeded their share of the eligible black voting age population. In 2012, blacks made up 12.5% of the eligible electorate but 13.4% of those voting.”
    “Voters without an ID can get one free at the Department of Motor Vehicles and they can also cast a provisional ballot pending confirmation that they are legally registered,” WSJ alsonoted, adding that even though Georgia, Indiana, and Tennessee had “some of the strictest voter ID laws of the more than 30 states that have such laws,” black turnout had recently exceeded that of non-Hispanic whites in 2012 in all three states.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Just a question, who among us would not accept 189,000 per appearance if we could demand it?

    One of the reasons I cannot support Hillary is that I see her and Bill as very competitive personalities. I do not think we need her trying to out do Bill! That is a secondary reason, there are more important reasons to shy away from her candidacy.

  5. #5
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    North Carolina
    Bottom line ........ Hillary Clinton promises to be worse on the immigration issue than Bill was. Actually, she is basically promising to expand on what Obama has done. She will undoubtedly be a nightmare for opponents of illegal immigration.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at

Similar Threads

  1. "The Presidency and the Constitution,"
    By kathyet2 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-16-2014, 03:01 PM
  2. Team Obama Takes "Affordable" Out of Latest Obamacare Campaign
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-06-2013, 05:33 PM
  3. "Can Team Obama Spin to Win the Syria Gamble?"
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-31-2013, 07:40 AM
  4. Jon Stewart: Obama Team Playing "Polish That Turd"
    By HAPPY2BME in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-05-2012, 01:57 PM
  5. Bush Team Helps Ruling Party "Floridize" Mexican P
    By Brian503a in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-30-2006, 02:03 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts