The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

The Fall of the House of Clinton

Boys and girls, Count Victor presents a berrry, berrry scarrrrrry tale of political corruption run amok.

by Victor Davis Hanson // PJ Media

via PJ Media

via PJ Media

Hillary Clinton will probably survive her latest ethical disaster. James Carville — of “if you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find” fame  — is back again to pronounce the Clinton Foundation scandal as“diddly-squat.”   He may be right in the political sense. After all, we know the standard Clinton rescue plan from the past: her aging point-men like Carville, Lanny Davis, and Paul Begala flood the airways, yelling “prove it!” at their television hosts and declaring:

  1. That the accusations are “old news.”
  2. That the accusers are funded by right-wing conspiracists.
  3. That everyone does what the Clintons did.
  4. That the media pick on the Clintons.
  5. That there is no hard evidence (because they have destroyed documents) that would ever lead to a criminal case. And:
  6. That they are moving on, to work on behalf of the folks.

Such obfuscation worked well with Troopergate, Travelgate, Whitewater, the cattle futures scam, Monicagate, the pardons, and Bill’s serial and sometimes coercive sexual conquests. The scorched-earth protocol has already largely dispensed with the “what difference does it make” and “we came, we saw, he died”  Libya/Benghazi scandals. That the ex-president of the United States often flew on a private jet with  registered sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein, known for supplying underage women to his guests, is, as the Clintons say, “old news.” Hillary Clinton’s serial lies about her email accounts and the Clinton Foundation shakedowns will likewise fade — despite the national-security implications of both transgressions for the United States.

So by “Fall of the House of Clinton” I don’t suggest that a special prosecutor will be appointed to indict Hillary and Bill for crimes that would likely make the accusations that were once leveled against Sen. Robert Menendez, Gov. Bob McDonnell, Scooter Libby, Conrad Black or Dinesh D’Souza look like child’s play in comparison.

The Democrat Party’s investment in Hillary Clinton is too substantial for any such reckoning. Liberals have embraced the Cold-War cliché —  “of course, he is a SOB, but he’s our SOB.” Translated to Hillary that means she is a tough political brawler, she’s on their side, and she’s all they got — and therefore anything such an asset does is more or less tolerable in an imperfect world. Democrats expect her to weather this mess. Each time she does so, the next and more egregious scandal becomes more “old news.” The family’s Nietzschean creed is that any scandal that does not kill off their careers makes a Clinton stronger. Despite the dozen or so ethical scandals that will inevitably arise over the next two years, Hillary Clinton will be nominated by the Democrats and has at least a 50/50 chance of being elected president. The Democratic elite will call her survival “fully vetted” and “time tested.”

But all that said, the House of Clinton has utterly collapsed in a moral sense. The very name Clinton is now synonymous with amorality and will be so for the rest of American history. It is not that the Clintons are immoral and thus break existing moral canons and laws; rather they operate completely outside of any moral universe. To them, there is no such thing as moral or immoral, legal or illegal, ethical or unethical, only whether their aim is judged lucrative and the means to obtain it without serious liability. A form, a disclosure, a protocol for a Clinton is not a question of signing it as required or not signing it; rather, for them, such a requirement simply does not exist. Clintons do not erase emails; they destroy the server to ensure erased emails are erased for good.

Simple facts that would embarrass most are utterly irrelevant to the Clintons. How can Hillary trash hedge funds,when her son-in-law runs one (and a dubious one at that)? She has just attacked the privileges of elite hedge funds without telling us that her daughter worked for one and is now reportedly worth $15 million.  Once Hillary Clinton stepped down from the State Department, she immediately rented space in a speculative financial office — so much better to monitor their unethical tax policies?

Who has the money to pay Bill Clinton $500,000 for a 40-minute talk, and why would anyone do so? (Before we blast oligarchs, remember that UCLA, a public university, paid Hillary $300,000  [$165 a second] for chit chat (did she touch on the unfairness of $1 trillion of student loans or the over-compensation of the one-percent?). Hillary came onto the national scene after using her husband’s cronies to steal $100,000 from the cattle futures market after a paltry $1,000 investment. I say steal unapologetically, given that statisticians report than any of us would have had a 31 trillion to 1 chance to replicate Hillary’s investment savvy. Not satisfied by rigging a system that cattlemen and farmers must assume is transparent and honest, Mrs. Clinton — of raise-taxes-for-the-public-good fame — then shorted the government in the reporting of some of her profits and was caught doing it.

How about transparency and honesty? Bill Clinton lied under oath repeatedly during the Monica investigation, to the point of being disbarred and fined. Subpoenaed legal records of Hillary Clinton turned up (too late) mysteriously in the White House. In the latest email scandal, the mystery was not that Hillary set up a stealthy private communication system to facilitate the Clinton scheme of offering foreign zillionaires the opportunity to give money to the family foundation and huge cash speaking fees for Bill, in exchange for likely favorable U.S. government decisions affecting billions of dollars in international trade and commerce — and perhaps the very security of the United States. We expected even that from Hillary Clinton the moment that she assumed office — in the manner that her husband had once pardoned convicted FALN Puerto Rican terrorists  in hopes of winning bloc votes for her New York Senate campaign, in addition to snagging money from convicted felons. That Mrs. Clinton refused to sign disclosure forms and to follow government protocols about donations and correspondence, as she promised she would, was also nothing new. But what was novel was Hillary Clinton’s ability to hold a press conference and lie about every single aspect of her email crimes. Everything she said was untrue: from the nature of smart phones and email accounts, to the email habits of other cabinet officers, to the methods of securing a server, to the mix between public and private communications, to the method of adjudicating her behavior. All were untruths offered without a shred of remorse.

What is the House of Clinton?  It is a large family syndicate predicated on the three facts. One, Bill is a amoral, well-connected ex-president and good old boy schmoozer who enjoys a lifestyle that only ethical misconduct can ensure. Two, a less charismatic Hillary plays good cop to his bad, and for thirty years has been seen by donors as the likely first female president. Three, as flexible liberals, they have no ideological reluctance to snag Wall Street and corporate pay-for-play cash — and they let that be known to the one-percent who in turn feel that the Clintons’ populist verbiage is simply good insurance. The result is that although Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea are not business people, they became multimillionaires precisely because they can offer access and at least the scent of favorable government treatment to billionaires.

All three have become utterly shameless people. Chelsea lectures us on how wealth has had no hold on her — after making $600,000 from NBC to appear a few times on air, and becoming a multimillionaire working for a hedge fund without any demonstrable financial talent. Hillary sermonizes about poor students while charging them a fortune for a half hour of banality. Bill talks about women’s rights as he has serially translated political power into sexual gratification from those younger, poorer, or less influential than himself.

Wall Street and corporate American know there is no deal considered beneath the Clintons. If they will, as reported, wheel and deal off the human tragedy of the Haitian disaster, then they will indeed do anything. If they are willing to defame and destroy women abused by Bill Clinton, they will not only do that, but proclaim themselves feminists. They have created a huge shakedown conglomerate in the Clinton Foundation in Machiavellian fashion: the philanthropy brilliantly masks the cynical tapping of such funds for personal aggrandizement. Quid pro quos go through the foundation to “help” the helpless while providing the family the moral veneer to moonlight and rake in huge fees from foundation donors, who do not give such largess for nothing. Hitting up corporate finaglers for $70 million in tag-along private jet travel would be burdensome; but creating a tax-free “philanthropy” to provide such corporate one-percent travel for the three Clintons (whether to lecture on global warming or the unfair tax policies of the one-percent) is brilliant in the Medieval sense.

The utter moral collapse of the House of Clinton is, of course, a national disgrace.  But the shame is not because the Clintons are what they are — grifters in ties and pantsuits. Rather, the liberal community’s neglect of three decades of their amorality reminds us what progressivism has become: a psychological squaring in which abstract caring allows privileged people to enjoy their material bounty without guilt over where it came from or how it is used.

Hillary Clinton was out of the stump the last few days blasting CEOs, hedge funds, and right-wing political and religious figures  who might impinge on abortion on demand. In other words, she was contracting progressive penances and exemptions for her family’s ongoing greed and indulgence — and for all those who so willingly empower her.

http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/?p=8367

Tags: -, Clinton, Liary, Rodham, articles, collected

Views: 367

Replies to This Discussion

Do Hillary’s Fair-Pay Talking Points Apply to Her Own Family?

by Victor Davis Hanson // National Review Online

Did Hillary Clinton know of Benghazi attack in advance?

streiff (Diary)  |    |  37

This is not shaping up to be a good week for Hillary Clinton. Not only has someone inside the Democrat party apparatus fed the New York Times a damning batch of emails that indicate that Hillary used the State Department to enrich cronies and lied to Gowdy’s Benghazi committee about her use of private email, she has now been firmly nailed down as being a liar on Benghazi.

When the Benghazi consulate was sacked, Hillary’s first impulse was to do what she does best: lie. Our ambassador to Libya wasn’t even cool when Hillary proceeded to blame the silly video, “Innocence of Muslims,” for the incident. According to Hillary this was an ad hoc mob, even though Ambassador Chris Stevens reported there were no demonstrations when he went to bed. The following Sunday, Susan Rice, a loyal apparatchik willing to burn what passes for her integrity to the ground to defend her team, went on all the Sunday morning news shows to restate the lie. Clinton’s loyal defenders in the press, like the malleable Dave Weigel, all lined up to defend Clinton’s lies because, they, like Susan Rice, would rather be revealed as tools than see a Democrat harmed.

Now we have, courtesy of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, more information.

Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained more than 100 pages of previously classified “Secret” documents from the Department of Defense (DOD)and the Department of State revealing that DOD almost immediately reported that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was committed by the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman” (BCOAR), and had been planned at least 10 days in advance. Rahman is known as the Blind Sheikh, and is serving life in prison for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other terrorist acts.

The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 atacks on the World Trade Center buildings.

As an aside, the documents show what we already suspected. The Benghazi consulate was involved in, at least, monitoring the transfer of Libyan weapons to the al Qaeda rebels in Syria if not its outright facilitation.

Short story: the day after the attack Hillary Clinton and the entire Obama administration knew a) Benghazi was the result of an attack, b) who was responsible and c) when planning started. The obvious inference from affixing a date for the starting of planning is that knowledge of the impending attack was extant at least in Defense and State. There is no way a detail like this could have been developed in the 24-hours after the attack. If Hillary and the administration knew of the attack in advance it provides a good explanation of how Hillary came up with the video-incited riot explanation in a matter of minutes… she knew how they were going to play the attack. It explains why an attack occurring on September 11 was never blamed on the obvious and believable: it was an homage to 9/11. It provides some context for why anyone thought the reaction force based in Europe could arrive in time: they were already on alert anticipating the attack. And it explains why the administration has delayed a full accounting of the events in Benghazi for years and continue to do so.

http://www.redstate.com/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-know-benghazi-at...

Benghazi, memes & more: 9 revelations from Hillary Clinton’s emails

Published time: May 23, 2015 01:43   Edited time: May 23, 2015 13:28  Get short URL
U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. (Reuters/Jim Young)

U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. (Reuters/Jim Young)

The US State Department released the first batch of emails sent or received by former Secretary Hillary Clinton in 2011 and 2012. Totaling 842 printed pages, the 296 messages are heavily redacted, but some things can still be gleaned from their content.

‘Hrod17’ and ‘Pls print’

Hillary Clinton admitted in March that she used her personal email system, supposedly set up for her husband, former President Bill Clinton, because it was “effective and secure.” The address Clinton used was 'hrod17@clintonemail.com'.

Clinton’s close aide and confidante Huma Abedin also had access to the same email system. In addition to her official address (AbedinH@state.gov), the batch contains at least one email from 'huma@clintonemail.com'.

Many of the emails sent by Clinton contain just two words: “Pls print.”

Not very good at memes

In an email to two of her deputies, William Burns, Deputy Secretary of State, and Thomas Nides, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, dated December 20, 2012, Clinton mangled a popular meme:

I’ll be nursing my cracked head and cheering you on as you ‘remain calm and carry on’!”

iPads and Droids

Clinton had told reporters in March that the reason for using her private email address was “because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails.”

Yet a February 21, 2012 email to Jacob Sullivan, her Deputy Chief of Staff and Director of Policy Planning, ends with “sent from my iPad.”

Another automated signature line helps identify Sidney Blumenthal, a former Bill Clinton aide working for the Clinton Foundation at the time, as the sender of several messages: “Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID.”

Though Blumenthal’s name and address are redacted on all of them, one of the messages contains the words: “Helpful article. Sid.”

The other Libya film

At 5:50 am on September 11, 2012, hours before the attack in Benghazi left two US diplomats and two security contractors dead, Clinton sent a request to Abedin and another aide, Philippe Reines:

Can you get us a copy of Bernard Henri-Levi’s film about Libya? I think Harvey made it and showed it at Cannes last spring.”

According to The Daily Caller, the request refers to “The Oath of Tobruk,” a documentary in which Clinton made an appearance. The film praising the US intervention in Libya was directed by French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy and brought to America by movie mogul Harvey Weinstein.

Concern for ‘Chris Smith’

An email from the evening of September 11, 2012 indicates Clinton was possibly confused as to who had been killed in Benghazi. The 11:38 pm note asks Sullivan, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Victoria Nuland, State Department spokeswoman at the time, about “Chris Smith:”

Cheryl told me the Libyans confirmed his death. Should we announce tonight or wait till morning?

The slain ambassador’s name was J. Christopher Stevens. There was a Sean Smith who died in the Benghazi attack; he was an information management officer with the US Foreign Service.

Blumenthal’s briefings

Many of the documents released in this batch, the first set of the reportedly 55,000 messages expected to be made public eventually, contain intelligence briefings written by Sidney Blumenthal, with Clinton’s instructions to Sullivan to forward them as appropriate.

A May 2, 2011 email from Blumenthal cites “sources with access to the leadership of the Libyan rebellion’s ruling Transitional National Council (TNC)” worrying “about the reaction to the death of Bin Laden among rebel fighters and their supporters in Libya and Egypt, where the al Qa’ida leader was very popular.

These TNC officials do not want the death of Bin Laden to affect their relations with the West or their support from NATO, the U.S., France, or Great Britain,” Blumenthal wrote.

Another email, however, cites Libyan fears that France and the UK were working to break up the country. “This one strains credulity,” said Clinton of that memo, dated March 8, 2012. “Seems like a thin conspiracy theory,” added Sullivan.

Libyans didn’t blame the YouTube clip…

A memo from Blumenthal, time-stamped 12:50 am on September 12, 2012, says the Libyan leader at the time, Mohammed Yousef el-Magariaf, alleged his political opponents were trying to paint him as a CIA puppet. The September 11 attack on the US mission in Benghazi was “as much a result of the atmosphere created by this campaign, as the controversial internet video,” according to a “sensitive source” cited by Blumenthal.

In another report, sent at 6:16 pm the same day, Blumenthal cited sources within Libya again:

- “Libyan security officials believe that the attack was carried out by forces of the Islamist militia group calling itself the Ansar al Sharia brigade; working out of camps in the Eastern suburbs of Benghazi.”

- “The officials believe that the attackers having prepared to launch their assault took advantage of the cover provided by the demonstrations in Benghazi protesting an [internet] production seen as disrespectful to the prophet Mohammed.”

- “Some of the Libyan officials believe that the entire demonstration was organized as cover for the attack, however; they point out that there is no evidence of such a complex operation at this time.”

- “In the opinion of this individual, Libyan security officers also informed el Magariaf that the attacks had been planned for approximately one month, based on casing information obtained during an early demonstration at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The attackers were, in the opinion of these individuals, looking for an opportunity to approach the consulate under cover in a crowd.

Clinton responded with “Pls print.”

…Max Blumenthal, however, did

In between those two reports, Blumenthal sent Clinton a one-line email at 1 pm. It contained only a link to a website run by his son Max and had the subject line: “Meet The Right Wing Extremist Behind Anti-Muslim Film That Sparked Deadly Riots.

The sender and address were redacted from the release, but the email bears the telltale signature of Sidney Blumenthal’s Verizon Wireless phone.

The following day, Max Blumenthal published an op-ed in the Guardian blaming the “rightwing extremists” who made the film for the deaths in Benghazi.

Arguing the video

Every page of the emails featuring the draft statements pertaining to the Benghazi attacks has been redacted. However, a September 24 email from Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan outlines the shape of the spin Clinton and her aides were putting on the attack.

Discussing an opinion piece by Bill Keller - “The Satanic Video” in the September 23 edition of the New York Times - Sullivan cites an argument “that worked on my conservative Obama-hating (Hillary-respecting) friends,” in a September 24, 2012 email.

The denunciations of the video, Sullivan argues, “aren’t an effort to debate the mob; they are an effort to give ammo to the right side to win the battle that Keller himself identifies (between extremists seeking to put ‘pressure’ on weak transitional governments and the more mainstream majority that supports those governments). And you could say it worked.”

So we need to make this argument forcefully,” Sullivan concluded.

The full text of the 296 emails can be read online here, or downloaded here

HRC EMAILS: Federal officials voiced growing alarm over Clinton’s c....

Over a five-year span, senior officials at the National Archives and Records Administrations (NARA) voiced growing alarm about Hillary Clinton’s record-keeping practices as secretary of state, according to internal documents obtained by Fox News.

Embedded image permalink

http://t.co/lnHZolrayr

Looks like everyone except Hillary has a copy of her e.mails.

Hillary Gump

Forrest Gump usually had a positive role to play at the hinges of fate; the equally ubiquitous Hillary Gump’s cameos have made history far worse.

Photo via PJ Media

Photo via PJ Media

by Victor Davis Hanson // PJ Media

The fictional and cinema hero Forrest Gump somehow always managed to turn up at historic moments in the latter twentieth century. But whereas Forrest usually had a positive role to play at the hinges of fate, the equally ubiquitous Hillary Gump usually appeared as a bit player who made things far worse.

Take the issue of government abuse, ethics, and public transparency. The modern locus classicus of government overreach was the Watergate scandal. Over forty years ago Hillary was there as a young legal intern purportedly advising the House Judiciary Committee during the congressional investigations. She was also reportedly let go by her superiors for unethical conduct — quis custodiet ipsos custodes? From Watergate to Travelgate to Filegate to Whitewater to the current quid pro quos of the Clinton Foundation to her recent destruction of private emails and her private server while serving as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has been at or near lots of government scandals of the last half-century. Twenty years ago Hillary Clinton was brazenly evading federal law by hiding her legal records from a court-ordered subpoena for documents — in the same fashion that in 2015 she destroyed all traces of her email correspondence on her private server, in violation of State Department protocol and most likely federal law.

Hillary Clinton has been all over the Middle East meltdown. In 1998 the Clinton administration pushed the Iraq Liberation Act, calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein. In 2002 then Senator Clinton gave an impassioned speech in voting to authorize the Iraq war. By 2005 with rising unrest in Iraq and in worry over her own looming political ambitions, war supporter Clinton suddenly damned the war and blasted those who supported winning it. By 2007 she was ridiculing the surge. By 2008 she had berated Gen. David Petraeus’s congressional testimony that offered data proving the success of the surge — infamously suggesting that Petraeus was a veritable liar (“suspension of disbelief”). By late 2011 Clinton was helping to orchestrate the withdrawal of all U.S. peacekeepers from Iraq, the most unfortunate foreign policy decision of the last decade that birthed ISIS. She was also assuring the country that Syrian strongman Bashar Assad was a reformer: “There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.” A little over a year later, the Obama administration was issuing a redline to Syria — soon to be withdrawn — threatening to bomb Assad out of power for his use of chemical weapons. When Clinton left office, no one could figure out what American policy toward Syria was — against Assad? Against ISIS, the enemy of Assad? Working with Iran, an ally of Assad, against ISIS? Working with Sunni regional powers, enemies of Assad? Working with moderate opponents of Iran, Assad, and ISIS to the extent they existed?

By 2011 Ms. Clinton was calling for bombing strikes against Moammar Khadafy without either congressional or UN approval. After the gruesome mob murder of Khadafy, she chuckled “we came, we saw, he [Khadafy] died”. A sort of Mogadishu on the Mediterranean followed in Libya, as the country descended into an Al Qaeda and ISIS miasma. Of the murders of four Americans that followed in Benghazi, Clinton scoffed, “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 that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” In the aftermath of the killings she also falsely assured the nation and the family of the dead that an obscure video maker, not al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, had murdered the Americans. She later filtered all her email communications concerning Benghazi, destroying thousands of emails that she insists were entirely private in nature.

Hillary Clinton came of age during the era of the new feminism, which lectured the nation about its sexist assumptions: professional women need not take their husband’s name; women who sleep with men outside the protocols of marriage are not to be denigrated as ethically suspect; women are to be paid the same wage for the same work for men; women need not cling to philandering husbands to maintain their economic or career viability or social standing. Yet Hillary’s feminist legacy is that loud professions of feminism can offer medieval exemption from sexist acts: she helped organize the administration’s demonization of younger, less powerful women who were harassed by the sexual predator Bill Clinton; she piggybacked her own career to that of her husband; she used census methodologies to criticize pay disparities in the work force that by the same formula show that her own female Senate staffers received much less than her male workers; she rebranded herself with the Clinton name when her husband’s persona proved politically advantageous.

In the last thirty years the once populist Democratic Party has embraced the financial elite. Hillary was there at the creation and knee-deep in the culture of corporate cronyism and personal greed. She once used her husband’s Arkansas contacts to parlay a $1,000 cattle futures investment into a $100,000 profit, oblivious to concerns that most cattle ranchers have no such influence or no such luck. Financial experts stated that the odds of such super-profiting occurring naturally without illegal or unethical massaging were 1 in 32 trillion. In frequent populist modes, Hillary has variously attacked hedge fund CEOs, and unwarranted compensation by the nation’s financial elite. Her daughter became a multimillionaire after brief stints with Wall Street funds; her son-in-law is a hedge fund owner.  No American has recently better leveraged the government/private sector nexus. Clinton routinely charges $300,000 per speech to corporate concerns (many of whom gave far more to her family foundation in expectation of insider favors) and universities.

How about the increasing politicized IRS that predicates audits on political realities? Hillary was there too for a long time — from writing off the Clinton underwear as a charitable donation to not reporting fully her cattle futures profiteering to the more recent Clinton Foundation’s serial refiling of amended tax returns as investigative journalism turns up more unreported income.

The list of Hillary Clinton’s Gump-like appearances is near endless.

Reset with Putin that green-lighted Vladimir Putin’s absorption of Crimea and eastern Ukraine? Hillary Clinton claimed it as her signature foreign policy — plastic-red reset button and all.

Obamacare? Hillary was there first when she tried to ramrod down the throats of the nation the unworkable Hillarycare.

Gay marriage? Hillary lectured the nation in 2008 on why it was uncalled for — and in 2016 on why those who felt the same were themselves bigoted.

The Confederate Flag controversy? For Hillary Clinton in 2016, the stars and bars were proof of inveterate racism; in 1992 she had no problem with the Clinton-Gore logo plastered over the Confederate flag as a southern campaign prop for her husband’s campaign. In her 2008 blue-collar populist moments, Hillary was not concerned about the appearance of white chauvinism when she infamously bragged of her supposedly ascendant polls “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me. There’s a pattern emerging here.”

Yes, there is.

On the great issues of our times — scandals involving the abuse of government power, parlaying public service into private profit-making, reset foreign policy, nationalized health care, gay marriage, and race relations — Hillary Clinton almost always was in the news, and largely for something either unethical or hypocritical.

http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/?p=8506

Hillary to CNN: I was never subpoenaed.

Gowdy: Um, here’s the subpeona

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/08/hillary-to-cnn-i-was-never-su...

What an atrocious and despicable woman.

Hilary laughs while talking about her defence of the rapist of a 12 year old girl:
http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=45370#.Vy_I5RUrLYo

And the rape victim now responds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akO1mCpg4w8

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/can-hillary-survive-the-latest-onslau...

Even CNN host Wolf Blitzer questioned why Mrs. Clinton did not cooperate with investigators. “But if she has done nothing wrong, if she’s done nothing wrong and she has nothing to hide, why not at least cooperate with the inspector general?” asked Blitzer on his CNN show, The Situation Room.

Pointing out that there was no Senate-confirmed inspector general during Mrs. Clinton’s four years as secretary of state, Howard Krongard, the State Department IG from 2005 to 2008 under President George W. Bush, told Fox News that “I would have been stunned had I been asked to send an email to her at a personal server, private address. I would have declined to do so on security grounds and if she had sent one to me, I probably would have started an investigation.”

“One of the more shocking parts of this report was the fact that after she thought she was being hacked, she complained to her staffers,” said CNN justice correspondent Evan Perez on Blitzer’s Situation Room on May 25. “In the report, it says their solution was simply to unplug the server.” Mrs. Clinton and her staff failed to report the incident to security officials, Perez said.

Clinton’s email server ran without security software, new records reveal
https://www.rt.com/usa/347861-clinton-server-software-security

RSS

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom of Movement
The government can import new voters - except where that changes the political demographics (i.e. electoral fraud by means of immigration)
4. SP Freedom from Over-spending
People should not be charged for government systems which they reject, and which give them no benefit. For example, the government cannot pass a debt burden across generations (25 years).
An additional Freedom from Religion is be deducible by equal application of law: "Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight - except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2017   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service