Real Vision in a Fantasy World: 2016

INTRODUCTION

The time has finally come. I have kept my tongue locked and quiet for so long but through the campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination of Bernie Sanders I have felt a re-awakening from my political slumber. A key change is the simple fact that my period of vast interest in politics before had happened while I lived as a Republican. But now I am leading life as an Independent. While my eyes have been locked on the Democratic primaries more than the Republican ones I must make it known now that I am not, nor will I even consider myself a member of the Democratic Party. That said, nor will I ever again consider myself a Republican. The party politics are deceptive and exhausting and all an unshakable adherence to a given political party does is taint people’s perspectives and lead them to making sometimes incoherent decisions based more on what they want to believe as oppose to what is actually true. I don’t have any hatred towards those who support Hillary Clinton, despite my vast distaste for her as a person, for I feel most of those who support her either don't know who really is or they are either in denial that she could be so bad and possibly are victims of cognitive dissonance, not allowing them to believe that she could be so crooked. It happens to us all. It happened to me with George Bush in the last decade. I was a Bush supporter for a long time, but as his Presidency went along I found myself becoming more and more disillusioned by him, which ultimately left the Republican Party as well as my own political perspectives in a shambles.

But I am a far different person now than I was in 2008. I am not going to shield the fact that I believe Bernie Sanders to be the only genuine and worthwhile candidate in the 2016 presidential race, which could certainly taint my opinion on Hillary simply because I prefer her opponent. And I am certain anyone reading this who is a Hillary supporter may say this exactly. Or perhaps I’m just a sexist asshole who, if the tables were turned, would still gladly support Bernie even if he were extremely crooked because he’s a man and Hillary is a woman. Is there a sexist angle involved in these primaries? Of course, it’s a male candidate versus a female candidate. There is going to be a sexist element involved because there’s just too many ignorant people in our country. However, as you will see if you choose to complete this piece, I will at no time be critical towards Hillary Clinton based on the fact that she is a woman. I look forward to the day when we embrace a woman President, but I think Hillary Clinton would be an embarrassment in terms of taking a step as that first female victor. I don’t dislike Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman, I dislike Hillary Clinton because she is a lying, crooked, narcissistic and oblivious nut job who, if she belongs anywhere, it’s in prison.

If you’ve read this far, and you’re a Hillary Clinton supporter, you’re likely building up a powerful anger towards me or trying to conjure up counter arguments to me without actually just paying attention and, perhaps, doing your own research (at least if you’re that much of an advocate for Hillary). If you think I’m a jerk, if you’re going to turn a deaf ear to anything I have to say after this, than leave. You’ll serve no purpose but to waste your time and unnecessarily anger yourself. I am writing this to open up people’s eyes, especially those not in the know, who don’t know who Hillary Clinton really is. I am trying to tap into those who aren’t biased or who perhaps are undecided Democrats wondering which candidate they should choose. It’s astonishing the fact that Hillary supporters try and put forward dirty laundry on Bernie Sanders and yet what they come up with is a walk in the park compared to Hillary’s background. I just yesterday saw a Clinton supporter post that Bernie Sanders was the head of a committee focused on helping get benefits for military veterans, of which few benefits came through. This sought to cast a negative light on Sanders as someone who really doesn’t care about veterans. Of course, working on this committee he was working with Congress. The Republican run congress, who we have already see quash bill after bill regarding providing more assistance and benefits to our veterans. So if you want to believe this is all Bernie’s fault be my guest but you’re lying to yourself. It’s amazing how many times I’ve seen someone post a meme on Facebook like it’s the God’s honest truth just because the meme defends a personal belief or perspective that the given person posting it supports. It’s astonishing. So this will be my explanation as to why I do not support Hillary Clinton and, if she gets the Democratic nomination, she will not receive my vote.

Let’s begin with where I got the initial impulse to write this piece: the Iowa caucus. First of all, caucuses are an insane joke, subject to extensive manipulation and inaccuracies in terms of which candidate is truly being supported. The whole 2016 Democratic Iowa caucus was insane and of course before it was even done there were reports of the Hillary camp committing fraud. Now while these actions may have not, and likely were not coordinated by Hillary herself, they just made me sit back and sigh because it was so typical of the way Hillary Clinton has conducted herself for literally decades! I also found it intriguing that with Clinton only leading Sanders by 0.2%, with Sanders continuously gaining ground on her and with Bernie leading 21-19 in earned delegates, with still 10% of the votes to be counted, it was reported that Hillary would be making a victory speech. Once again, while those who disliked Hillary were shocked and up in arms I just sat there laughing, melancholically of course, because I could already see the conclusion ahead. The moment I heard about this, with there still being several hours before the final delegates were reported, I said, “Well, let’s watch as Hillary suddenly wins these last four delegates.” And this was after Bernie had won five of the last six. And then, lo and behold, Hillary took those last four delegates and won by a total of 23-21. I already knew it was coming because Hillary, like a fool, had made a serious blunder that other politicians have made in the past. Other candidates who have jumped the gun like this have often been revealed to have an inside track as to how the final votes would jibe. Obviously I cannot prove as of now that this was the case for Hilary so I’m not going to stake the claim that she knew things ahead of time, but alas all of the earmarks are there.

I saw that and immediately became fearful, a fear I still hold even after seeing Bernie Sanders dominate the New Hampshire primary, winning by some 50,000 votes. He also dominated every age group aside from senior citizens 65 years or older. I know Hillary, and I know how crooked and power hungry she is. I know that there is no low that she won’t stoop to to get what she wants and she will use her influence to get it. So here we sit, in practically every poll you see the support for Bernie is vastly stronger than Hillary. Every video regarding their debates together that I’ve pulled up on YouTube has had 95% pro-Bernie comments as oppose to 5% pro-Hillary comments. People are finally beginning to see, after the crookedness of the two Bushes and Hillary’s own cokehead husband, the kind of nonsense that this woman brings to the table. Back in 2008 when Hillary ran against Barack Obama this criticism against her seemed practically non-existent and now it’s coming through in droves. That said, I’m certainly not advocating that we derive all of our political decision-making from YouTube comments. I was merely using that as an example of the people’s growing contempt for Hillary. It’s getting to a point where she’s so far gone that she’s not even that great at covering up her contemptible behavior. I recall watching her Iowa “victory speech” and watching her stand there all tilted sideways in a very snooty way yelling in that aggressive, trying too hard to sound powerful voice that she has, talking about what a wonderful night it was and how great her campaign was after drawing a tie with a candidate that politicians and media had been saying for months had no shot against her. And she’s sticking to this stance after getting lambasted in New Hampshire! And I was excited to see Bernie win by such a wide margin there but in the aftermath I still thought, “Wow, still almost 100,000 people voted for Hillary.” That is staggering to me with what I know about her.

*NOTE: I began writing this right after the New Hampshire Primary so all references to the Sanders/Clinton race are in reference to that time (granted the Nevada caucus had also occurred before I completed this piece)

And, before I dive into that, let me make something perfectly clear about my support for Bernie Sanders. First off, I am not writing this as a way to simply make Bernie look like the better of the two, but rather I feel this is a remarkably important time in our nations history. It’s a time where we must decide if we are going to stay this treacherous course that we’ve set ourselves on or are we going to begin to change and become something better. Hillary’s campaign is funded primarily by major corporations who have a vested interest in staying this deplorable course. And why not? It’s benefitted them financially for years. That said, if these are the people who support Hillary, how is she going to help the lower class? How is she going to help the middle class grow? How is she going to bridge that gap between that riches 1% and the 99% remaining? How is she going to help the homeless? How is she going to work our current healthcare system in such a way that will provide better medical access to all? What is she going to do about the gross financial costs of college in this country and the overwhelming debt practically every student ends up with once they graduate (that is, if they graduate)? And I’m not asking these questions looking for specific answers, and I don’t think Bernie is going to be able to change all these things if he even makes an effort to do so. But what I am saying is that Hillary has a vested interest in keeping the rich rich, especially since they are her primary supporters (and she’s practically one of them). Has she has support from citizens as well? Of course she has, but let’s make no joke that when it comes to financial support from the people Bernie’s got her beat. It’s not that I believe that, if elected, Hillary will necessarily go down as the worst President in our nations history. It’s that she is the establishment, and I know her supporters try and fight that aspect. But the fact of the matter is she’s been well-to-do her whole life. She has swindled the poor to get more rich and, time and time again, all throughout her life there are people who have known her who say outright that Hillary Clinton looks at people the way the class system is. She bows down to those with power and money and treats anyone who has very little like they’re secondary human beings. Like any President who wants power over productivity, sure Hillary will do a few good things in office, but the fact of the matter is she’ll do just enough to not piss off the various other powers that be (like the Congress, the Military Industrial Complex, wealthy corporate CEO’s/any billionaires, etc.). She’s not going to hit the grind the way Bernie will, and that’s the key difference between the two. Bernie will do it because he thinks it’s right, whether it is or not, and Hillary will do it when it’s politically or personally advantageous to do so.

I support Bernie because he is the first Presidential candidate since I have been old enough to vote that I have actually supported. I voted for Bush in 2004 because I was blind to his crookedness and John Kerry scared the hell out of me. I voted for John McCain in 2008 cause I felt Barack Obama was not experienced enough to run a country (Obama has actually, overall, done better than I thought he would). And by 2012 I didn’t vote at all cause I still didn’t really like Obama and didn’t trust Mitt Romney (who, like Clinton, was mostly being supported financially by major corporations). And honestly, by the 2012 election I had become rather lost as far as politics went and I felt the people were so lost that what difference did it make anymore? I really felt that way. People fiercely defending certain candidates and then, when the Democratic and Republican nominees were established, election after election we would sit and say, “Is this the best we can do?” For the first time I don’t feel that way (well, with exception to the candidates running on the Republican ticket). All that said, I don’t believe Bernie is going to completely change the world. In fact I doubt he’ll be able to do half of what he claims he wants to do just based on the resistance he’ll receive from the powers that be. People have a very twisted and inaccurate conception as to how much power the President really has. But, unlike all of the other candidates running for President, Bernie is the one that will actually fight for what his campaign stands for. But he needs all of us to be there with him.

When Bernie has said that the people need to fight and create a revolution in this country those aren’t empty words. We do. If he gets elected and fights for all these things we claim to want we have to be right there fighting with him. If we do the same thing we always do, which is vote, get our candidate elected and then figure our job is done then nothing’s going to change. All of Bernie’s efforts will be quashed by the powers that be and in 2020 he’ll be ousted and everyone will talk about what a bad President he was (when it was really us, the people, that dropped the ball). So I openly support Bernie because I believe he can be the beginning of a change for the better, but he’s not going to change things overnight. And his candidacy has awakened me from my politically lost slumber and has woken up a lot of people who are, quite frankly, sick and tired of the nonsense. And Hillary Clinton is knee-deep in that nonsense.

So let there be no mistake, this is not being written as some dirty politicking on my part to make Hillary look bad and Bernie look good. In fact, I likely won’t even mention Bernie again in this piece. But when people want to look at these two individuals we have running on the Democratic ticket anyone who has done their homework knows the Bernie is by far the best candidate (damn it, just mentioned Bernie again). I want to alert those not in the know about Hillary Clinton and the kind of person she is and when all is said and done here hopefully nobody else will have any questions or qualms as to why I do not support this particular candidate for the Presidency of the United States (or any other position in American politics).

To drudge through the endless mire that is the last fifty or so years, it behooves us to simply go back to the beginning, this meaning to where the seeds of Hillary Clinton’s political career were first planted. Of course she married the future Governor of Arkansas and future President of the United States (Bill Clinton… for those of you who don’t know). Interestingly enough, as a young woman in the late 60s and early 70s she considered herself a Republican. But, interestingly enough, her objectives changed and she became a rather radical liberal writing for a radical paper and embracing what we once might’ve call “open lifestyles”. This persona made her a perfect fit for a young Bill Clinton who, during the 60s, had been directly involved in radical and anti-American gatherings both domestically and internationally.

Bill Clinton had also dodged the draft when his number came up to be deployed to Vietnam. To escape that nightmare he pleaded with the leader of the ROTC at the University of Arkansas to join. He reached an agreement with the ROTC and agreed to enroll at the university’s law school. Shortly after however, he enrolled at Yale Law School, breaking his ROTC promise, which is what kept him out of Vietnam. Afterward he claimed that the ROTC agreement had been cancelled, which was not the case. Clinton was never taken to task for this and was allowed to escape through a lie. This was just the opening show for what would be a political career mired by repulsion and corruption. In that vein, one could say both he and Hillary were a perfect match.

HILLARY’S ROOTS

This will merely be a brief introduction into Hillary Clinton, establishing her as a person over the first twenty-five or so years of her life leading to the start of her career as a working lawyer at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Hillary was born in Chicago, Illinois in 1947. She seemed to live a rather simple and happy childhood, fairly commonplace for young women of the time. She was a good student, competed in sports and was a girl scout. But by the time she reached high school she had developed an interest in social and political issues. She transferred from a youthful, athletic girl scout to a member of the student council and a writer on her high school’s newspaper. Interestingly enough, potentially as result of the rather conservative home she was raised in, as a young woman Hillary fancied herself a Republican and as a high schooler she was a volunteer for Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater’s campaign against the incumbent Lyndon Johnson, a race he was defeated in.

Hillary’s directives seemed to change however after heading off to college. She started her college career at Wellsley College, a private women’s school in Massachusetts where the politics were much more liberal that that of the midwest where Hillary was raised. While at Wellsley Hillary majored in political science and the seeds of transformation into a Democrat were taking root. She apparently was very troubled by the chaos and violence surrounding the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s as well as our involvement in the Vietnam War. Her position was officially changed after attending the Republican National Convention in 1968, wherein Richard Nixon was given the Republican nomination for President. Reportedly she was overwhelmed by the undertones of racism put forth by party members there and it led to her permanently breaking from the party afterward. She ultimately ended up supporting Democrat, and anti-vietnam War candidate, Eugene McCarthy for President in 1968.

After graduating from Wellsley, Hillary moved on to Yale Law School in 1971, adding to her political science degree by adding a law degree as well. It was while attending Yale that she met fellow law student Bill Clinton and the two began dating. After graduating from Yale in 1973 there was immediate intrigue about her future. Even back then there were people stating they believed she may one day be a Senator, or possibly the first female President of the United States. Despite pressure to pursue an ambitious political career of this nature, she chose to join Bill (oddly enough a future President) and the two relocated to Arkansas. It is believed a failed effort at the District of Columbia Bar exam to become a practicing lawyer in the Washington D.C. area might have effected her decision to avoid a political career at that time in the hub of American politics. Settling in Arkansas, Hillary passed the Arkansas Bar Exam and became a practicing lawyer in the state of Arkansas. This would ultimately lead to her being hired on as a prominent member of the Rose Law Firm (a firm that will be discussed numerous times in this piece). Meanwhile, Bill and Hillary purchased their own home in Fayetteville in the summer of 1975 and a few months later they were married. The rest… is just crooked, mind-boggling history.

HILLARY’S WORK ON WATERGATE

One of Hillary’s earliest breaks after attending law school was she joined the House Judiciary Committee investigating Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal. She worked as a staffer there. With such an opportunity Hillary wasted little time in taking to the kind of behavior that she has relished ever since… she practiced in deception. She was reportedly fired from the Committee by her supervisor, Jerry Zeifman for her antics. This has since come into question as reportedly Hillary was not fired from the Committee but rather ultimately let go when they had nothing left for her to do. However, Zeifman stated himself that he wished he had fired her.

So what did young Hillary do that was so awful? Well, working alongside a small group of other staffers (including Bernard Nussbaum, future counsel to Bill Clinton as President), Hillary tried to push the Committee to try and avoid allowing for counsel to be provided for President Nixon. The Committee dismissed her idea as insanity and it was about as unconstitutional an idea as a member of that Committee could come up with. Hillary’s reasoning was an unsubstantiated claim that Nixon was not entitled to counsel because he was facing impeachment. Zeifman quickly quashed her fire by expressing to her, in detail, another case which dismissed her crazy notion on this matter. If you don’t understand legal proceedings let me make it perfectly clear: Everyone Has the Right To Counsel!

Despite this further dismissal, Hillary and her small group pushed forward with their objectives. Hillary actually produced a false legal brief, staking her claim that Nixon was not entitled to counsel. And to cover up the falsehood of this document she also confiscated public documentation that could potentially reveal her lies. This radical action, amidst the significance and nationally altering actions with which this Committee were engaged in, it was astonishing the level of arrogance this woman in her 20s had to think that she could subvert the legal system to get her way. Zeifman practically went ballistic when he discovered this, calling Hillary an “unethical, dishonest lawyer” and an outright liar who willingly conspired to violate the Constitution and the rules set forth by the Committee. Furthermore, Zeifman was so disgusted by Hillary’s false brief that he later said had she submitted such a document to a judge she would have likely been disbarred. Zeifman also bore a small amount of guilt over not doing more in the aftermath of the Committee to prevent Hillary from receiving future work as an attorney with how disconnected she appeared to be from legality and morality.

This experience, from forty-two years ago, serves as a perfect template for what has followed in the life of Hillary Clinton… now a candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

DEFENDING A RAPIST

Had Jerry Zeifman knew of a court case that Hillary Clinton would take on the year after she worked on the Watergate Committee he may have felt an even deeper guilt for not taking greater action against her legal career. Again we are experiencing life through the eyes of a young Hillary, still in her 20s. In 1975 she took on a case representing a 41-year old rapist/pedophile named Thomas Alfred Taylor. In the case, Taylor has just been indicted for the raping of a 12-year old girl. Using all of her deceptive tricks she managed to get Taylor’s charge dropped down to a smaller plea deal. But this is not what is most disturbing about this case.

What is most disturbing is the off-hand manner in which Hillary spoke about the case afterward (and there are recordings of her discussing the case so you can find them and see them for yourselves). What was most bothersome is the fact that Hillary had such a passive reflective vibe about the case, often times laughing when she discussed the fact that she knew full well that her client was guilty. Now granted, attorney’s do sometimes have the dubious task of defending people they know to be guilty. But most of them don’t relish or reflect positively about it, especially when they’re representing a pedophile.

Throughout the course of the trial case Hillary also through out a litany of reasons why the 12-year old’s case was not credible, attacking her emotional stability and claiming that she had a tendency to over-exaggerate romantic encounters. She also accused the young girl of having a proclivity for older men while being subject to flights of fancy. None of this was verifiable by Hillary in her case, but it was just the typical mumbo jumbo one puts out when dealing with a child who appears in a courtroom as the victim in an assault case. She just did what she could to discredit the young girl no matter the cost. While she claimed to not like doing what she had to do she certainly had no problem being deceptive and then later feeling relaxed and almost comical about it. The little girl who was raped has, in recent years, come out attacking Hillary saying that she put her through hell on that case.

Now while this is one isolated case that happened over forty years ago, it’s a solid representation as to the type of individual that Hillary Clinton is. I just get awestruck, and not in a good way, when people say she cares about the people and that she’s going to fight for the little guy and be a strong advocate for women. And then we see her behave in such a way, doing her best to stroke her ego to the point of practically getting a pedophile off for raping a little girl. Why would she do something so heinous and be so cool about it afterward? It’s because Hillary is an elitist and a narcissist who is only concerned with one person: the one she looks at in the mirror every day.

The number of instances and individuals who have bore out the fact that Hillary Clinton is, for lack of a better term, a “cold-hearted bitch” is staggering. And she doesn’t care because she doesn’t have to and thus in the prevailing decades she hasn’t come close to changing her ways. And yet that’s what I keep hearing people say: she can change. Sure, anyone can change. But this particular person hasn’t come close to changing in almost fifty years.

HILLARY’S MISTREATMENTS

If one wishes to call my claims that, not only does Hillary put herself above all else, but that she doesn’t really care for the “little people” (so to speak) I need no greater rebuttal than a story from 1997 when Hillary was First Lady of the nation. On a public relations effort she set up a photo opportunity at the Georgetown University Medical Center to be photographed bonding with the sick children there. Makes sense. What better way to make the First Lady look sweet and caring than photographing her with struggling children?

When Hillary’s advance team arrived at the hospital they obvious had no clue of what it means to be a very sick child. They were caught off-guard by the fact that some children there were going through chemotherapy and had lost their hair. Others had various tubes connected to them to assist them. Immediately the advanced team saw that the First Lady being seen photographed with extremely ill children would not serve the function they were hoping to achieve with their photo op. So what did they do? They had another room in the hospital set up as a play area and, I kid you not, they had staff members working there bring in healthier looking kids to pose as sick kids. In this regard the children would look more bright as they posed with Hillary. The First Lady finally arrived and was pictured reading to these “sick kids” and the misleading objective was achieved.

Anyone who looks at this as a necessary evil in regards to trying to create a positive image for a significant political figure, you are either completely lacking in apathy or your adherence to the illusion of Hillary as a leader is so strong that the abandonment of sick children is a passable issue for you. I unfortunately was not surprised at all when I learned of this staged event. It serves as a perfect example as to the lengths Hillary Clinton would go to get what she wants at the expense of others, even sick children. And what’s most heartbreaking about this event is the fact that the real sick children were led to believe they’d be meeting the First Lady of the United States and thus they had to accept the fact that they were thrown over and neglected for the sake of giving the First Lady a good image. I can hardly imagine as a child spending your life in a hospital, perhaps barely clinging to life, suffering terrible diseases, fighting cancers and so on; the pain and sadness of it all. And then to have someone who is practically a celebrity plan to come visit you and then decide that you’re too sick to even look at. It takes a lot to imagine a way in which a human being could be more ruthless, sick and heartless.

There are endless stories of individuals who knew Hillary while she was the First Lady of Arkansas and then, ultimately, the First Lady of the nation. Despite Bill Clinton’s close connection to many officers of the Arkansas State Police they practically all despised Hillary because of her feelings towards them. Even going back to her college days she often referred to members of law enforcement as “pigs”, and in later years, even as they were providing her protection, she still referred to them as pigs. In one event that stands out, while Governor and First Lady of Arkansas, Bill and Hillary appeared at the funeral for a fallen state trooper killed in the line of duty. Both Bill and Hillary were dismissive towards everyone there, repeatedly making comments about all the pigs there and how much everyone there behaved like hicks.

Numerous Arkansas state officers would intentionally take on 16-hour patrolling shifts in order to avoid working with or accompanying Hillary in her travels. One officer in particular said that whenever he was providing security for Hillary she would forbade him from even speaking. Another described Hillary as follows: “Deep down that woman really hated Arkansas, the people in it, and almost everything else except being top dog.” Based on all I know about Hillary Clinton I think that description represents her to a T.

There have also been, admittedly not quite as substantiated, claims that Hillary was a bisexual who had assaulted several young woman over the years. One woman, as reported in the book “Trance Formation of America”, claimed the she had been put under mind control and during one of these control periods she met Hillary Clinton and that Hillary performed oral sex on her and then forced her to do the same. Larry Nichols, who once worked with the Clintons and for Bill directly, and knew a great deal about their crooked acts in the past, also made statements that Hillary had once “sexually ravaged an 18-year old girl”. Obviously if Hillary Clinton has been a bisexual all these years it means little in the broad scheme of anything. Her sexual orientation is her own business regardless what it is. But it’s one thing to simply have one sexual leaning or another and a whole other affair when you are sexually attacking other women. And again, I will admit in many cases, claims against Hillary in this regard have proven to be little more than rumors and theories, but some have come out with viable stories.

On a brief side note, in connection with Hillary Clinton’s possible sexual escapades outside her marriage, one of the most jaw dropping claims is that Hillary carried on a sexual relationship with Webster Hubbell, who ran the Rose Law Firm where she eventually worked. It has been claimed that when Bill told Hillary he was going to run for Governor in 1980 Hillary’s retort was that she was going to “fuck” Hubbell to get in at the Rose Law Firm. In connection with this claim is the fact that around this same time is when Hillary became pregnant with her daughter, Chelsea. So, of course, theories have run rampant about the notion that Hubbell, not Bill, is the biological father of Chelsea Clinton. This assertion is not without basis, primarily based on the fact that Chelsea clearly bears a strong resemblance to Hillary, her mother, but hardly bears any resemblance to Bill. On the other hand, she bears a resemblance in may ways to Hubbell. Examples include them both having a pronounced chin, thick lower lips, pronounced cheeks, and well-rounded faces; all things not characteristic of Bill Clinton. It’s also intriguing that when Hillary discovered she was pregnant, instead of telling her husband first like practically any other human being would do, she announced it at a press conference. Bill learned about it second-hand from a newspaper article. This leads one to believe that Hillary was trying to conceal the pregnancy from her husband. It also appears that Bill and Chelsea were not incredibly close. Many of those who knew them bore this out, that they weren’t particularly close like a father and a daughter. And finally, at the end of his Presidency, when Clinton was going out he pardoned a large number of individuals (drawing him much criticism). One individual he did not pardon of any wrongdoing was Webster Hubbell, even though he was a longtime colleague and friend of the Clintons. Since Bill Clinton had made a career of pardoning and getting cronies off the hook it’s bewildering that he wouldn’t have done the same for his buddy Hubbell. However, when all is said and done this is still just a viable theory, and as of today this potential Chelsea Clinton conspiracy has not been proven beyond complete doubt.

After Hillary became First Lady of the nation she maintained her dismissive behavior towards those who worked around her and protected her. Like police officers, Hillary often referred to the Secret Service agents who protected her and the President as pigs. One agent even heard Chelsea Clinton describe the Secret Service as “personal trained pigs”. And when the agent told her that her parents probably wouldn’t like her talking about the Secret Service in such a way her response was that she doubted it since that’s what her parents called them. Classic Clintons.

Perhaps some of the worst cases of Hillary letting her fangs out to those around her comes in the form of stories from assistants who worked with her. She reportedly kept those who worked for her on a tight leash and in total fear all the time. Thus they bowed to her practically every command. According to famous writer/reporter Bob Woodward, many assistants of hers would find themselves reduced to tears after she would berate them for the slightest mistakes. She was often acknowledged as an aggressive temperamental person who, while others tend to apologize when they fly off the handle, she would seldom ever apologize but rather just stew in silence. It’s almost as if she felt she deserved to be pandered to by the rest of the world… or rather, that’s exactly what she felt.

CATTLEGATE

Many of the scandals involving Hillary Clinton end with the suffix “gate” and this is the first of those scandals. At the start of the 80s Hillary had been investing in the cattle futures market. Having no experience to that point of investing in the market she had a broker, who worked for a group called Refco, that perform her trades for her. Because of how the cattle futures market functions people tend to experience losses when the market fluctuates and thus the minimum investment for such a market is somewhat high at $12,000. Despite this, Hillary was able to invest with an initial amount of only $1,000.

Even with this small initial investment and the common fluctuation of the market, Hillary netted a financial gain of $5,300 in only a week. And in the next week after that she netted another $15,000. Obviously the market was being very kind to Ms. Clinton who after only months had turned her initial investment into a $99,000 gain. This represented an almost 10,000% profit on the part of Hillary. This was a remarkable feat, in fact, it was so remarkable that in a joint examination of her trades by economists at both Auburn and North Florida Universities revealed that the probability that she made her trades legitimately were less than 1/250,000,000 (or, if you’re a percentage person, 0.0000000004%).

This really brings to light the likelihood that Hillary was involved in defrauding this particular market. It also casts a dark light on her broker, James Blair, who was reportedly making these trades on her behalf. Intriguingly enough, her broker was ultimately investigated and given a 3-year suspension, which was a very serious penalty as far as brokers are concerned. Refco was also investigated and forced to pay a high fine for improprieties in the market. Obviously this investigation found something fishy about the trades he was doing for Hillary. But what is most revealing is that her net gain was more than five times higher than those received by others who invested in the same market as her at the same time. This is even more suspicious when we are reminded of the fact that the minimum investment into such a market is $12,000, which would mean that these others invested thousands more than Hillary did and thus should have received much higher returns than her if her trades were done legitimately.

Furthermore, despite the fact that Blair obviously ran the show for Hillary, even as late as 1994 when the issue reared its ugly head again, Hillary’s own press secretary stated that her success in the cattle market was the result her her own research and doing. Obviously this was a lie. In fact, it made all the sense in the world for Blair to be the one representing and helping a member of the Clintons as he was counsel for Tyson Foods, one of the wealthiest industries in Arkansas. This also adds credibility to the notion that Blair and Refco were crooked. Tyson Foods has a long history of illegalities and rules violations. Once, in 1983, after having past violations regarding the disposal of chicken manure, some of it seeped into the drinking water of the town where their plant was located. Months later Governor Clinton declared the town a disaster area (but of course Tyson got a slap on the wrist in the matter). Don Tyson, the head of the company, was another close confidant of the Clintons. He was found to have extensive connections to drug trafficking, prostitution, and even hiring hitmen. Despite this vast evidence of criminal conduct, Tyson’s pal in the Governor’s Mansion saw to it that he was never tried for any of it.

Of course, as would be the common boilerplate response from Hillary herself, she flat out denied any oddities in these trades, claiming that she never thought she received any special treatment with them. It has been argued that Hillary was given large returns through Refco as a way to win good favor with her and her husband. Regardless, the evidence shows it was improbably at best that Hillary Clinton made her money in the market legally. And had she obtained this money through illegal or illegitimate means she still would have gladly taken it. One thing the Clinton’s do not shy away from is taking or accepting money that they haven’t earned nor deserved.

THE CLINTON’S CROOKED FINANCES

The 80s was a very profitable decade for the Clintons as they instigated their rise to prominence. With Bill gaining such influence that he was elected the Governor of the state of Arkansas practically unopposed that prominence only grew… and so did their greed. By the middle of the 1980s the Clinton’s were among the top three percent among wealthiest families in the nation. This was a far cry from the status of the state they presided over, which was one of the poorest in the country. In fact, the state ranked near last in just about every significant social category while Bill Clinton was in power there be it household incomes, education, employment, and so on.

Despite their high social standing, the Clintons were only invested in gaining more wealth, however they could. With their income they still managed to deduct some $200,000 from their taxes during the 80s courtesy of charitable donations. One might think this rings positive for the Clintons. At least they were giving to charities, right? Well, unfortunately many of these charitable donations were a farce, including deductions for things such as old clothing, used shower curtains and a pair of Bill’s old running shoes. How they managed to deduct some of these items is beyond me. And just to show further the lengths they would go to, like any other well to do family, as a way of making sure they maintained their wealth they marked down their daughter Chelsea’s nanny as a security guard. The state of Arkansas did not cover her pay as a nanny, and thus the Clintons merely gave her a different title. This managed to save them money that way, granted it just took more money out of the pockets of taxpayers. But this was hardly a problem as the Clintons had no problem doing as they pleased and leaving the bill for the taxpayers to cover… even in an economically shambled state such as Arkansas.

Despite all of this, the crooked market trades, the shady tax breaks and artificial charitable contributions during the decade of the 80s, during Bill Clinton’s campaign for the Presidency Hillary would refer to the 1980s as the “decade of greed”. I can only assume she was too oblivious to include herself in that assessment.

That said, the Clinton’s greed hardly stymied after entering the White House. In fact, it became so strong that they were practically forced to developed the Clinton Legal Defense Fund. As the name denotes, the sole purpose of this fund was to take financial contributions specifically for the purpose of helping them pay their never-ending legal fees. Perhaps if they stopped engaging in scandals and defrauding the American people they wouldn’t need so much legal cash. I fancy the whole concept like someone who drinks and drives a lot and then expects someone else to provide funds to him/her when they keep getting into drunk driving accidents. Imagine such a level of greed that allows one to use their influence to manipulate money from others to pay for their screw ups. That’s exactly what the Clinton Legal Defense Fund is, and Hillary Clinton is right in the middle of that nonsense.

MENA

One of the most iconic scandals in the life of Bill Clinton was one whose ground zero was focused only a few miles outside of the small community of Mena, Arkansas. In the early 1980s an open airfield in this location was used as a drop site for the trafficking of cocaine from South and Latin America into the United States. This drug trafficking was led by infamous drug trafficker Barry Seale, the most successful drug trafficker in American history according to some. The Mena Connection was so successful in bringing cocaine into the country that those dealing it almost had to give it away. This drug connection is also credited as the primary genesis for starting what would become a rampant cocaine spree across America in the 1980s as millions of Americans found themselves becoming addicted to this powerful drug. It was a popular drug from dirt poor people living on the street up to influential financiers, politicians and Wall Street stock brokers (just watch “Wolf of Wall Street” and you’ll see plenty of cocaine influence there). That’s the most tragic aspect of the Mena Connection is that it allowed cocaine to take over the country, and the whole operation was being run under the knowing eye of Governor Bill Clinton. He practically threw the doors of the state open for it!

Barry Seale actually wanted to begin this drug running operation in Louisiana but couldn’t make it work. He thus travelled north to Arkansas, which was run by a Governor who was open to suggestion. What many people don’t know is not only was Bill Clinton fully aware of the drug trafficking out of Mena and the effect it was having in America, but he was a partaker of cocaine himself. With the advent of the trafficking of this drug Clinton found himself becoming a cocaine addict just like everyone else, throwing wild drug parties often attended by the most prestigious people in the state of Arkansas, all of whom were also partaking in this high supply drug. One witness to these parties, Sharlene Wilson, once saw the future President get so high on cocaine that he crashed into a wall and fell into a garbage can. Clinton has also been hospitalized multiple times due to sinus problems, believed to be the result of his excessive cocaine abuse.

While there is no evidence that Hillary partook in cocaine herself, she knew about this massive drug running operation. Hell, everyone in Mena knew about it. Those controlling the operation weren’t exactly the best at keeping the operation under wraps, especially with its states supportive Governor rapidly becoming a drug addict. These drug drops were so out in the open that, one night in 1987, two teenage boys stumbled onto one of them. These two teens, Don Henry and Kevin Ives, caught sight of a drug drop taking place and watched with curiosity. They were sighted by the individuals there to take in the drug shipment, and grabbed. They were beaten, stabbed and left for dead along a railroad line close by where they were ultimately run over by a train. Another looming theory about these train deaths is that a group had tried to steal one of these drug shipments and Henry and Ives were confused for these thieves and forced to pay the ultimate price.

Henry and Ives’s deaths were immediately reported as accidental, even before they were given autopsies to prove how they died. Their autopsies were conducted by medical examiner Fahmy Malak (a Clinton-appointed crooked autopsist), who substantiated the claim that their deaths were accidental. The story was that the two boys had smoked heavy amounts of marijuana and passed out on the railroad tracks where the train struck them down. The families of the fallen boys refused to accept this conclusion but all their efforts to have the deaths re-examined met brick walls as they came up against the establishment. They were obviously more concerned about maintaining their drug running operation than the lives of two random teenagers. A second autopsy was ultimately performed by an out of state medical examiner, wherein his work was not under the influence of the powers that be in Arkansas. He came back with a verdict of foul play. One of they boys had been stabbed numerous times and the other had been shot before they were left for dead on the railroad tracks. In the aftermath of these deaths at least seven individuals who claimed to have information about the deaths of Henry and Ives met their own deaths, all murdered under mysterious circumstances.

Dan Lasater was a close friend of the Clintons as well as a drug trafficker, who was deeply connected to the train deaths of Don Henry and Kevin Ives. He also had ties to organized crime and worked alongside Bill Clinton’s brother Roger in the trafficking of drugs. Lasater was also directly connected to these wild drug parties that included appearances from Governor Clinton. But beyond these connections was the fact that he had also procured many underaged girls to help deal his drugs, Many of these women were also forced to attend these drug-infused parties. Many attended their first of these parties as virgins and left with that virginity lost. In addition to bringing these girls on to help deal drugs, most of them became addicted to cocaine and were forced by Lasater and his influence into underaged prostitution.

The drug trafficking game brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars weekly, which required Lasater and his cronies to take to complex measures to launder all of the money they were bringing in. This laundering operation included circling money around the country through various other banks before the money cycled back into Arkansas or other secret accounts. In one particular case, an Arkansas circuit court employee named Dennis Patrick who made less than $25,000 a year, soon found his financial situation drastically changed. Lasater secretly began laundering drug money through Patrick’s account, leading to Patrick’s account suddenly booming to a balance of several million dollars. Ultimately over $100 million were cycled through Patrick’s account before he and the FBI took notice of this strange financial fluctuation. This revelation provided the FBI with a solid witness for an investigation into this money laundering operation. However, after Patrick agreed to become a witness for the FBI he faced merciless harassment. A man arrested in Arkansas admitted that he had been hired to kill both Patrick and his wife. Ultimately the Patrick’s fled the state in fear.

Lasater would ultimately get busted for his drug running activities, but would plead down to conspiracy to sell cocaine. After he was sentenced he was only given a year of probation and was eventually pardoned by his close friend, the Governor. This pardon would not be the last nonsensical one procured by Bill Clinton. During his time as the President (as will be discussed later) he would pardon many suspect prisoners for a variety of crooked reasons.

This Mena drug running operation was one of the hallmarks of Bill Clinton’s political career, a career mired by conflict and scandals. And Hillary was right there with him all the way.

ARKANSAS DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY (ADFA)

Surely no telling of the Clinton’s financial improprieties would be complete without an understanding of the Arkansas Development Finance Authority (ADFA). Established in 1985 by Governor Clinton, ADFA was created with the on the surface intention of providing income for low income housing, small businesses, churches and schools. This assistance came in the forms of loans, loans that Governor Clinton had complete authority over in terms of who got money and who didn’t. Since ADFA was controlled entirely by the Clintons with little oversight to analyze and check on how it was being maintained, they were practically allowed to use and manipulate the organization however they saw fit.

The Clintons wasted little time in taking advantage of this new organization, that was obviously a tainted cash cow for them from the very beginning. The first loan given out from ADFA went to a company called Park-O-Meter, a parking mater manufacturing company, which was run by a man named Seth Ward. Ward was the father of Webster Hubbell, who was a close colleague with the Clinton’s and worked a high level position at the Rose Law Firm with Hillary. This loan given out totaled $2.85 million, of which Ward and his company never paid back a single penny for. And they were hardly the only group/individual who was awarded large loans through ADFA and didn’t pay any of it back. The fact that Ward received the first loan from ADFA made for a rather serious conflict of interest, not simply because his son was close with the Clintons, but his son also wrote up the legislation presented to the Arkansas Legislature that got ADFA passed. There’s certainly nothing wrong with passing legislation and having your own father be the first to reap that legislation’s rewards, right? It has been revealed that Park-O-Meter also had connections to the business of manufacturing chemical and biological weapons. No end to the potential controversy there.

Not only was this initial loan disbursement highly suspicious, it was to a company that had absolutely no relation to what ADFA was established for. After Park-O-Meter the next several loans from ADFA were also given to Clinton associates, for reasons unrelated to ADFA’s purpose. And this was just the beginning. Bill Clinton used ADFA as his own private piggy bank for years, which included his funneling money from the organization into his own re-election campaign in 1986 (it seems Hillary probably learned a lot from her husband about crookedly funneling money into election campaigns). In 1993 a gentleman named Ken Peacock would have it brought to his attention that, as a college student in 1985, he wrote a $3,000 check to Bill’s re-election campaign, something he denied ever having done. This is just one crooked example, just like the money that was laundered through Dennis Patrick's account. This is how funneling and laundering money works, and it worked very well as far as ADFA was concerned. It was done for Bill’s re-election efforts, it was used to help in matters of the Whitewater scandal (which will be discussed in the next section), and money was even provided to Bill himself to help finance his liaisons with all of his “women”. Governor Bill also used ADFA money to make payoffs to select individuals when necessary.

And, of course, the Rose Law Firm handled all of the legal work in relation to ADFA, a serious conflict of interest considering the direct involvement with the organization by Hillary and Webster Hubbell in particular. Because of this, Rose controlled audits done on the loans given out, which was very convenient in that they could keep the fact that loan money was literally being given away in many cases under wraps. This was illegal in many respects, especially in regards to the fact that Hubbell wrote up ADFA legislation and was also a high ranking member in the law firm that handled its legal work. Hillary was another conflict of interest as she was directly involved in the advent of ADFA and also worked at Rose. The fact that they controlled audits also violated Arkansas state law, which prohibits individuals or a company/organization from engaging in investigations of itself, and yet that’s exactly what was going on. Beyond this, all the records of loans and payments for ADFA were kept secret. Many other records have been assumed disappeared or destroyed while some that haven’t been recovered likely had no documentation produced for them in the first place. Essentially the way this operation was run would be like if you work a cash register at a store that you run. Then, when you steal cash from the register, you also run law enforcements investigation into the theft of that money. Do you think you’d be caught?

The Mena drug connection also was closely tied to ADFA. With the organization being practically unregulated it was perfect to launder drug money, which they took full advantage of. With the excessive among of drug money rolling through Arkansas it was important that there be multiple locations available to launder the money. An examination into the financial records of banks in Arkansas showed that once the Mena drug trafficking operation was in full force that cash deposits in these banks tripled! People did not realize it was drug money that was responsible for this. Larry Nichols was a legal colleague of Bill Clinton’s who went to work for ADFA and immediately became aware of what a corrupt organization it was. He witnessed these many loan disbursements that went out and were never paid off, but beyond this he was also privy to the drug money that was passing through there. While there, he took it upon himself to monitor various accounts that ADFA had and was astonished as they accumulated massive amounts of money and by the end of a given month they would be emptied, almost as though the money was never there to begin with. This was the smoking gun for Nichols. Since the late 1980s Nichols has been a loud voice against the misguided populace that want to believe the Clintons are like American royalty. He even filed a lawsuit against Bille Clinton in the early 90s after he became President.

ADFA still exists to this day, presumably under an umbrella of legitimacy. However, in my own personal research I can find practically no financial information regarding ADFA that dates back before 1999. Even ADFA’s own website has a year-by-year collection of financial statements, but they only go back to 1999 (there is a listing for 1998 but it shows the page cannot be opened), even though ADFA began fourteen years before then. The fact of the matter is pretty much since the latter stages of the Clinton Presidency, and after the Whitewater investigations, the Clintons have managed to gain and control finances from much larger pools than what Arkansas has to offer. Thus, going into the 21st Century, the places of political and financial controversy in regards to the Clintons involve much stronger and wealthier organizations.

WHITEWATER

Another hallmark of the Clinton’s pre-White House careers included a large land deal controlled by them along with Jim and Susan McDougal in what turned out to be a land/cash grab more than anything. This foursome started plans in 1978 when they borrowed a couple hundred thousand dollars to purchase 220 acres of land in the rural area around the Ozark Mountains in northern Arkansas. In 1982 Jim McDougal purchased a savings and loan group and named it Madison S&L, of which would play a significant role in the funneling of finances in relation to this, later to be named, Whitewater affair. Even before Whitewater, Madison had come under heavy scrutiny for shady practices. Despite the notion that these four people would be working in conjunction together, the Clintons worked their political magic on the seemingly unassuming McDougals as they split the profits down the middle but the bulk of the responsibility fell on the McDougals. This meant that they had to do most of the work but also bear the bulk of the risk if things went awry.

In the beginning the Clinton’s donated the Whitewater land to the Arkansas Game and Fishing Commission with the intent to build a boat ramp along the river there. This opened things up to run a road from the nearby highway down to the river and designate property plots along the way. There were several lots, opening up the chance for the Clintons and McDougals to make a large profit even if they had conducted sales on these properties legitimately. In order to run this land deal they developed a company titled the Whitewater Development Corp.

Most of these plots were solder to older Arkansas residents. However many of these citizens, some of which put their life savings into these plots found themselves facing financial misfortunes that made it impossible for them to complete payments on their plots. Whenever someone defaulted on making payments they found themselves losing everything they had put into it. These lost investments were 100% percent profit going into the pockets of the Clintons and McDougals. More than half of those who invested in these Whitewater properties were unable to complete their purchases and lost everything. This allowed the Clintons and McDougals to resell certain properties and make double or better on them. At the height of dishonesty in this land scam, many who completed payments on their lots never got property deeds for the lots they purchased. A local businessman described the Whitewater scam as follows: “They [the Clintons] screwed people left and right, taking advantage of a bunch of poor old folks on a land deal. The future President and First Lady. That ought to be the real Whitewater scandal.” It’s very true, they took merciless advantage of a lot of simple older folks and in many cases took away practically all the money they, even when some completed their payments, had and didn’t have a care in the world while they did it.

Over the couple years when Whitewater was in business they did not file tax returns for years 1985, 1986 and 1987. It wouldn’t be until 1993 that Vincent Foster, a close colleague to the Clintons (who will be discussed in great detail later on), would file taxes for these three years. Foster would be found dead less than a month later. Despite this being a clear case of tax evasion, the Clintons and Mcdougall were never taken to task for this. By 1986 things began to deteriorate quickly regarding Whitewater. With endless corruption going on at Madison S&L, Jim McDougal was removed as the company’s President by federal authorities. And with the Rose Law Firm handling all the legal work for this crooked deal, Hillary was seen by multiple Rose employees requesting that all land contracts they had in connection to Madison S&L be destroyed. This would be an early example, but certainly not the last, of Hillary Clinton abruptly having potentially damaging documentation against her destroyed. Obstruction of justice. By 1989 Madison S&L collapsed under the weight of all it’s crooked dealings and financial misappropriations.

It would be several years before the Whitewater land scam would face a serious investigation when it came back into the limelight in 1994 with Bill Clinton then in office. When the investigation began Hillary Clinton was the focal person investigated as she was directly involved in Whitewater as well as the financial work on the scheme through the Rose Law Firm. There was already the shadiness of her having Madison S&L documents destroyed, but the Clinton’s had further troubles. Around the time of Bill Clinton’s Presidential election a Federal investigation into the massive failure of Madison provided information to the Justice Department that the Clintons were potential beneficiaries for Madison’s crooked financial dealings. In 1996, during the Whitewater investigation, a collection of Hillary’s billing records were discovered showing she had worked some 60 hours doing legal work for Madison. After these documents were discovered Hillary fell under heavy scrutiny for concealing them. And then, in September of 1996, it was reported by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that Hillary had drafted documentation for Madison that was used to deceive federal regulators during the 1980s. How Hillary was not charged of a crime in this matter is astonishing!

Jim and Susan McDougal were both leaned on to testify on the matter seeing as they were as directly involved as the Clintons were. Susan McDougal refused to testify on the matter and in turn was imprisoned. This was no big deal as President Clinton pardoned her shortly after. Friends will take care of friends. On the other side, Jim McDougal found himself put under extreme pressure when a check for a large amount from Madison S&L written out to Bill Clinton was discovered in the trunk of a car at a car shop. He was being prepped to speak to a grand jury on the matter, a greater cause for concern specifically to the Clintons, when during a medical check he was given a diarrhetic against doctors orders. After being given this he was left alone for several hours where he died alone of cardiac arrest. As is commonplace when a prominent witness is prepped to speak to a grand jury… he was conveniently killed off.

In addition to Jim McDougal, a Washington city councilman named John Wilson was also prepped to come forward and divulge information about the Whitewater scandal. Before he could however he was found hung, reportedly the result of a suicide. An investigator named Jon Walker, who was looking into financial misdeeds that connected back to the Whitewater scandal and the Clintons reportedly fell from an apartment window and died amidst his investigation. His death was also ruled a suicide (it’s astonishing how many people connected to the Clintons died of “suicide” during the 1990s, look it up).

Despite all the evidence of crooked dealings tied directly to Hillary Clinton, her reaction was to be even more dishonest. When the Whitewater investigators requested the billing records for all of the Whitewater payments and purchases, Hillary stated that all of the records were lost and presumed stolen. All of them! How convenient for the First Lady. The official claim was that the records had been stored in Vincent Foster office. Foster died of a reported suicide (which will be discussed in detail later) and shortly after his death representatives of both Bill and Hillary broke into his office and ransacked it. Foster’s longterm friendship with the Clintons also meant he had inside knowledge of practically everything they did going back to the 1970s. The presumption is that the billing records were stolen during this time. This is problematic for Hillary however because one of the individuals who broke into Foster’s office was Margaret Williams, Hillary’s own personal Chief of Staff. Williams testified under oath that when she broke into Foster’s office she was specifically told by Hillary to gather sensitive documents there and bring them to her. This means that Hillary was directly involved and likely led this sudden break in of Vincent Foster’s office, which means she knew exactly who broke into the office and, if Williams’ words are true, any documentation from there was brought back to Hillary. Thus if these billing records went missing during the break in of Foster’s office, that would mean these billing records would be in the possession of Hillary or someone else whom she have given them to. Thus her claim that they were lost is a lie and if they were stolen, they were stolen by her!

And a lie it turned out to be. Some nineteen months after the investigation, wherein the Clintons were conveniently acquitted, it was discovered that these billing records were in the hands of Hillary Clinton, and her fingerprints were found on them for good measure. However, she had already been acquitted and thus she was allowed to get away with this blatant deception to a Federal investigative body. The key question then is: Why would she lie? Obviously she had lots to cover up and much of what she wanted to conceal about the Whitewater scandal could be revealed through those billing documents. Hopefully we’ve all noticed by now how great Hillary Clinton is at lying.

The icing on the cake is that, when all was said and done, both Bill and Hillary were acquitted of any wrongdoing, but some fifteen others who were involved in the scandal were charged for a litany of crimes. Those charged included the McDougal’s as well as Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker. This is remarkable in that the Clintons practically controlled the whole thing from the land that was donated to the Rose Law Firm’s involvement, to them receiving half the profits; they were connected at every angle and yet there were several others who were indicted which means the investigation revealed wrongdoings, but the Clintons somehow were innocent of doing anything wrong.

It would later be revealed in a memo that the investigative body was prepared to indict Hillary specifically. It revealed that they had documentation written by Hillary herself expressing a desire to conceal a series of fraudulent loans that had been used in the Whitewater scam to deceive federal bank examiners. In short, the prepared indictment memo said it was clear, based on the evidence, that Hillary Clinton had committed multiple crimes with full knowledge that she had done so, and thus she did everything she could to conceal them so as to avoid the legal ramifications of them. Despite all this, at the start of 1995 the Senate, which had a Democratic majority, determined that no laws were broken regarding the Whitewater matter.

The reason ultimately given for acquitting Hillary Clinton, despite this memo, was not that she was clean or innocent, but rather that she was too high profile a defendant. It’s also worth noting, and the investigative body for Whitewater has practically admitted this, but the time in which they were nearing completion on their work just happened to be when the big Monica Lewinsky scandal broke and was reaching its peak. Monica Lewinsky was one of many woman who had come out claiming to have had an affair with then President Bill Clinton. She was also the first one that he ultimately admitted to having an affair with, ultimately leading to impeachment proceedings. This was major news and the investigators into Whitewater practically moved over to investigate that scandal. It was succinctly expressed by one prosecutor, “Monica saved Hillary.” This certainly wouldn’t be the last time Hillary was saved from criminal prosecution when she was guilty of the crime.

TRAVELGATE

As the 1980s gave way to the 1990s the once powerful Governor of Arkansas decided to throw his hat into the Presidential ring. Despite a campaign mired by controversy, Bill Clinton managed to with the 1992 Democratic nomination and with lots of national animosity towards the incumbent President George Bush, he was elected as the forty-second President of the United States. And as was the case for the 1980s in which the Clintons maintained control over Arkansas, the 1990s would see the Clintons continue in their ways at the White House.

One of the first crooked actions conducted in the Clinton White House, an action that was controlled by both Bill and Hillary, came when they fired all seven employees who worked in the White House’s Travel Office. They then conveniently refilled these positions with their personal friends, allowing them to take advantage of the office’s $31 million annual worth. When this action came under intense scrutiny the Clintons justified their actions by claiming the prior employees had all been fired due to financial improprieties. However, it was found that none of these fired employees had done anything wrong and had been fired for absolutely no other reason than to open up a portion of the White House to friends of the Clintons. The Clintons were thus forced to remove these friends and reinstate those whom they had fired.

Hillary was directly involved in these crooked firings right from the start even though she denied knowing anything about it afterward. The independent investigation into this matter found that Hillary was lying and despite her direct involvement she was never taken to task for wrongfully firing the whole staff of an office to the White House. The former head of the office, after being wrongfully accused of embezzlement, would later become one of many individuals the Clintons had audited by the IRS for no other reason than the fact that they posed a threat. That’s a fine way to make amends for firing an innocent man. The Clinton Presidency was not off to a very trustworthy start. And we wonder why today the people see Bernie Sanders to be far more trustworthy than Hillary Clinton (and there it is, I finally referenced Bernie again).

HILLARY CARE

Early in Bill Clinton’s Presidency he made an appointment that drove politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, completely batty. He put his wife Hillary in charge of America’s health care system. Despite being such an important system in the overall structure of our country, the President put it in the hands of his wife who, admittedly, had no experience in the field of health care. She was completely, totally, undeniably unqualified for such an undertaking and her handling of such a responsibility would reveal that clearly.

Now before I delve into this particular matter I want to express that the issue of Hillarycare is probably one of the least significant items in this piece. That being said I still feel it necessary to address because the whole almost two-year process of establishing Hillarycare was not without controversy, but more importantly, it addresses the issue of healthcare in America, which is always a key issue when elections come around. The recent implementation of Obamacare has been helpful to some and a burden to others and thus it is hardly a permanent solution to our healthcare problems. This means that the next President is going to have a lot on his/her table when it comes to matters of healthcare. Hillarycare is an example of Hillary Clinton’s previous activities into this field and thus this experience bears a lot of validity in terms of her run for the Presidency.

Practically everyone was hostile when, shortly after his inauguration, President Clinton announced that his wife Hillary would be heading the group that would reconfigure America’s current health care system. The task force put together on this matter operated in extreme secrecy, secrecy by even the standards of most government run organizations. It was puzzling as to why a task force with the focus of national healthcare would act in such a hidden capacity. It was deemed so suspicious that not only did a Federal judge threaten to hold the entire group in contempt but when all was said and done Hillary, along with other members of the task force, were fined a combined $450,000 (yes, nearly half a million) specifically for their secrecy and deception in their workings. You don’t get fined that much for making a few passive mistakes. While it isn’t known in specific details what the task force did wrong to obtain this fine, it must have been something pretty serious. And that’s not the end of it. In 1997, Bill Clinton’s Administration was levied another $286,000 in sanctions on the matter for covering up elements of what was going on while Hillary was running efforts to change the healthcare system.

The Hillarycare plan was finally unveiled in 1994. Almost immediately it was met with heavy opposition, opposition from those who mattered most be it doctors, hospitals, patients, politicians and even a good number of Democrats had troubles with it. The plan was described as extremely complicated and confusing. Reportedly the objective of the plan was to establish a form of universal healthcare, but there were several catches to the overall plan. One of the hoped for objectives included something called ‘managed competition’ in which once the plan was put in motion it would force changes in the market as well as government regulations, which would ultimately force doctors to compete for patients, forcing them to make compromises on medical costs, which would in turn make healthcare more affordable. The only issue is that this was a “desired” result, without any absolute certainty that it would happen. Thus, a key component of Hillarycare was riding on an uncertainty.

This uncertainty was hardly the only hitch in the plan, which included a calling for “gate keepers’, which, in essence, means that when people become new to the healthcare system they are at the mercy of the doctors and nurses they encounter that first time as far as how they are induced into the healthcare system. This leaves little power in the hands of the patients. The issue is further complicated by the fact that the plan also called for a limit on choices for doctors, something that’s a very crucial issue to all people. And, of course, the plan called for new taxes, as well as a raise in some current taxes. This latter of the bunch is to be expected in pursuits of universal healthcare, but likely not what the people wanted to hear. The plan was ultimately shot down almost as quickly as it was announced. The whole thing was a wash, costing the taxpayers in excess of $32 million. It’s possible the plan was done with good intentions but it clearly had problems and fell under deep scrutiny for its secrecy and revealed further the fact of the matter that Hillary was not well versed in the field of healthcare.

With healthcare being a key issue in regards to the 2016 Presidential election, as it is in every election, Hillary has taken full advantage of the opportunity to boast of her past efforts in healthcare. Without acknowledging the colossal failure that Hillarycare turned out to be, Hillary has multiple times boasted that her plan was Obamacare before Obamacare existed. This is a total misnomer that makes people think that she will be a major advocate as President in the realm of national healthcare. However, it doesn’t take a thorough examination to recognize drastic differences between the two approaches to healthcare. What’s particularly interesting is that Obamacare is more a takeoff on healthcare reform that occurred in Massachusetts brought forth by 2012 Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney. The greatest deception on the part of this argument is the notion that Hillary understands healthcare better than most because she has a track record on it dating back to the early 90s. However, the flip on that is the simple fact that her one healthcare experience left much to be desired. Her plan also was a universal plan that would effect everyone and thus alter the current healthcare status of every American, whereas Obamacare focused more on the uninsured sect of the population (while granted it effected those who already had insurance as well). Under Hillarycare it’s also unlikely anywhere near as many low income families would have received cheap or free healthcare like they have under Obamacare. This would mean that lots of Americans who could not afford insurance during the attempted inception of Hillarycare would have likely had to obtain health coverage and pay for it (a price many people would not have been able to pay). Lord only knows how much havoc and civil unrest this would have created had Hillarycare been implemented. And regardless which way one looks at it, neither plan is a plausible permanent solution to a major problem, only Obamacare has actually been moderately successful.

FILEGATE

Filegate is one of the more obscure scandals involving Hillary Clinton when we think of Whitewater in the past and all the way up to the Bengazi and Emailgate scandals of today, but it was a very significant scandal (especially when one considers the fact that Hillary orchestrated the whole thing). More likely that not, President Bill was totally behind this scheme as well, but Hillary was its coordinator. Filegate came to be early in Bill’s Administration. Will a plethora of scandals to their past and even a few on the outset of Bill’s entry into the White House, the Clintons had much to fear and likely felt the need to protect themselves in case any enemies on the other sides of the tracks (meaning the Republicans) were to come out about a given scandal.

In response to this, Hillary brought on Craig Livingston to be the head of the White House Office of Personal Security. Livingston was hardly qualified for the job. In fact, he wasn’t qualified for any jobs in the White House. Like most of Bill Clinton’s friends, Livingston had a past history of drug use and drug distribution and actually had been working as a bouncer before making the big leap to working for the President, and more importantly, the First Lady. Livingston also had no hurdles to cross as far as being cleared to work at such an iconic location seeing as right after Bill went into office he go rid of drug checks for White House staff (after all, even he was on drugs).

Under Hillary’s guidance, Livingston managed to obtain records on over 900 presumed or potential enemies to Bill and his Presidency. Every single one of these documents was obtained illegally from the FBI. Along with Livingston, Deputy White House Counsel, William Kennedy, another close friend of the Clinton’s before the White House, was also making contacts on Hillary’s behalf to the FBI as far as obtaining documents on various people. His connections to Hillary go back to the Rose Law Firm. These documents included deep personal and sensitive information about individuals, many of which were tied to or were considered cronies to George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan during their Presidencies. In obtaining these documents however, Hillary was violating the Privacy Act of 1974, which specifically prevents an invasion of anyone’s personal privacy via the misuse of records involving that said anyone by Federal agencies (as well as Federal people in this matter) Thus the FBI was complacent in this illegal action and this illegally obtained information went right up the line to Hillary.

The purpose in obtaining this information is rather clear: in order to prevent the most dangerous and aggressive forces from the right from revealing any Clinton scandals or potentially creating new ones that could threaten their state in the White House, Hillary struck first by having this information gathered. She increased her criminal activity by having this private information disseminated among members of the Democratic National Committee to have on hand in case it needed to be used. The objective would be to use the information they had either in smear campaigns or possibly as a means for blackmail. This clear intent only furthers the scandalous nature of Filegate. Former senior FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene, who worked at the White House, served as a key whistleblower against Hillary on this matter. He provided many articles of evidence against her including a memo produced that showed it was Hillary who pressured to have Livingston come on and work at the White House and it was she who ran the operation with Livingston as her second hand man so to speak. Sculimbrene presented this to a Senate Judiciary Committee, definitive evidence of lawbreaking (among other things), and yet the Committee did nothing to hold Hillary accountable for her actions.

What is most intriguing about Filegate, at least to me, is the fact that it’s such an obscure Clinton scandal (in a long list of them). It’s so obscure that most people have never heard of it and even today, despite the evidence, there are articles being published in an effort to sanitize the scandal and make it like it never happened. I’ve seen articles claiming that the whole event was a total fabrication perpetrated by the Republicans, and yet the main whistleblower was an FBI agent chosen to work at the White House for the Clintons (I highly doubt he was a staunch Republican). Despite the passiveness most seem to have on this matter, what was Filegate to it’s simplest core: it was an individual, representative of the White House and a Presidential Administration, who had other individuals illegally obtain documents so as to gain information against individuals of the opposite party to be used against them if necessary. Sound familiar? On June 17, 1972 individuals connected to the current Presidential Administration at that time illegally went to try and obtain documents against members their opposing party so as to be able to use them against those members. This event is known as the Watergate Break-In. This was one of the most iconic political scandals in our nations history. It brought down a President, leading Richard Nixon to become the first and only Commander in Chief to resign the American Presidency. Hillary Clinton had effectively done the same damn thing! And yet where is the hoopla? Where is the clamoring for her to resign politics? Where’s the Senate hearings? Where’s the American anger? Where are our demands to get this crooked individual out of the White House?

Sure, I know reading this will baffle many. How could you possibly compare this little Filegate whatever it was to Watergate? Well, again, because it was the same thing. Only people back then fought to know the truth and brought a corrupt Presidential Administration to its knees. Apparently now when somebody does this they are promoted for the Presidency instead of being driven away from it. And in many ways what Hillary did with Filegate is worse than what Nixon did with Watergate. Nixon did not orchestrate Watergate but rather learned of it afterward and was forced to resign due to his involvement in the covering up of that scandal. But on Hillary’s side, she ran this scandal from the very beginning and has been, obviously, a willing participant in it’s cover up.

So if Nixon left the White House in shame, what happened to Hillary after the Filegate scandal was revealed? Absolutely nothing! The matter was investigated by three different governmental bodies (the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, a Senate Judiciary Committee, and during the Watergate investigation). In 1998 Hillary were exonerated of any wrongdoing in the Filegate scandal, even after inalienable proof had been presented against her. Even today as efforts are still being made to make her pay for this crime nothing is being done because every effort to bring charges against her is being blocked by the courts. It must be nice to have friends in high places like that. Two years after this exoneration, in 2000, a “final” report was released on Filegate that also exonerated Hillary of any wrongdoing and stated as their conclusion that there was no credible evidence of any criminal activity on her part. Clearly those that composed this report don’t know much about investigating. Once more: another scandal and another denial of justice.

This was hardly the only time that the Clinton’s attempted to use controversial means to attack their potential enemies. They were also known, while Bill was in the White House, for directing the IRS to audit or harass anyone they deemed an enemy including members of the Republican Party, members of the National Rifle Association (NRA), and various other conservative groups. And beyond this, President Clinton himself had the IRS audit several of the woman who had come out claiming to have had affairs with him, including Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones. And as Secretary of State several years later, Hillary used the same tactics she used in Filegate in gathering deep personal information on various foreign diplomats and United Nations officials among others. This information gathered included, but was not limited to, personal email addresses, credit card numbers, fingerprint date, personal work schedules, and internet usernames. So clearly Hillary has embraced the old adage, don’t mess with perfection. If corruption in this matter works once, it’ll probably work again.

THE DEATH OF VINCENT FOSTER

As mentioned previously in this piece, one of the tragic highlights of the Bill Clinton Presidency was the death of his Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster. Foster joined Clinton at the White House, despite being reluctant to do so, in early 1993. Months later, on July 20, 1993, Foster’s body was discovered in Fort Marcy Park just outside of Washington, apparently the result of suicide.This particular event is one of the most revealing in terms of both the crookedness of the Clinton White House as well as the crookedness of Hillary Clinton herself.

Vincent Foster was born and grew up in the same town as Bill Clinton. The two were actually childhood friends. Foster went on to attend Vanderbilt University and later graduated from the University of Arkansas law school in 1971. Shortly after graduating he was hired on and maintained a rather lucrative position at the Rose Law Firm. It was here where he met Hillary Clinton (or Hillary Rodham at the time), who was a staffer for the law firm. In fact, it was Foster who got Hillary hired on to a full time position with Rose. The two were close from that moment on until his death some twenty years later. By a stroke of fortune Hillary happened to marry one of Foster’s childhood friends and the Clintons and the Fosters were brought together on a very direct and personal level. And when Bill Clinton won the 1992 Presidential election he brought Foster with him to the White House, making him the House’s lead counsel.

On July 20th Foster reportedly left his office around 1 p.m. and would not be seen again for another five and half hours when his body was discovered several miles from the White House in Fort Marcy Park (in Virginia). Theories abound that Foster may have actually taken his own life in his car outside the White House or possibly in the White House itself, and to avoid the embarrassment or harsh suspicion over having a high ranking member of the President’s cabinet take his own life on the White House grounds his body was secretly removed and relocated somewhere else to create the impression that he took his own life there instead. But as the official story goes, Foster had been dead for a couple hours when he was discovered at 6:30 p.m. at Fort Marcy Park suggesting he, more or less, drove directly there from the White House and then took his life. Why he would go to such a nondescript location a good distance from the White House and his home in the Washington D.C. area is very puzzling. It appears as though his plan to take his own life was already in the works in his mind before leaving the White House but he decided to take a long drive when there were a number of isolated parks he could have gone to to commit suicide privately that were closer.

When Foster’s body was found he was discovered laying perfectly flat on his back along a small dirt hill next to one of two old canons that stood in the park. Officially he was found with a handgun still in his hand and a bullet wound through his head going through the front and exploding out the back. The event was considered a suicide even before the initial examination of the death scene was completed. Within hours high ranking officials and the media were reporting that Foster’s death was a probable suicide. The park police who reported to the scene also said that the death was a suicide and this was before they had even finished examining the handgun which could have possibly revealed the event was a homicide. This initial presumption that the death was a suicide continued to rule the day as a major investigation was undertaken and, like most political investigations into mysterious deaths, the whole investigation was riddled with inaccuracies, leaks and ineptitude. The final official take on the shooting was… surprise… a suicide.

Once the final report on the official investigation into Foster’s death was released the matter was presumed put to rest, but it wasn’t remotely the definitive account of what actually happened. One of the greatest downfalls and absurdities of this death investigation was that, even with it being the death (and possible homicide) of a high ranking White House official (the highest ranking White House official to die under mysterious circumstances since President John F. Kennedy), the FBI was prevented from conducting the initial death investigation. Why they would be kept from running such an investigation is utterly mind-boggling… unless, of course, there was something to hide regarding Foster’s death. Instead, this high profile crime was put in the hands of the park police, who neither had the experience nor the means to properly and diligently investigate such a crime. This sort of ineptitude reminds one of the autopsy performed on President Kennedy when he died. The two pathologists put in charge of his autopsy, the autopsy of the century, were not even experienced autopsists. And as a result the whole autopsy was a shambles and even today we are left in utter confusion as to what really happened to President Kennedy’s body. The investigation into Vincent Foster’s death was obviously a shambles as well as the park police maintained all along that his death was a suicide just like everyone else. However, there is extensive evidence to show that Foster did not commit suicide at Fort Marcy Park, but rather he was murdered and his body was dumped there at the site of his discovery.

At the top of the list is the question of motive in terms of why Foster would want to take his own life. Granted some White House personnel felt he appeared stressed with some of the goings on since taking on work there, but aside from that there is little reason to believe he was troubled enough to take his own life. In the immediate aftermath of his death practically everyone he knew, including Hillary, said that he wasn’t depressed and that they couldn’t think of any reason why he would want to commit suicide. That week he had even talked to his family about wanting to purchase a boat, and his extended family was coming in to town to visit (thus it was a very peculiar day and time for him to want to take his own life, even if he had become suicidal). Of course, this was overshadowed by lies and inaccuracies put forward by the media that tried to present the idea that Foster was overwhelmed and driven to depression by his job and that he was taking anti-depressant medication to deal with the issue. Even with this claim that he was on medication for his depression, his toxicology report after he died showed no drugs of any kind in his system.

A suicide note had reportedly been left behind by Foster, which again would suggest premeditation on his part in terms of thinking out the suicide. Oddly enough, when the suicide note was discovered it had been ripped into twenty-seven pieces and put back together with one of the ripped pieces having never been recovered. When the note was examined it took investigators not long to realize it was a forgery. This was bolstered by the fact that, even though presumably written by Foster, he left no fingerprints of any kind on the note.

The most revealing aspects that this was a crooked investigation of a homicide, and not a suicide, is the crime scene itself. Everything about it shows that Foster’s body had been staged there after being killed elsewhere. And this is very important with regards to the event being connected back to Hillary, which will be discussed a little later. So let us jump into the crime scene:

First off, it is of the most importance to understand Foster’s head wound, which officially was an entry would through the front of Foster’s face leading to a blown out exit would out the back of his head. Such would be typical of an attempted suicide. This official explanation of Foster’s wounds however overshadows the fact that multiple people who reported to the crime scene in the moments after Foster’s body was discovered said that he also had a wound in the side of his neck. This led some to believe that his wound was through the neck and face instead of the face and the back of the head. There were also polaroids taken of the crime scene that showed the wound in the side of Fosters neck, but of course these polaroids have been suppressed and kept from the public. In fact, this wound was so suppressed that even in Foster’s autopsy there was no mention of it. This could lead people to presume that the whole neck wound was merely a fabrication because who can argue against official autopsy results, right? Well, to this I reference back to President Kennedy’s autopsy again, wherein personnel discovered a wound in the President’s back that felt like it had no exit point. Officially this was the entry wound for a bullet that existed President Kennedy’s throat. The throat wound had been destroyed by a tracheotomy given to the President in the effort to try and save his life. His autopsists had no idea that there had been a wound where the tracheotomy was and no doctors or official personnel told them of this wound and thus the whole autopsy was done without any knowledge of one of the President wounds. That’s how inept the whole process was, and it is further evidence that wounds can go undetected in an autopsy, no matter how high ranking the person is being worked on, for a variety of reasons, but mostly out of either incompetence or because of a political cover up of some time. In Kennedy’s case I believe it was a little of both. In Foster’s case? It’s difficult to say.

Furthermore, an FBI report from a doctor who looked at Foster after he was discovered said that Foster had no exit wound, which would imply this exit wound out the back of his head was not there. This gives further credence to the idea that he was wounded in the neck, either as an entry or exit wound. In the end, as with many suspicious deaths of high ranking people, there are all sorts of problems and inconsistencies with Vincent Foster’s wounds.

To make matters even worse, there was no blood, skull or brain matter discovered anywhere in the vicinity of Foster’s body. This is absurd and implausible, to put it lightly, in the case of a man committing suicide by shooting himself through the head with a high-powered handgun. Even if he had simply stabbed himself or taken his own life in a somewhat less explosive manner, there would have been some blood on the scene. But in this case there was no blood from the blown out back of the head wound to be found. The fact that Foster was discovered flat on his back makes this even more confusing, because if such was the case, and he had shot himself on site, he would have fallen back with the back of his head falling flat on the ground and blood wound have drained out right there. It’s a disturbing notion to ponder, but when one commits suicide by gunshot wound to the head, it is an explosively bloody mess. In 1987 R. Bud Dwyer was the state treasurer for the state of Pennsylvania. He had been framed up for taking bribes, a case he was totally innocent on but still about to spend the rest of his life in prison over. On January 22nd he called a press conference on the matter and, on live television, he pulled a handgun from an envelope and shot himself through the mouth. In a suicide comparable to Vincent Foster’s, and I’ve seen the video (I don’t recommend it to the faint of heart), Dwyer collapsed to the ground and blood drained out of his nose and mouth and back of his head like a ruptured fire hydrant. If one sees this, first hand, what a bloody tragic mess a suicide of this nature is they will understand how impossible it would be for there to be no blood at the Foster death scene. This is a critical piece of evidence to the fact that Foster was not killed there at Fort Marcy Park, but rather somewhere else. He bled out at that location and by the time he was placed on scene at the park there was little to no blood to come out. The fact that he was presumably shot at point blank range by a high-powered handgun only proved further that had Foster been shot right there there would have been blood splatter all around where he was found.

This is a disturbing aspect of the death to speak about but it’s highly critical when understanding the fact, not theory, that Vincent Foster was killed elsewhere and placed at his “death site”. To add further fuel to this fire is the strange way in which Foster’s body was found, again flat on his back like he was sleeping there. In most suicide scenes the bodies of the fallen are often crumpled up or leaning one way or another. But in Foster’s case he appears laid out flat. Also, nobody in the neighborhood of the park heard the shot that reportedly killed Foster. That said, practically nobody living in the neighborhood surrounding the park was even spoken to during the official investigation about what they might have seen or heard, even though this would be one of the most basic objective of a crime scene investigation. At the same time however, interviewing these potential eyewitnesses would have likely opened up a whole can of worms that the powers that be would have preferred to be kept clasped shut.

Another key element of the case, showing that Foster had not been killed in the park is the fact that the bullet Foster supposedly fired through his head was never recovered. This was after an intensive search of the park was conducted, a search so intensive that it turned up dozens of pieces of metal, some dating all the way back to the Civil War! They found Civil War metal from more than 125 years before but they couldn’t find a bullet that had been fired that day? This shows again that Foster was shot elsewhere. Think of it logically: how many gunshot suicides have a crime scene where none of the bullet(s) fired are found?

Then there are complications with the gun that was used, that it likely was not the murder weapon. First off, much like the killing bullet, there’s reason to believe Foster did not have a gun with him either. The first witness to find his body was adamant that he did not have a gun with him, and yet in a crime scene photograph the gun can clearly be seen in what can only be presumed to be Foster’s hand. No witness could have missed such an obviously and visible weapon. This photograph of the gun in Foster’s hand, beyond the fact that only Foster’s lower arm can be seen in the picture (and thus is could be anyone holding the gun), his hand and the gun can be seen resting on heavy foliage and yet the location he was found on was a dirt hill. Two different places.

Independent investigators were also baffled by the fact that the weapon would even still be in Foster’s hand after he fired it. The gun reportedly used was a .38 Colt revolver, a fairly powerful handgun that likely would have ejected from Foster’s hand upon shooting and incapacitating him. Detectives and investigators, used to investigation suicides via handguns, claimed they’ve practically never seen a suicide scene wherein the victim still had the gun in their hand, especially from a point blank shot through the head. And yet Foster still somehow held on to the gun.

But if the oddity of Foster still holding on to the gun isn’t troubling enough, when the gun was examined there were no prints from Foster on it. This is astounding since there is an official crime scene photograph reportedly showing his handing holding on to the gun. How can a man hold onto a gun and then leave no fingerprints? This further suggests the photograph of the gun in Foster’s hand is showing a gun in someone else’s hands. But, more importantly, with none of Foster’s prints left on the gun, it’s abundantly clear that he did not use that weapon to commit suicide. And if that is the case then one must wonder why this weapon has been pushed as the suicide weapon. If it is the weapon that killed Foster than obviously it was held by another person who shot him… again: murder. What is interesting about this angle is the fact that there was a set of prints found on the gun belonging to someone else. And despite all of these oddities creating reasonable doubt against the notion that Foster took his own life, there was no effort made to discover whose prints these were. Astonishing! So to this point we have no killing bullet, we have no blood and we have a gun used to commit suicide that was not held by the individual committing the suicide. And to think… this was an ‘open and shut’ case.

Furthermore, if the gun did not have any of Foster’s prints on it, how could it have been his gun. Officially he used the handgun that he owned to kill himself. This Colt “found” in his hand was black. Foster’s own handgun was silver. In a great bout of crookedness, when the “suicide weapon” was shown to Foster’s wife she reportedly identified it as her husband’s gun. But what really happened was she was shown a silver hand gun, not the official handgun. She said it looked like her husband’s gun. This was used as a positive identification of the black gun that is said to have killed Foster. Key question is why would they not show Foster’s wife the real gun?

One final definitive aspect of the case, proving that Foster had been killed elsewhere, involves how he managed to reach the park. Remember that when he was found at 6:30 p.m. he was determined to have been dead there for hours, ball parking his death as happening between 1 and 3 p.m. On top of that, the presumption is that he drove to the park from the White House. But there are problems with this simple explanation. First off, when Foster was first found his car keys were not on his person. How then did he managed to drive himself to the park? Simple answer: he didn’t and he couldn’t have. On top of that, a significant witness against the official story was a man named Patrick Knowlton, who was at Fort Marcy Park approximately an hour before Foster’s body was discovered (and thus after he was already dead). Knowlton stated when he was at the park that Foster’s car was not there. Hence again, Foster could not have driven himself to the park. Once more, he was transported by other means after he was killed elsewhere. Foster’s car then was obviously relocated there around the time his body was discovered. Another witness on the scene around the time of the discovery of Foster’s body said that he saw Foster’s coat in another vehicle parked in the lot with a suspicious man standing close by. After reporting this, and when he was called to testify to a grand jury, Knowlton found himself mercilessly harassed in an effort to effect his decision to testify.

This eyewitness account of a suspicious man was just one of many around Fort Marcy Park. In addition to Knowlton, another witness mentioned seeing a suspicious, threatening man in the park. When this witness reported their sighting to investigators on the case they told him to not tell anyone and afterward the FBI altered his statement of what he saw. Surely there was nothing about this case that needed covering up (excessive sarcasm implied). Todd Hall, one of the first paramedics to arrive on the scene, stated that he saw two suspicious men who appeared to be fleeing through the woods in the park. Others claimed that they saw men, dressed in matching red vests, fleeing from the park around the time Foster’s body was discovered. Lots of strange people wandering around one park at a very critical time. Potentially most damaging, two other witnesses stated they saw Foster’s car in the lot around the time of his discovery with a man sitting inside. There was another man with long blond hair standing at the front end of the car. This is significant because there were several individual blond hairs found on Foster’s body.

All of these aspects put together clearly show that the official declaration of suicide in the case of Vincent Foster was a total coverup of a homicide that occurred elsewhere and culminated with his body being left at a public park and set up as a suicide location. Now why does this case matter? Why is it of such great significance that it needed to be gone into such detail over while we are discussing the background of Hillary Clinton? Well, you are about to see.

THE AFTERMATH OF VINCENT FOSTER’S DEATH

It is known that the relationship between Hillary Clinton and Vincent Foster dates back to the early 1970s. The Fosters and Clintons were always linked close together literally up until his death. And this is why the death of Foster figured heavily into the life and career of Hillary Clinton.

Beyond their professional career together there have been extensive claims that Hillary and Foster had a secretive romantic relationship together dating back years. This was Hillary’s little secret infidelity, dwarfed by her husband’s vast and uncontrollable affairs. There are more than enough accounts provided to give merit to this claim that Hillary and Foster were romantic together. Several Arkansas State Troopers, who were always working for the Clintons while Bill was governor, stated having seen the two being romantic together with Foster even showing affection to Hillary in public places when they felt nobody was watching. These same officers took notice that practically every time Bill was out of town that Hillary would have Foster over and that he would stay the night. In particular, Arkansas trooper L.D. Brown, one of the closest troopers to the Clintons, stated that he had seen Hillary and Foster numerous times cuddled together being affectionate and kissing one another. Even the Clinton’s Whitewater confidante Jim McDougal stated that it was common knowledge to many, including Bill, that Hillary and Foster had been romantic with one another. And one must remember that when McDougal was about to appear to testify what he knew from past dealings with the Clintons he was obviously killed off to prevent him from speaking.

This familial closeness between Hillary and Foster had obviously taken a sour turn once Bill was elected President. Several people had seen Hillary snap at Foster on multiple occasions, instances that apparently had a devastating effect on him. While Bill Clinton had carried on affairs with endless people, he had successfully managed to keep them under wraps once entering the White House. And at that time most of these women with whom he’d had affairs with either didn’t work at the White House or, if awarded jobs in order to keep quiet about their indiscretions, they were lower end jobs. But Hillary’s affair had been with a man who was now the chief counsel of the White House. Had this affair been discovered it would have been an immediate scandal at the very beginning of Bill’s Presidency. And even in that first year the Clinton’s had already added more to their endless list of scandals and corruption. Though this would present a potential motive for Hillary to want Vincent Foster out of the way, the fact that they had a secretive relationship is not definitive proof that she would have or at least be involved in having Foster killed. And by this point it is obvious that Foster was murdered and his murder was so closely linked to the White House that the investigation into the matter reached conclusions that were obviously fraudulent. This fact makes it practically impossible to believe that both Bill and Hillary didn’t at least know who killed Foster, even if they were somehow not involved. They would still be accessories in this fact anyway.

But there were further reasons to suggest why Bill and Hillary Clinton might want to have their once close friend out of the way, and in a way that would perceivably not be tied back to them. And these reasons suggest premeditation, obstruction of justice and thus, obviously, direct involvement on the part of Hillary Clinton.

Hillary couldn’t even get her story straight when asked the very simple question of when it was she spoke to Vincent Foster last. If she was unsure about the answer she could have easily said as much, but she didn’t do that. She did what she was great at: she lied. She recalled the last time that she spoke to Foster having been over the phone on the weekend of Father’s Day, which would have been around the 20th of June, a month before Foster died. This is a surprisingly long time for the two to go without seeing one another, especially with both working in the White House. However, this lie was blown out of the water when Foster’s assistant, Tom Catleton, testified that he had seen Hillary at Foster’s office to see him at least four or five times in that last month before he died. Castletown wasn’t hired until right after Father’s Day, thus Hillary’s claims of last speaking to Foster over the phone a month before his death was grossly inaccurate.

Now if Hillary had prior knowledge to the death of Vincent Foster it would show her complacency and involvement in the event, for if Foster had legitimately decided to commit suicide how could anyone beside himself know exactly when he was going to kill himself? And if Hillary was such an upstanding individual and so caring of Foster she most certainly would have admitted to it if she had definitive reason to believe that Foster was about to kill himself when he did. Obviously this did not happen. So if Hillary had prior knowledge it was knowledge that Foster was going to be murdered, which makes her directly involved in the murder of a high ranking White House official.

The most outrageous aspect of the immediate aftermath of Foster’s death is the fact that less than 30 minutes after his body was discovered and first reported there were members of White House personnel breaking into and ransacking his office! If this isn’t blatant evidence that Foster was murdered I don’t know what is. Individuals within the White House were prepared for this event and the moment it came to be they took action. This ransacking of his office was done specifically to remove sensitive and incriminating documents from the office. These documents included detailed information on the Clintons crooked dealings throughout the 80s. How convenient; the moment Foster is out of the way and his office is being looted. What is even more incriminating is that the three individuals who went through the office were all closely connected to the Clintons. One was Bernard Nussbaum, who actually worked with Hillary way back when she was on the Judicial Committee on Watergate, so they went back even further than Nussbaum and Bill did. Nussbaum was, at that time, the Counsel to the President, a high level position. With him was Patsy Thomison, the White Houses Administration Director, who had worked close with Bill and Hillary Clinton long before they arrived at the White House. And finally, Hillary’s own personal Chief of Staff, Margaret Williams, was the third individual going through Foster’s office. So not only is Foster’s office being rummaged through immediately after his death was reported, but it was being done by three people who were more closely connected to Hillary than anyone, even Bill!

This ransacking of Foster’s office was clearly illegal. It was breaking and entering as well as the stealing of (sensitive) documents from said office. In most cases, particularly in the case of the death of a high ranking White House official, one of the first things that is done is locations of significance connected to that individual should be sealed off. After all, if said official was killed off, it could potentially be for a reason that would lead his/her perpetrator to want to take something of theirs. In this regard, Foster’s office should have been immediately sealed off. But instead the opposite occurred and it was left unblocked so that it could be broken into. And, of course, none of these three individuals were taken to task or charged for what they did, which was criminal in its most basic form. Why?

And what did the First Lady of the nation have to say about this? She played her same old game when questioned about the ransacking of Foster’s office she claimed she had no idea that is had occurred (and obviously that she played no part in it). On top of this she attempted to downplay the break in by saying that no documents had been removed from the office. How could she have known this though if she had no hand in the matter? With the fact that documents had been removed from the office, if she had even done a novice analysis of the situation she would have known that documents had been removed. But obviously she wanted to bury this issue in that the documents removed were very sensitive and thus included information she would assume not come to light. And this was not the end of the illegal searches of Foster’s office. Two days after this first break in, another intensive search was conducted in his office, obviously to make sure that nothing had been overlooked the first time.

One could assume Hillary’s statements on this matter, which was captured on television, were definitive enough to suggest this was an incident distant from her (especially if one is an avid Hillary supporter). However, when Margaret Williams was called to testify under oath on her involvement in the break in of Foster’s office, she stated outright that not only had she removed documents from the office but that she had been told specifically by Hillary to break into his office. This is incredibly damaging against Hillary in that it implies as a whole that she was responsible for organizing this break in. And there is no reason to believe that Williams would lie on this matter. One, she worked for and was a supporter of Hillary Clinton, and thus for what reason would she make something up that would damage the First Lady’s credibility? And two, again, she made these statements under oath. Thus, had she lied she would have been committing perjury which would have made her subject to a minimum five-year prison sentence. So she would have had no motivation to lie in this statement whereas, on the flip side, Hillary would have had an extensive motivation to be deceptive on this matter. This is critical, because in blatantly lying and expressing that she did not know of the break in she was committing obstruction of justice. Furthermore, much like in the case of Filegate, Hillary coordinated another Watergate-like break in and, being a Clinton and the First Lady, she obviously faced no consequences for this.

But why would Hillary Clinton lie? Especially if she was innocent of the event? Well, her direct request of these members of the White House to break into Foster’s office immediately after his death not only shows she had something to hide, but it also shows that she played such a close hand in his death that she not only knew when he would die but also practically the moment when his death would be reported. Even though she was on the west coast, over 3,000 miles away from the White House, she managed to order these people into Foster’s office within twenty minutes of when Foster’s death was first reported. The White House didn’t know of Foster’s death till 6:45 p.m. at the earliest and by 7 p.m. Nussbaum, Thomison and Williams were on their way to Foster’s office. And in being on the west coast, Hillary wouldn’t have known about Foster’s death till after 6:45 p.m. if she was totally innocent on the matter.

While in Los Angeles Hillary was in the midst of a multi-day trip in the city. But when she first heard about Foster’s death she immediately made plans to leave L.A. even though she still had a couple more days of planned activities in the city. But what is most intriguing is that, if Hillary left immediately because of hearing about Foster’s death, one would assume she would have flown directly back to Washington. However, she instead flew back to Arkansas, arriving at the state capitol, Little Rock. Why would Hillary travel to Arkansas in response to Vince Foster’s death? In fact, why would she immediately depart to Arkansas regardless? Why would she have any reason really to return to a state she was no longer a representative for and, furthermore, a state she detested her whole time living there? It is important to note that Little Rock was the location of the Rose Law Firm, where both Hillary and Foster had worked together for years. There were also numerous sensitive and revealing documents in care of Foster located there as well. This is the only viable explanation for why Hillary would leave L.A. presumably because of hearing about Foster’s death and then not go directly to Washington.

Arkansas has even more to offer in regards to Hillary and the idea of prior knowledge regarding in regards to when Vince Foster would die. While the White House reportedly didn’t learn until 6:45 p.m. of Foster’s death, Arkansas trooper Roger Perry, another trooper who was closely connected with the Clinton’s, stated that at 6 p.m. he got a call from White House aide, Helen Dickey, in which he was told that Foster, whom he likely knew while he worked in Arkansas, had left his office and shot himself in the parking lot of the White House. Dickey had been Chelsea Clinton’s nanny while they lived in Arkansas and knew trooper Perry, thus it makes sense that this phone call would have taken place had Dickey heard of the shooting. And if Perry was alerted to this around 6 p.m. then this means Dickey knew about it even earlier. And again the official story is nobody at the White House knew until 6:45 p.m.

Another Arkansas trooper, closely connected to the Clintons, L.D. Patterson, claimed that he too had been informed of Foster’s death before his body was found, claiming that he learned of it at 6:15 p.m. via a phone call from Perry. This adds credibility to the time figure trooper Perry provided for when he learned of the death. Dickey would later claim it was several hours after this when she called Perry. There would, of course, be reason to believe that she would’ve had pressure put on her by White House personnel to alter her account making it sound like she told Perry of the shooting long after Foster’s body was found. But even then why would she repeat such an obviously inaccurate account as to how Foster died? Obviously she had heard this from someone else in the White House whose premeditative knowledge of Foster’s death would go back even further than hers.

Next, Perry stated that he called the former head of the state police, Lynn Davis, and told him the news of Foster. Davis himself said this call occurred no later than 6:30 p.m., which would still be too early as this was right when Foster’s body was found. None of these three individuals were contacted during the investigation into Foster’s death as their testimony would obviously have implied premeditated knowledge of Foster’s death.

Now one could obviously play the devil’s advocate and point out that these troopers were all in Arkansas, in another time zone from Washington D.C. and thus they would be an hour behind in time. Thus 6 p.m. for them would be 7 p.m. Washington time. In this regard it can be argued that Perry heard about it minutes after the White House, and potentially Dickey, would have heard about it. But in these statements the troopers made it clear that the time figures were in regards to Washington time. So that little theory can be nipped in the bud before anyone tries to run too far with it.

Months after Foster’s death, and a suicide conclusion reached that was mired by controversy, a massive investigation was announced for the start of 1994 to take place. On January 20th, when the head of the investigation was named and the process was ready to begin a massive spree of document shredding began at the Rose Law Firm with documents pertaining to Foster being destroyed. One worker at the firm, Jeremy Edges, openly stated that he had been told to shredding documents specifically pertaining to Vincent Foster. This was a clear case of obstruction of justice, as well as the destruction of documents/evidence, and it was at a location wherein Hillary Clinton and Foster had worked close together for years. When this document shredding was put to Hillary, as usual, she played stupid and claimed she knew nothing about it and went so far as to proclaim that there was no way such a thing could be going on. But she was knowingly wrong.

In this regard we must also be reminded of the Whitewater investigation, in which Hillary was able to avoid providing billing and repayment documents in the case because they had been in Foster’s office and had gone missing (which meant they were stolen when Foster’s office was ransacked). Thus, Hillary claimed that she couldn’t turn over these documents since they were stolen, but she was the one who had them stolen! And again, after the investigation was over and the Clintons were cleared, this documentation was found to have been in the Clintons home with Hillary’s finger prints on them. This is direct proof that at least some of the documentation that was removed from Foster’s office was taken directly to Hillary. So now we have clear evidence not only that Hillary called for the break in, but that she obtained some if not all of the items that were stolen personally. Funny, when Watergate, another office break in, occurred it happened independently of President Nixon’s knowledge and yet he has gone down in disgrace as a result of it. But Hillary Clinton actually requests the same thing, an illegal governmental office break in, and she not only got away with it, but now she is being considered a viable Presidential candidate.

All of these things considered, it is abundantly clear that Vincent Foster was murdered, and that this murder was conducted be individuals at least marginally connected to the Clintons (and possibly the White House) and covered up by the same. Robert Fiske, who ran the investigation into Foster’s death had also run the investigation into the Whitewater scandal. Conveniently, the Clintons got off in both cases. There was an obvious conflict of interest regarding Fiske being in control of these two major investigations. There is also extensive evidence that Hillary had a suggestive relationship with the deceased and she behaved in such a way that shows not only that she had knowledge of his death but that she had a deeper motivation to be all right with Foster shuffling off of this mortal coil. This is the fact that he obviously knew too much and had too much knowledge of the crooked Clintons; scandal after scandal that could easily come to light in the future not only threatening the Clinton Presidency, but also Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign in 1996 and any plans Hillary might have had, and ultimately did have, regarding her own Presidential ambitions. This threat was conveniently all but gone with Foster deceased and any potentially damaging documentation against the Clintons being removed from his office (and, of course, later from his former law firm).

HILLARY AND WACO

The background of Hillary Clinton and Vincent Foster coupled with his suspicious death are only part of their remarkable corroboration with one another. One of the most astonishing, and sickening, aspects of their correlation together are arguments, from multiple sources, of direct involvement in the decision to invade the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas in April, 1993.

For those not in the know, the Branch Davidian compound was a large piece of property located just outside the town of Waco. The compound was primarily comprised of a large white building that housed tens of dozens of Davidian members. The leader of the compound was David Koresch, who fancied himself a prophet. Prior to the Waco siege (or rather the Waco “massacre” as it truly was) a struggle for control of the compound took place between Koresch and another member of the compound. The followers sided with Koresch leading the other member to make endless claims against the Davidians including stockpiling firearms and sodomy. This claim led the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to try and overtake the compound in February of 1993. The effort was half-cocked and unsuccessful as four ATF agents died in a failed siege of the compound.

The deaths of these four, all former bodyguards for Bill Clinton (coincidence?), were used to bolster the idea that the Branch Davidians were some sort of wild cult hell bent on taking out anyone who posed a threat to them. As time has passed and extensive examination has been done on film footage of this failed siege, it shows clearly that these four agents were sacrificed, either as a way to get rid of individuals who likely had background knowledge of the Clintons or they were sacrificed to give the ATF a good reason to go back in and blow the whole compound away.

A stand still went on for weeks with ATF and FBI members surrounding the compound on a consistent basis wherein they tormented the Davidians (for example: they kept the Davidian’s from sleeping by blaring loud music and shining spotlights on the building throughout the night). There is no evidence, even today, that one member of the Davidian complex fired a single bullet on ATF and/or FBI agents and even the claim that they were stockpiling weapons was a presumed truth without foundation. Despite all this, on April 19, 1993 the ATF finally made another move on the compound, driving a tank directly at the building, knocking one of its walls down. And all through this an agent on a loud speaker was assuring those inside that they were not being invaded. The event escalated quickly and as the tank circled and inflicted damage on the compound several fires broke out. The Davidians became trapped inside, surrounded by flames that, officially, they started themselves so as to commit a mass suicide. The compound went up in a blazing inferno that was presented life on national television. In the end everyone inside was burned to death and in investigations afterward, as is always the case, the government did their best to close the book on the case, call it a suicide and sweep the truth under the rug.

The truth is that, and there is extensive video evidence to support this, the ATF moved in and attacked the compound, despite their claims to the opposite. Multiple little explosions were seen to go off, one of which ignited a massive fireball destroying the right front of the complex almost immediately. Infrared footage captured over the compound showed gunfire coming from individuals on the tank as well as individuals on the ground. It was not a mass suicide, but rather a massacre committed at the hands of government/military personnel. That’s the most tragic aspect of the case, not just that these government agents destroyed this compound, but that they continuously opened fired on the building preventing any Davidians from escaping or surrendering. They were practically trapped and surrounded and left with the option of being shot to death or burning to death. All the women and children at the compound were found hunkered down in a shelter and had obviously made efforts to douse themselves with water and cover themselves with blankets, doing anything to protect themselves from the flames. And yet, the government has always maintained that this was a mass suicide.

This is a quick explanation into the Waco massacre. There is so much more to know and to learn and it leaves ones stomach in knots by itself. However, what twists my stomach up even further are the statements that Hillary Clinton was the one who ultimately made the call for these agents to move in and take out the compound. Now, if these claims are true, it doesn’t necessarily mean that Hillary intended for the place to go up in flames and for so many to die, but it left the door open for such an event to occur. And under the best of circumstances it was still an unlawful raid on a compound that had done practically nothing illegal and who had been harassed for weeks on end by Federal agents. No matter which way one flips it, this decision was illegal, unconstitutional and, for the sake of dropping the legal and political rhetoric, it was insane!

Question here is: how did Vincent Foster play into this matter? As it stands, the claims going forth are that it was incorrect to put the entire responsibility of the Waco siege on the shoulders of Attorney General Janet Reno, who took responsibility for the event. The claim is that she was coaxed by Foster on orders from Hillary Clinton herself. A former White House investigator on the Waco matter, T. March Belle, stated that during the process of their work they received numerous calls from the Justice Department putting pressure on Reno to take action on the compound. Belle along with other investigators working there believed that this pressure was coming directly from the First Lady, Hillary Clinton.

If these claims are true, then it adds a whole other element to the death of Vincent Foster, the ransacking of his office, and the reasons behind the cover-up of the Waco massacre. Linda Tripp, who worked at the White House, was with Foster when the massacre occurred, and watched as his completely broke down watching the compound burn on television. It was obvious that he felt personal responsibility for what occurred. Beyond this, Tripp also recalled being in the presence of Hillary when the event occurred and noticing no real reaction on her part, referring to the First Lady’s expression as “heartless”. What could all of this possibly mean for the death of Vincent Foster and Hillary Clinton’s connection to it? The Waco massacre occurred almost exactly three months before Vincent Foster’s death. Being connected to the decision-making that led to the deaths of numerous Americans one could argue his murder as being a “death of convenience”. It adds more fuel to the fire in regards to the notion that he might have been killed off because he knew too much. But what is the evidence that Waco may have played a part in Foster’s death.

First off, documents in regards to Waco were known to have been in his office. One White House staffer even referenced seeing a Waco-related document sitting on his desk. Of course, these documents went missing after his office was ransacked in the moments following his death. And we must remember that not only has it been admitted by those involved that the documents were to be delivered directly to Hillary, but many of these documents were later discovered in her possession, even after she stated that they had gone missing. This suggests that Waco was definitely at least one aspect in a likely long line of things Foster had documentation for that could seriously damage the Clintons. And with his clear distraught behavior following the Waco massacre coupled with the fact that numerous people saw Hillary behaving very coldly to him after he started his work at the White House could suggest that he may have been on the verge of divulging some if not all of what he knew.

It is known that Foster was drafting a letter in regards to Waco on the day he died! Yes, on the day he died! What kind of a man is going to start writing out documentation on such a serious and still fresh events and then go out and kill himself before finishing it? This letter was among the many documents that conveniently disappeared from his office. Now why would he be drafting a letter in regards to Waco? Was he ready to spill his guts on the matter? Did someone stumble onto the letter, possibly among other things, and bring it to the attention of the Clintons? Were they forced then to take drastic measures? It’s very possibly and not beyond the Clintons at all. Either way, there are multiple accounts stating that Hillary was put in the position to make the call on Waco and she funneled down the decision through Foster, where it ultimately reached Janet Reno, and the plan went in to motion to move in on the Branch Davidian compound.

One sees this and wonders how people, especially today with our endless fears of our rights to privacy being removed with the government monitoring us in a variety of new and different ways, feel they can trust Hillary Clinton as commander and chief and believe that our rights to freedom and privacy will be better protected. Now granted, there is no official documentation saying Hillary made the call. There’s lots of room to argue a devils advocate in this case. But even so, one cannot escape the fact that multiple people have stated it was Hillary who made the call and that Vincent Foster had documents on Waco that were stolen from his office at the request of Hillary. The motivation behind such actions is another thing that cannot definitively be established, at least at this point, but a powerful theory is that the Waco situation, which had been dominating the headlines for some two months, were distracting from what she was trying to achieve in regards to Hillarycare and getting that legislation attention and ultimately passed into law. Some, especially those in high places, believe that Hillary called for this siege on the Waco compound to end the whole thing and kill the media’s focus on it so that it could be more opened up to her works on health care. Some may call this a far-fetched theory, but remember, calling for the situation to be taken care of doesn’t mean that Hillary intended for the compound to go down in flames. However, one has to wonder how strongly she may have felt that such would occur as she stood there in the aftermath with that heartless expression on her face.

It is worth mentioning here the attacks on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which occurred exactly two years to the day after the Waco massacre (April 19, 1995). Former Desert Storm soldier Timothy McVeigh officially, distraught over the Waco siege, parked a moving truck in front of the building where a massive bomb detonated within, blowing the front wall of the building away. Like Waco, the official story is hardly accurate as there is extensive evidence of a conspiracy in the case regarding explosive charges being set in the building and the evidence that McVeigh had at least one accomplice with him that day. The Murrah Building just happened to house many sensitive files and documents on the Clintons and their past dealings. Agents were even seen by multiple witnesses pushing out filing cabinets from the building in the aftermath of the bombing. What’s most tragic is, in order to do this, the ATF made unsubstantiated claims that other bombs were discovered near the building, forcing efforts to save those trapped inside to be suspended as people were forced to move away from the bombing location. This led to several deaths that could have been prevented, just so some suspicious documents could be removed from the building. Therefore, in the two most tragic acts of mass murder in the 1990s, the Clintons were connected to both of them!

THE MURDER OF JERRY PARKS

After everything discussed in these past three sections. it may be shocking to believe but we are not yet done with the Hillary Clinton/Vincent Foster connection. Another key event that shows direct connections between Hillary and the killing of Foster are the workings and ultimate death of investigator Jerry Parks. Parks was another individual who had worked closely with the Clintons for a long time, and having been an investigator he knew a lot about the secretive dirty deeds of the Clinton’s past. His connections were, in some regards, even more in depth than Vincent Foster, as he had admitted to even helping with a few drug shipments that had passed through Mena. He knew about the cocaine parties with underaged girls. He knew about the scandals.

After years of witnessing endless corruption working for the Clintons, Parks began taking notes and pictures of the things he had seen. This culminated into a very large and revealing dossier on President Clinton, his wife Hillary, and their various corrupted cronies. Through his connections to the Clintons, Park also developed a very close relationship with Vincent Foster. Hillary had requested for Foster to tell Parks to gather extensive information and to conduct surveillance on Bill Clinton’s many various affairs to see if anything could be gained from them that could threaten his 1992 Presidential bid (and yet Hillary would claim for several years after this that she had no idea that Bill had even been unfaithful to her).

Parks continued to work for the Clintons even after Bill made it to the White House, and shortly before Foster’s death he contacted Parks, once again on the behalf of Hillary. Hillary had reportedly become very concerned about how their past scandals and Bill’s philandering could come about and effect or possibly ruin their political careers. This is highly significant in that it shows Hillary reaching a level of desperation in regards to information coming out about her and the President. We can call this behavior before the fact just a little foreshadowing on the First Lady’s part. But after Hillary expressed this to Foster, with the objective being to get in touch with Parks, Parks would respond to Hillary’s concerns by telling Foster that, based on what he had gathered, that she had a great deal to be concerned about. And, like Foster, Parks now had an extensive collection of documentation on the deepest secrets of the Clintons.

In their last correspondence with one another, only a day or two before Foster’s death, Foster had expressed a desire to hand over all the information that Parks had gathered to Hillary. But Parks was adamant that he could not do this as Hillary would be capable of doing anything with it. Obviously Parks was fearful of Hillary and that she would take these documents in an effort to suppress them. And then, suddenly, Vincent Foster was dead. When Parks heard about this he told his wife that he was a dead man. This is a critical admittance as it shows that not only was Parks clearly fearful of Hillary, but that this fear had led him to believe he did not have long to live. He clearly had the belief that Hillary was involved in the killing of Foster.

For the next few weeks Parks lived in total paranoia, taking a gun with him when he went out to check his mail and engaging in various different routes when he drove around to make sure he wasn’t being followed. He obviously felt like he was not long for this world and he, just as much as Foster, had definitely seen too much. Less than two months after Foster’s death Parks’ deepest fears came true. After going out for dinner he was driving home when at a stop another vehicle pulled up next to him. The window rolled down and someone inside the vehicle pumped several rounds into Parks, killing him almost instantly.

Before Parks’ death, just like in the case of Foster’s office, his home had been broken into and ransacked. Of course, the only thing that was taken was his massive file on the Clintons. This proves clearly that it was not a random burglary, but that it was a planned breaking and entering by someone close to the Clintons to remove potentially damaging documentation from the home. And then, as again happened in Foster’s office, his home was ransacked again, this time after his death. His home was raided by eight Federal agents representing the FBI, IRS, Secret Service and, interestingly enough, the CIA. Clearly it was of the utmost importance to those at the White House that no stone was left unturned in regards to the Parks’ household. These correlations between the deaths of these two men are remarkably similar: killed under mysterious and unsolved circumstances, they both had long histories with the Clintons and knew too much about their pasts, and their places were both ransacked twice with damaging and incriminating documentation on the Clintons removed in both cases. Obviously they were killed for the same reasons and the greatest common denominator between the two is Hillary Clinton.

THE MANY AFFAIRS OF BILL CLINTON

If the Clintons felt they had escaped responsibility regarding drug trafficking in Mena, the Whitewater scandal as well as the murders of Vincent Foster and Jerry Parks, one area in which they would ultimately meet their match was in regards to President Clinton’s insatiable philandering. After engaging in various affairs with an endless array of women for years, Clinton’s affairs were finally substantiated in 1998 after a young intern at the White House, Monica Lewinsky, came out claiming she had engaged in a sexual relationship with the President. She was hardly the first woman to come out claiming an affair with the President, but she was the first that the President would admit to. When Lewinsky presented a dress of hers that had the President’s DNA on it he was trapped and had no choice but to ultimately admit to the affair. Having lied under oath about it before ultimately led to his being impeached via a vote through the Senate.

Not only had many credible woman come out claiming affairs, but some women found themselves conveniently dead afterward. Going back to 1978, while Bill was running for Governor, he had reportedly impregnated a young woman named Susan Coleman. Being a possible danger to Bill’s bid for Governor, Coleman reportedly committed suicide. She was shot in the back of the head. Now who in this world is capable of committing suicide by shooting themselves in the back of the head? Paula Jones, one of the more prominent of the woman who came out about Clinton, was close friends with a Kathy Ferguson back in Arkansas. Like Jones, Ferguson claimed that Clinton had attempted to forcibly have an affair with her. After coming out about this Ferguson suddenly ended up dead of a reported suicide. Much like Vincent Foster, there is reason to believe Ferguson was murdered. Reportedly she shot herself through the right temple, with the bullet exiting through her left temple. This is odd by itself seeing as Ferguson was left-handed, meaning she would have had to wrap the gun across her face and point it at herself that way. No one would commit suicide this way! When she was examined, multiple people did not see a wound in her left temple but rather behind her left ear, suggesting more that she had been shot from a location behind her, again not consistent with suicide but of someone sneaking up behind and shooting her. Ferguson’s boyfriend, state trooper Bill Shelton, also died a month later. His death was also reported as a suicide even though he too had been shot behind the ear, suggesting having been shot from behind by someone else. Mary Maroney was another woman prepared to come out about an affair with Clinton. In the midst of doing so she was at a Starbucks when gunmen entered and opened fire, killing her and two others. When others arrived the doors had been locked and no money had been taken, suggesting little motive for this random shooting, except it conveniently go rid of another potential threat against Bill Clinton.

The first woman to come out publicly in an effective way, surrounding Bill Clinton’s Presidential campaign, was Gennifer Flowers. Of course, after she came out she was, like most of the credible women who came out against Bill, attacked mercilessly by most media outlets. What they didn’t know was that an attorney who represented Larry Nichols in his battles against Bill Clinton, just happened to live in the same apartment complex as Gennifer Flowers. This attorney, Gary Johnson, had a security camera put up outside of his place purely for security purposes, a camera he put up before Flowers moved into the complex. As the camera ran Johnson, unknowingly at first, had captured multiple instances wherein Bill Clinton arrived at Flowers’ apartment with a personal key and entered her apartment. It was definitive evidence against him and, by no coincidence, once the existence of this security camera came to light a group of men arrived at Johnson’s place demanding the taped recordings of Bill. These men were “thugs” essentially sent there by Bill Clinton, and after Johnson sacrificed the tapes under merciless threats these men nearly beat him to death, breaking his elbows and slicing open his stomach damaging his spleen among numerous other things before leaving him there to bleed to death. Fortunately Johnson survived to recount these events. And he was very fortunate to survive his attack as many people who have tried to stand up to the Clintons have conveniently ended up dying in “accidents” or “suicides”.

One could go on forever about the endless line of women that Bill Clinton had sexual affairs with, but one might wonder at this point what any of it has to do with Hillary. If anything it might make one look with great sympathy on her for the fact that her husband apparently went out of his way to sleep with pretty much anyone but her. She was once even overheard yelling at Bill on this matter, saying something to the effect that she needed him to fuck her more than just once or twice a year. The fact of the matter is, even by the time Monica Lewinsky came around, Hillary made it like her husband had never ben unfaithful to her a day in her life even though she knew full well about Bill’s indiscretions. She still continues to defend her husband, even when he finally admitted to it in the Lewinsky case.

This is critical in that Hillary, especially in her efforts in running for President, has garnered large support from women, in particular feminists. She is presented, wrongly, as a great pillar and representative of what is great about women. But the fact of the matter is she has always defended her husband even though he made a side career out of treating women as something even less than sexual objects. The lengths he went to, along with the careless, narcissistic and often brutal/psychotic nature with which he treated woman make him one of the greatest misogynists of our time! A young woman named Juanita Broaddrick was once brutally attacked in a hotel room by Bill Clinton, who bit her lip so back that he left her shaken, bloody and swollen. And as he was walking out the door he passively said, “Just put some ice on that.” And despite the deplorable way in which Clinton has treated women over the decades, in 1985 a man named Wayne Drummond was arrested for raping one of Clinton’s relatives. While Drummond was in jail he was attacked and castrated by two attackers in an event that was clearly pushed forth by Governor Bill. The attack was allowed to happen inside the jail for goodness sakes! And what’s worse is after serving nearly five years in prison Drummond was found to be innocent and prepped for release. However, the Governor reportedly had a violent fit over it and then blocked Drummond’s release. So apparently it’s all right for Bill to belittle, beat and rape women, but it’s unforgivable when it’s somebody else. Hypocrisy of the highest order.

This is Hillary Clinton’s husband! This is a man she continues to defend! She has never taken him to task one little bit on it, even when he finally admitted to it once. Numerous female interns and assistants who have worked for her in the past, as mentioned before, were often berated and driven to tears by her aggressive and brutal behavior. And remember, she once passively defended and got a pedophile off after he raped a 12-year old girl. And people look at this woman as a great representation of what feminism is all about?! It’s amazing what people will dilute themselves into believing, especially if they are uninformed about such things.

A CLOSE CALL IN BOSNIA

If you have not gathered by this point that Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar than you obviously have not been reading closely. In practically every scandal and crooked dealing she has been involved with she simply plays ignorant when questioned about it. And yet in all of these cases she has been proven to knowingly be connected. But think back to that deplorable story I told earlier when Hillary, as the First Lady, posed with artificial sick children for a photo op because being photographed with the real sick children might have been off-putting and damaging to her image. It was a blatant deception to create a specific perspective among the American people. It was a complete and total fabrication and it went off without a hitch because the bulk of the American people didn’t know the truth.

Well the year before this sick child photo op scam, 1996, Hillary paid a visit to war torn Bosnia. Upon arrival she claimed that after deboarding the plane she was on, where there was a welcoming party gathered for her, snipers close by began opening fire on them. Hillary wove together a story of, literally, “courage under fire” as she and several others ducked and fled to a fleet of cars that removed her from the danger zone. This story made for great P.R. for the First Lady, showing her in a courageous light that all prominent politicians would like to be seen in.

However, this was nothing more than a farce. Things began to crumble when it was revealed that there was video taken of Hillary deboarding her plane to the welcoming party that was there. She was seen smiling as she arrived and meeting with the people on location. There were no signs of gunfire or even general danger of any kind. This was the first revelation that Hillary’s story was a total utter lie and yet she stuck to her guns for years, literally up until her first Presidential campaign for the 2008 Democratic nomination. When news video was released showing her shaking hands with a small girl there on the tarmac she even had the audacity to weave a tale about being sheltered away from potential sniper fire, but feeling guilty about just walking past this child without saying hello. This story obviously was utter nonsense and the video clearly shows no urgency on the part of anyone seen in it. And if there was any danger, why was the First Lady stopping and having casual talk with this child instead of helping usher her to safety?

When suspicion of this lie was first put to her she minutely shifted gears claiming that her story had been misunderstood, laying the groundwork to suggest that it was others and not she that had taken something and dishonestly ran with it. But remember: it was Hillary herself who posed the story in the first place and who stood by it for about a decade. So she is obviously not innocent in this matter. Later on, as the story broke down further and further she finally admitted to it… in a way. In response to the allegations and the proof against her she did not take the honest highroad and state the truth, which is she wanted to increase the positivity of her image, and the idea of her heroically dodging bullets in another country did just that. I could at least walk away from Hillary feeling all right with that. At least she admitted to it, right? But alas, such was not the case. When busted on her lie, Hillary had the audacity to treat the whole thing like it was a misunderstanding more than anything else. In short, she passed it off as a mistake, claiming that she was only human and that humans make mistakes. And this, of course, came after she used the exact same story multiple times during the early days of her first run for President. She told the same story each time about arriving on the tarmac and being endangered by sniper fire. She then expects everyone to believe that this was just an accidental misspeaking… several times over. And the sad thing is, many people will see this statement of hers, shrug it off and not realizing the severity of it. Just another example of blind lying.

So while this Bosnia issue is rather small in the broad scope if Hillary’s past, it’s a perfect representation of her ceaseless and blatant dishonestly, which has been a part of her as a person dating back as far as the 1970s. She’s been openly dishonest over and over again in the prevailing forty years, and why shouldn’t she be so brazen as to do so? Every time she lies, no matter who it’s to, she never pays the price for it. Here we see an example of a person being caught in a bold-faced lie wherein practically anyone, embarrassed sure, would finally admit to it. But Hillary doesn’t have have the cajones to do that! She merely dismissed a ten-year long lie that she perpetrated and then stood by as a mistake. There was no mistake. She just has such a narcissism about herself and an assurance that she can do as she pleases without ever facing the consequences for her actions that she probably doesn’t even recognize when she’s done something wrong. This Bosnia issue is a case and point to that assertion. And this is the women that people honestly believe is going to fight for us and change the way things are when she’s been a dishonest, direct part of the problem her whole career! That’s the saddest thing is that she is so used to being dishonest, and getting away with it, that she openly lied about something she did not need to lie about in regards to an event in which she could have, and was easily rebuked on.

This was a powerful example of what I will simply call Hillary’s flexible morality in regards to the truth, and not just the truth but her fluctuating belief structure as well. Hillary has managed a long term career in lying and conveniently altering her own beliefs when convenient. She’s done it for so long and gotten away with it for so long that she doesn’t even know how to express humility and remorsefulness when she’s busted. Such was clearly the case with her phony snipers in Bosnia story, but it’s been such in several other cases.

Hillary staked the claim that she had been named after Sir Edmund Hillary. Why she would make such a claim is astounding and clearly shows how much getting away with lying and creating an inaccurate persona for one’s self can cloud ones judgment. There was no reason for her to make such a claim, except that it created this perception of strength and diligence. Sir Edmund Hillary is world renowned as the first person to ever climb to the top of Mount Everest. One can clearly see the benefits of connecting one’s self to an iconic figure like Sir Hillary. The problem is that Hillary Clinton was born in 1947… and Sir Edmund Hillary did not climb Mt. Everest until 1953. Such a simple complication should have been evident to Hillary but apparently she was just too busy practicing in her own narcissism to notice.

Hillary also made a claim that she had attempted to sign up for the Marines in 1975, most likely to garner approval from Americas military citizens, many of which who are Republicans. This whole claim is ridiculous on its face and, as with many other lies, her telling of the experience changes each time she tells it. She claimed that, at 27-years of age, she visited a Marine office in an effort to sign up but was told she was too old, but that the Army might take her. Beyond the artificiality of the story, the timing of it is what makes it the most ridiculous. Even by the late 60s Hillary had swapped the Republican Party for the Democratic Party and had been a strong supporter against the Vietnam War (where she, again, supported anti-Vietnam War candidate Eugene McCarthy). By the 70s she was obviously still a staunch Democrat lacking a mentality for war support. Beyond that, she had recently graduated from college and passed the Arkansas Bar Exam, allowing her to work as a practicing lawyer. She was just beginning to make solid footing at the Rose Law Firm and, on top of everything else, she was only months away from marrying Bill Clinton. Above everything else, Hillary had never expressed any remote prior interest in serving in the military at any level and she was not from a military family. The whole story makes no sense as it was just another fabrication to help Hillary’s image.

Another, and final questionable story, if not the most believable of the bunch, are the claims by Hillary that she worked the summer of 1969 at a fish factory in Alaska. The occupation and the location alone lead to strong questions as to the legitimacy of this story. This midwestern girl, turned activist Democrat, private school attendee, politics and law focused mind decided to take a job… gutting fish in Alaska? Aside from there being nothing to prove this story’s accuracy (accounts of friends, pay stubs, employment documentations, etc.) the idea is insane on its face that in such a significant time in her life that Hillary would wander away into the remote land of Alaska. She claimed that she was ultimately fired from the job when she confronted her boss about most of the fish appearing to be rotten. In one telling she claimed she was immediately fired on the spot. In another telling she claimed that she was fired a few days later. And in yet another telling of the story she makes no mention of legitimately being fired. She claimed that after this altercation with her boss she was sent home, and when she returned for work the following day the plant was gone. She equated this to losing her job, and thus being fired. But let’s hold on a minute… Hillary was working at a large fish gutting plant, she went home, and when she came back the next day the plant was gone? No one contacted her about it closing down? No one told her while at work, “Oh, by the way we’re closing down after this week.”? And above all things, how does a whole business plant just disappear overnight?! The absurdity of the story isn’t even worth contemplating. It’s just another delusional creation from a contaminated mind. The motivation to tell such a story is clear: the well-to-do midwesterner, Yale-educated lawyer, Governor’s wife, First Lady to the nation? It’s easy for the public to look at one as a spoiled brat or as a self-centered bitch when you have a background like that. So why not tell that one story about how you roughed the climate of rural American and worked a job so gritty as gutting fish in a smelly factory? If the story were true, and I didn’t know the real Hillary as well as I do, that might make me look upon the former First Lady with higher regard. But, alas, it’s all just a bundle of lies.

A CROOKED CAMPAIGN

As we transition from Hillary the First Lady (be it of Arkansas or of America) into Hillary the politician I want to state right now there will be more discussion and referencing to her current 2016 campaign for the Demarcation nomination for the Presidency, as much of what she has engaged in during the new millennium ties into who we view her as now. This all began even before Bill Clinton finally left the White House as Hillary started a campaign to run for Senator of the state of New York in 2001. And before the campaign even took off the former First Lady was back to her old tricks.

At the launching of her campaign Hillary ran a campaign fundraiser as a means to, obviously, raise money towards her run for office. The gala was a high end affair with over 1,300 people taking part, many of which were wealthy/Hollywood types. Now what exactly is wrong with having a campaign fundraiser, and having it be one that includes the attendance of several well to do folks? Nothing… nothing at all. However, unbeknown to many, this fundraiser was funded entirely by Peter Paul, who happened to be a felon, convicted of cocaine trafficking (it’s amazing how many close friends the Clinton’s have with a history of drug trafficking). The fact that the event was funded by a convicted felon violates Federal Election statutes. Now one can look at this and deem it a rather insignificant mistake in a world of politicians where practically everyone who runs for office cheats in some way at some point. Bending the rules a little may be excusable, but is it small potatoes when that cheating involves heavy financial involvement and influence towards a front-running candidate for a Senatorial seat (and especially one representing the great state of New York) from one who is a convicted drug trafficker? And we all must remember how connected Hillary’s own husband was to cocaine use and trafficking while Governor of Arkansas. This involvement of Peter Paul forces one to question if, even after leaving Arkansas, if the most crooked of Clinton colleagues dating back to the 1970s and 80s were not still having a significant impact in their lives.

And not only did Hillary’s campaign violate statutes, but Hillary herself did as well by attempting to solicit funds herself at the even. Such action violates campaign fundraising regulations. And beyond this, Hillary also later contacted Paul asking for an extra $150,000 to go towards her campaign to come from ‘untraceable securities’. Now one must ask and wonder why Hillary Clinton would be pursuing campaign money from accounts that were untraceable. No matter what way one spins things, this is a highly troubling request, especially with it coming from Hillary to Paul himself. And finally, in classic deceptive style, Hillary reported the total costs of the evening’s fundraiser at half a million dollars when documentation proved the event actually costed three times that much. In response to this, Hillary was fined $50,000 for this underreporting and downright deception on the outset of her bid for a Senatorial seat. Obviously the transition of First Lady to politician hadn’t come close to making an honest woman out of Ms. Hillary.

But Peter Paul was not the only crooked individual to make large contributions to Hillary’s campaign. There were several others, most significantly a man named Norman Hsu. Hsu happened to be a rather large felon himself with an extensive record including pyramid schemes and fraud. He also happened to be a major financial supporter of the Democratic Party, and the Clintons for that matter. Even with warnings from the FBI not to accept money from such a questionable individual, Hillary openly took in $900,000 in campaign donations from Hsu.

Perhaps, however, the most disturbing form of support that Hillary received in her bid to become a senator involved a Puerto Rican terrorist organization known as the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberacion Nacional Puertorriquena (FALN). This organization had been attacking American cities for years with bombings dating back to the 1970s. They had also attacked various targets in Puerto Rico as well, with their objective being to achieve complete and total independence for the nation. After the group attacked targets in New York 16 members of the group were captured and imprisoned, a major collar in police and legal circles. But while these terrorists sat incarcerated in New York, the senatorial candidate Hillary came up with an idea to benefit her upcoming campaign. She met with New York City Councilman Jose Rivera and proposed a deal to him to have these individuals released in exchange for support in her election efforts. An agreement was reached and two days later Bill Clinton, who was still in office at this time, pardoned all 16 members of this terrorist group and they were set free to kill again. The Clintons were berated from both sides for such an insane and dangerous decision that was clearly done with political motivations. But the scheme worked for the Clinton’s as the release of members of this Puerto Rican organization helped garner her are large amount of the Latino vote in New York for the upcoming election.

That is what is truly tragic about this pardoning. Sixteen crazed terrorists were set free for a small amount of support for Hillary’s campaign, a campaign in which she hardly had any competition for in the first place (New York is a fairly Democratic state). And yet she still felt the desire to get a little extra help in the form of pardoning terrorists. The woman can hardly stake any claim then that she will be hard on terrorist threats in the future, as she has already proven that if the group can provide her a benefit of some kind, she’s willing to separate from morality and engage in acts of complete and total lunacy. The FALN had killed 13 and injured 80 in various attacks in America and through the actions of the Clintons they were given the equivalency of a suspended sentence. Who knows how many more these specific individuals may kill or have already killed. And, of course, when Congress called the Clintons to testify on this crooked matter, Hillary took the familiar route. She denied knowing anything about it… even though it was her own campaign that was the primary beneficiary of this action.

And this was hardly the only conflicting pardon brought forth by Bill Clinton while he was President. In his final days in office the President pardoned some 450 incarcerated fugitives, many of which were connected to financial corruption, drug trafficking and terrorism. One of these individuals was convicted billionaire felon Marc Rich, who’s family had funneled literally millions of dollars into Hillary’s Senate campaign. An organization called the New Four Square, who had defrauded the American government for millions was also given a pardon after meeting up with Hillary and “paying” for their groups votes in her Senatorial bid. Hillary’s brother, Hugh Rodham, also had extensive money funneled to him in exchange for certain prisoners being pardoned and released from prison.

THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK

As mentioned before, New York is a highly Democratic state and thus Hillary won fairly easily in the 2001 election. She would attain an even easier re-election victory a few years later. She served as a senator from 2001 until 2009 when she was promoted by President Barack Obama to be the Secretary of State to the nation under his Presidency. Of course, the most prevalent moment in her state during her tenure as a Senator was the attacks on the World Trade Center in downtown New York on September 11, 2001. Having only been a senator for a couple months Hillary was suddenly in the position of being one of only two Senatorial representatives of the state in which the most tragic and iconic visuals from that horrible day took place.

Interestingly enough, even as I think back I can hardly think of anything Hillary really did to bolster the morale of her state, which was lost and heartbroken. I’ve joked with many people in terms of Hillary revering herself as a leader and yet nobody can seem to remember anything she really did after 9/11. We all remember what Rudy Giuliani did, like him or hate him, he kept the people of that city with their heads up. Even now we all remember the effect he had on that state. But what about Hillary? Of course, her apologists will ramble on about how effective she was and all the wonderful things she had to say and the ideas she posed about what to do about this tragedy. But the sad truth is she was too wrapped up in her own self image and commandeered by narcissism to really show any sympathy towards the events that had taken place.

As a matter of fact, on September 14th, only three days after the attacks, Hillary paid a visit to ground zero. Her conduct while there was so mired by self-interest and lacking in empathy for the horridness that had occurred that most of the first responders there (police officers and firemen) refused to speak or to even shake hands with her. One fireman on the scene, Mike Moran, who lost his brother on 9/11, openly criticized Hillary and regarded her appearance at ground zero as just another opportunity for a photo op to make her look significant. And, as a senator, Hillary attended the funeral of only one of the fallen responders to the scene whose lives were taken that day. Only one! And this particular funeral, not by coincidence obviously, was a heavily covered media event, providing multiple opportunities for the disconnected Senator to be seen and photographed, creating the impression that she was truly invested and concerned for the fallen. Anthony Gardiner, another who lost a relative on 9/11, had contacted Hillary’s office to request her involvement in WTC United Family Group, which was a non-profit organization being put together to provide support for those who had lost loved ones on that terrible day. They didn’t so much as get a response from Hillary, or even one of her assistants, not even some passable explanation like, “Sorry, we would love to help, but the Senator is just too busy.” It’s a nonsensical excuse, sure, and Hillary couldn’t even conjure up that much interest.

The state of New York in general was so disgusted with Hillary and her behavior around the time of the 9/11 attacks that she was literally booed off the stage of a benefit concert for the event over a year later. Some believe this is partially why Hillary appeared at so few 9/11 related gatherings; her fear of being booed again and the image that could create against her future ambitions. Hillary also had a past, as mentioned before, of berating and disrespecting members of police, calling them pigs quite frequently. In a climate in which members of New York law enforcement had presented themselves as heroes, Hillary’s perspective on police was very much a taboo perspective for the time. The law’s contempt for Hillary was so strong that in 2000, after endorsing Bill Clinton for President in 1992 and 1996, the Fraternal Order of Police chose to endorse a Republican, George W. Bush, for President. By this time they had become so disgusted with the Clintons and were vastly effected by President Clinton’s decision to pardon those 16 FALN terrorists that they flipped parties. It also likely effected their decision to turn Republican seeing as the Democratic nominee, Al Gore, just happened to be Bill Clinton’s Vice President, and an ardent defender of the Clinton Administration during its time. In the end, regarding Hillary’s inaction after 9/11, one can reach whatever conclusions they wish on the matter. But the fact remains that even the heroes that saved lives on that day despise the woman for her actions. What does that tell you?

The tragedy of 9/11, and Hillary’s subsequent inaction afterward is actually a decent metaphor for her whole time as a New York Senator. She was a relatively ineffective one, only passing three bills over an eight-year tenure as senator (one bill of which was simply the naming of a post office). These were all small bills. Now this figure can be deceptive considering the fact that Senator Clinton co-sponsored many bills; something that has been brought up by her supporters. But one must realize there is a vast difference between producing bills yourself and co-sponsoring the bills of others. Co-sponsoring a bill is easy, and that’s why so many senators co-sponsor so many bills. Sometimes it’s just a matter of signing one’s name to it. She struggled mercilessly to get any support for her bills as well, even from fellow Democrats. There were several bills that she played a strong role in putting together that did not get one co-signer. This begs the question of: if this woman cannot even gain some strong support for her actions as a Senator, how is she supposed to make an impact as the President of the United States, when others are the ones writing the bills?

In 2003 she enthusiastically joined the majority in openly supporting our country’s decision to go to war with Iraq, a decision she obviously changed her mind about years later. She was captured giving speeches spouting the same rhetoric that was passed by the current Presidency; that Saddam Hussein was a danger to us, especially while he had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. She joined up with the same individuals she would conveniently later deplore for their decisions to take military action in the middle east. As discussed previously, it didn’t take much for Hillary to flip on her decision once the war became unpopular and with the upcoming 2008 Presidential election on the horizon. Hillary’s time as a senator seemed more about grooming herself for a run at the White House than anything else, which can explain her lack of serious activity while in such an important seat.

RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT

To nobody’s surprise, in fact many had seen it coming before Bill Clinton even left the White House, Hillary announced her candidacy for the Presidency of the United States under the Democratic Party. In the previous two elections the Democratic candidates had suffered close losses in highly controversial elections. In 2000 George W. Bush won the election after an extendedly long struggle over the state of Florida against Democratic challenger Al Gore. In 2004, an election revolving much around our recent engagement in war with Iraq, Bush maintained a steady lead in the polls over Democratic challenger John Kerry. But once election night came Kerry had closed the gap and it was another close run for the Presidency. As things had come down to who won the state of Florida in 2000, it came down to the state of Ohio in 2004. Once again, under mass controversy, Bush took the state and ultimately the election. By 2008 America was done with the Bush Administration and had developed some aggression towards the Republican party as well, giving the 2008 Democratic nominee a strong advantage going into the election.

As with all elections, there are many contenders in the beginning, but the weak are gradually whittled away until there is one final determined winner. While former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards had made a strong push in the beginning, the focus of the race came down to Hillary and a fairly obscure Illinois senator, Barack Obama. It was an extremely close race, but Obama earned the nomination, attaining 2,285 1/2 of the available delegates for the party while Hillary obtained only 1,973. The bulk of Obama’s victories were focused in the Pacific Northwest, the Midwest and the Southeast whereas the focus of Hillary’s victories were in the Southwest and the Northeast. Despite winning over 300 more delegates than Hillary, much controversy came about after it was revealed that Hillary had won the popular vote by almost 273,000 votes, giving her an almost 48 to 47 percentage lead on the Illinois Senator. However, as was the case in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote over George W. Bush, this race was about the delegates as opposed to the popular vote.

This was a powerful defeat for Hillary Clinton, who found herself being defeated by a man who, four years before, was relatively unknown in politics. Obama was elected an Illinois state senator in 1996 and in 2004 had attained the same position that Hillary had, as a United States Senator. The former First Lady, who had been in the American spotlight for nearly 20 years found herself going down in a close, and in some ways controversial primary election in and of itself. These controversies included conflicts with the states of Florida and Michigan, who had scheduled their primaries to occur before February 5, 2008 after the Democratic National Committee determined only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina would be able to have primaries before said date. This led to none of the main candidates campaigning in these two states which led to low voter turnouts and, surprisingly, two victories for Hillary. February 5th itself was Super Tuesday, in which 23 different states had their primaries, which yielded twelve states won by Obama, ten by Hillary, and one tie in the Missouri primary. But by the end of Super Tuesday, Obama had only managed an 847-834 edge in delegates due to significant victories for Hillary in the California and New York primaries. And by the end Hillary had a 20 delicate lead in the overall race as well.

This is where the wheels came off. Eleven more primaries occurred between February 9th and February 19th and Obama took all eleven of them, which suddenly turned around the delegate race, giving him a 101 delegate lead. Hillary was hardly in competition in any of these races. The next major election day was March 4th in which 370 delegates were at stake. Hillary gained ground winning three of the four primaries with Obama winning later races in Wyoming and Mississippi. In the end Obama only ended up widening his gap. Obama all but sealed his victory with a dominating victory in the North Carolina primary on May 6th and officially secured all the delegates needed to win the nomination after the Oregon primary on May 20th. He would go on to face Republican candidate John McCain and defeat him for the Presidency.

Despite claims to the contrary, Hillary hardly took the high road in this nomination race, and obviously she had to be furious after being defeated by someone who was practically unknown five years before. Early in her campaign, at the first signs of danger, Hillary openly attacked Obama while delivering a statement that Democrats should not be attacking other Democrats. Ironically, she was attacking a fellow Democrat while making this statement, and defending the absurdly dangerous and loyal perspective of not taking a fellow party member to task (apparently regardless of what they do). Hillary dug herself a deeper hole in this speech when she said it was high time that Obama begin running a campaign consistent with his own views and perspectives. This statement implied that Hillary believed herself to be acting in such a way, when she has hardly ever been dead set in her views. As a matter of fact, her past political career has shown she’s willing to go back and forth as much as it takes to maintain a positive image among the public.

Several individuals working in Hillary’s campaign were also indicted and plead guilty to conspiracy and campaign finance law violations (and it wouldn’t surprise me if the same happens after the 2016 primary race with all the controversy she’s stirred up). This appears to be a common thread amongst those working for Hillary be it her Chief of Staff illegally breaking into Vincent Foster’s office, be it workers on her 2008 staff committing financial illegalities or even now, as we recently watched individuals supporting Hillary in the Iowa caucus flagrantly lie about their vote count, committing voter fraud that was captured on national television! Oh, but how quickly we forget.

It also troubled many as to how quickly Hillary had depleted her funds seeing as she had so much support from high places and yet only a few states into the primary race she had claimed that she was so low on money that she made a person contribution into her own campaign. When it comes to campaigning it appears Hillary has no trouble establishing financial conflict all around her. And the bulk of that conflict and controversy has stemmed from the Clinton Foundation. Established by the Clintons in 2001 as Bill was leaving office, the initial intent of this Foundation was to raise funds to build Bill’s Presidential Library. However, much like with ADFA and Whitewater, the initial intent was hardly the total objective. In the prevailing years the Foundation has made an extraordinary amount of money, millions upon millions. Much of this money has come from foreign diplomats as well as major corporations. This casts a great deal of suspicion on the Clintons as to why they would be receiving extensive financial support from such unexpected “friends”. It seems Hillary will take money from whoever will give it to her, no matter how dirty it is. One of the Foundations greatest contributors is the nation of Saudi Arabia. Despite her stance as a progressive and a feminist, Hillary has managed to maintain close ties with this particular nation, which has a history of terrorism, brutality against women and threatened death against professed homosexuals.

It has long been believed that the Clintons have used their foundation as a way to funnel money into their personal activities. A little known distinction between campaign contributions and foundation contributions is that there is a cap on how much one can donate to a campaign, but there is no such cap on how much one can donate to a foundation. And with the Clintons being in control of said foundation, it would be rather simple to establish extensive funds for Hillary’s Presidential campaign by encouraging friends with deep pockets to make donations to their foundation as oppose to Hillary’s campaign. They tap into that extensive foundation cash and they’re home free.

In September, 2013 New York City businessman Troy White, for example, was found guilty of not properly filing taxes that would have shown donations in the amount of $608,750 given to Hillary’s 2008 campaign via “clandestine” means (meaning there was clear intent on White’s part to keep these contributions to Hillary secretive). Now why would someone want to be secretive in regards to making political campaign contributions? Well, it would be because the maximum an individual can give to a Presidential campaign is considerably less than the final number given by White. Even by today’s standards the most one individual can give is $2,700. This is just one case in which an individual attempted to provide extensively more finances to Hillary as a Presidential candidate than was allowed and did it in such a way that was intentionally secretive. It is also known that shortly before Hillary’s 2008 campaign took off she paid a trip to Russian in an effort to convince the government there to purchase planes from the Boeing corporation. In appreciation for this, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation. That’s a rather large donation and the fact that it came as a result of Hillary doing them a favor makes this “donation” even more suspicious.

It certainly adds fuel to the fire that when Hillary’s 2008 campaign was underway the number of donations from foreign donors to the Foundation suddenly increased by 70%. And having extensive cash available to her from her foundation could explain why her campaign was reportedly almost out of money only a couple primaries into the race and yet she seems to have had little issue staying in the race and fighting till the end, even taking the overall popular vote. The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) discovered that Hillary had taken almost $350,000 from the Foundation to use in her campaign, which showed she exceeded the fair market value while claiming this financial contribution was really just to benefit Hillary’s campaign. They even pressured the IRS to investigate the situation. The evidence of the Clinton Foundation having close ties to Hillary’s Presidential campaigns is even more under fire in her current run for the Presidency. An examination of all the members of her National Finance Committee revealed that of the 123 members, 72 of them had donated, in large numbers, to the Clinton Foundation. That’s almost 60% of all Committee members. These donations alone have accounted for tens of millions of dollars funneled into the foundation.

And these critiques involving the Clinton Foundation don’t end with Presidential campaigns, but they have extended into the State Department from when Hillary served as Secretary of State to the nation between 2009 and 2013. Even as the 2016 primaries are going on the FBI has been investigating “Emailgate” (which will be addressed shortly) as well as a possible correlation between the activities of the Clinton Foundation and the activities of Hillary’s State Department, which would suggest an illegal violation of public corruption laws.

AS SECRETARY OF STATE

Despite her defeat in her efforts to attain the Presidential nomination in 2008, Hillary would not be riding the pines for long as she was selected by the new President Obama to serve as the Secretary of State to the nation (thank God he didn’t make her his Vice President). For those who have acknowledged Hillary’s checkered past but still support her I have heard the same thing over and over again: she can change! Sure she can, but she didn’t as a crooked lawyer in the 70s, she didn’t as the First Lady of Arkansas, she didn’t as First Lady to the nation, she didn’t as a United States Senator, she didn’t as a Democratic Presidential candidate, and, sad to say, she surely didn’t change for the better as our Secretary of State. Her record of lies and corruption over her four-plus years at the helm of our State Department make her potentially the most controversial Secretary of State of all-time, and that’s quite an accomplishment.

Much like with her record as a Senator, Hillary’s record as head of the State Department is mired by inaction as well. Her list of accomplishments in this seat are so meager that even when she was questioned about her accomplishments she couldn’t list a single one! Once again, it seems she just soaked up her position of power and did just enough to not completely piss everybody off. Even her close advisors and donors described her as a consistently mediocre candidate lacking the ability to run a constantly on the move political campaign (which may have effected her downfall in the latter portion of her 2008 run against Obama). Some even described her, and this is very revealing, as someone who constantly lamented about learning from the mistakes of her past while consistently and methodically repeating them again. I couldn’t say it better myself. How is she, even if she weren’t so egotistical, dishonest and corrupt, supposed to make a viable and effective Presidential candidate in a time when we really need one if she cannot even be effective in smaller capacities?

However, this overall lack of accomplishes is deceptive, deceptive in that Hillary managed to connect herself with a plethora of corrupt accomplishments including a misplacing of millions of dollars, invasion of privacy, internal investigation cover-ups, email controversies, and, of course, her involvement in the cover up of the attacks in Bengazi, Libya.

The financial issues facing Hillary’s state department are staggering. As just a few examples, in a time where financial responsibility and endless concerns over a towering deficit have become paramount for our country going forward, the United States invested millions of dollars in a state of the art embassy facility in Iraq. Aside from the millions invested in constructing this site, it was found that the magnanimous amount of $2,000,000,000 were missing in regards to the embassy. This issue falls under the influence of the State Department. And beyond this it was discovered that during Hillary’s tenure there were in excess of $6,000,000,000 in contracts that were missing as well. It appears this money was dulled out before proper paperwork on the matter was completed and it appears that this money still hasn’t been accounted for. This falls directly under the influence and responsibility of Hillary Clinton. With her prior malfeasance in terms of proper financial conduct going back to the 1970s it is not far fetched in the least that she had a say in where these vanished funds went. It appears there’s nowhere Hillary goes wherein she doesn’t engage in a money grubbing scheme of some kind.

Hillary also came under serious fire for not taking the opportunity to list the terrorist group Boko Haram as just that, a terrorist group. Boko Haram is an Islamic extremist group based primarily out of Nigeria. Despite heavy forces from numerous African countries attacking the group, they still exist today. Despite pressure to named the well documented terrorist group as such, like in the FALN scandal, she took it easy on them. Having already engaged in extensive terrorist acts overseas, shortly after Hillary’s decision to pass on marking the group, they effectively kidnapped some 276 schoolgirls in Nigeria with the intention of using them as bargaining chips to have several fellow jihadists released from Nigerian prisons. The powers that be claimed that they met with and reached and agreement with members of the terrorist group to secure the release of these girls, and yet later a member of the group claimed this meeting never took place and rather that these girls had been married off. Book Haram also engaged in numerous attacks in Cameroon and Chad.

This can be argued as a small issue as one cannot specifically blame Hillary, or President Obama, directly because this extremist group made the decision to butcher people across Africa. But is shows a defined string of showing leniency or even more so showing a naivety in understanding as to the powers that extremist/terrorist can attain, especially when little to no action is established against them. Whether one believes American forces should engage in military action in other countries, when you compare our involvement in countries like Iraq an Afghanistan against groups like Boko Haram roaming around killing and abducting people ceaselessly, which case would you support if you had to pick one? Invading Iraq based on deception or engaging in military action against defined and proactive terrorist groups, taking them down faster and saving countless lives. Certainly we can be pacifists and say the deaths of those living in other continents are not our affair. But if we take that route then how can we claim to be humanitarians or to care about the well-being of people around the world. How can we critique the humanity of third world countries but then sit idly by and watch as extremist groups roam around against weaker military forces, killing people left and right. This is critical when we think of ourselves as Americans and where we stand in the world as well as what it is going to take to combat and defeat large and powerful terrorist organizations. In the instance of Boko Haram it seems Hillary wasn’t even in the mindset to critically understand their organization and thus she made a decisions that only an oblivious buffoon would make, and in the years since this group has caused havoc and genocide all across Africa. Therefore, Hillary’s passive and uninformed decision on the matter is a fairly significant red flag against her, especially if she finds herself in control as our Commander in Chief.

Being in control of the State Department, Hillary also had the power to control any internal action engaged in within the Department. This is critical as the State Department was prepared to engage in an internal investigation while under Hillary’s watch. If anything were to be revealed in this investigation it would have been severely detrimental to her status as the Department leader as well as creating serious repercussions for her political ambitions to come. And certainly she had numerous instances in her past wherein investigations done involving her were conveniently swept under the rug be it Cattlegate, Whitewater, Filegate, and so on. This internal investigation would have been a heavy, revealing and multi-faceted investigation that included looking into an excessive number of sexual assaults engaged in by State Department security officials staged in Beirut, Lebanon, numerous accounts of engagements with prostitutes specifically by members of Hillary’s own security detail, drug use being conducted by state contractors working in Baghdad, Iraq, and the solicitation of male child prostitutes by the United States Ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, among other claims. Gutman, in particular, was being heavily investigated for this prostitution scandal that numerous witnesses had come forward on, including his own security detail. But the investigation was immediately closed down and Gutman was allowed to keep his position. Gutman also just happened to be a major contributor to the Democratic party, giving over half a million dollars to the party and having influence in helping Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign. Multiple agents in Hillary’s own security detail have admitted to procuring prostitutes as well for her while she was on trips to various countries. Thus she was mixed right in with these sexual scandals. And one can only assume these prostitutes were procured for Ms. Clinton as they were attained by her security detail and beyond that the liaisons engaged in with said prostitutes were engaged in the hotels where Hillary was staying. Just add 2+2.

Just like in the case of Howard Gutman, independent investigative efforts into these other crooked dealings by members of Hillary’s State Department were either cut off or never engaged in to begin with. With so much corruption under one governmental umbrella a reveal of all of this would have likely been the end for Hillary. So, of course, what did Hillary do? She denied any knowledge of any of these events having occurred… as, once again, has been her MO whenever corruption rears its ugly head. This is hardly a credible claim as she was the head of the State Department. Even if a few Department members were sneaking around behind her back, how oblivious would she have to be to not know about any of these claims? How would nobody have informed her of these events, if nothing more than to put her in a position to try and handle the given situations if they were revealed. Plausible deniability wouldn’t do much for her in this case except to make her look totally inept and unqualified to lead such a significant governmental department.

Thusly, when the internal investigation was being prepared by the State Department, Hillary used her power and influence and had this investigation halted. The obvious reasons, because there’s no logical innocent reasons to do so, for her stopping this investigation was to save face for herself, regardless of what she did and didn’t know. Having all of this corruption revealed would have been crushing to her image. But more importantly, some of these claims involved Hillary directly, which means if investigated she wouldn’t walk away with just a mark or two on her reputation, but she’d likely face legal injunction and potentially time in prison. Therefore she did what she always has done and used her power to sweep things under the rug. Nobody noticed and instead of disappearing in well deserved disgrace she’s challenging for the American Presidency again as a transparent champion of the American people. Another reminder that not only is voting important, but it’s equally important to be objective and to examine the candidates. If such were the case in America Hillary would be lucky to get elected to run a lemonade stand.

The highlight of controversy during Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State was the cover up of the attacks in Bengazi, Libya. On September 11, 2012 (the eleven year anniversary of the attacks on 9/11) an American mission staged in Bengazi was attacked by personnel admittedly members of Al Quada. Four Americans, including a US Ambassador, were killed in the attack. Since the truth has come out as to what occurred the event has caught a lot of political traction as a present day example of a political cover up. Now it’s important to understand what is meant by a cover up under these circumstances. In most cases of political cover ups the one’s in power and running the cover up tend to resist and never admit to the reality of what occurred, however, Hillary and President Obama ultimately did come out and reveal what occurred. This is because most political cover ups, take for example the most famous cover up of all time, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, have massive repercussions behind them if those involved in the cover up were to be captured. Benghazi, on the other hand, was an international event that, while it involved the deaths of Americans, was not an event created by those covering it up. Why would they create the event when it did nothing but threaten the Obama Administration?

Such is exactly why the event was covered up. There is no question that a cover up occurred, even though Hillary and others, of course, won’t admit to it, and there is no question as to the motive that required such a cover up to take place. Before the Bengazi attacks, President Obama had used to his credit in efforts to boost his campaign to gain re-election the notion that the terrorst group Al Quada had practically been squashed and defeated. Then, less than two months before the election, Al Quada not only pulled off a major terror attack, but it was an attack on Americans. Had the perpetrators of this attack come out at that time it would have likely had a drastic effect on Obama’s campaign, thus lending an advantage to Mitt Romney, who was running on the Republican ticket. The event had to be covered up and concealed, at least until after the election.

This was an unquestionable conspiracy, conducted in an effort to secure the re-election for President Obama. The news network CNN has also been critiqued for involvement in the cover up when, on the evening of the attacks in Bengazi, it was revealed on Anderson Cooper’s CNN program that the attacks were conducted by members of Al Quada. Afterward this story was quashed with the powers that be clouding the issue staking claims that the attacks were the result of a protest gone wrong. There were even claims from the White House early on that the details on the attack were extremely cloudy and that the truth behind the events would either not be known in their entirety or that it would take some time for all the details to be known. It was also reported that the FBI was engaging in a long term investigation that would add to the lengthy amount of time needed to wait to understand what happened. How convenient when all Obama needed was a little extra time. And this was all a lie as both Obama and Hillary knew what happened and who was responsible on the day it happened. And even in the immediate aftermath both Obama and Hillary used classically deceptive political tactics when they gave speeches on the attacks and made sure never to refer to who had done them and to not refer to the attacks as “terrorist” attacks or acts of “terror”.

Of course, many Hillary supporters and apologists have used the one-sided logic of downplaying the Bengazi cover up as being of any significance since practically all politicians lie and cover things up at some point. This is true, the cover up of the Bengazi attacks should hardly go down as one of the top ten or so crooked cover ups of all time and it’s fairly small peanuts next to the two Kennedy assassinations, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Watergate, 9/11, and so on. At the same time I cannot fathom this logic as it simply excuses away the fact that a woman running for President now, openly took part in lies and deception against the American people! Can we wonder then why in polls that Bernie Sanders is obliterating her in terms of which one is more trustworthy? It’s the same logic that when one poses a criticism of, say, President Obama, a Democratic supports retort is, “Well, he’s still better than George Bush!” Now, whether that’s true or not, it’s a pathetically deceptive reaction that essentially states, “If it’s a member of my party, then their corruption is less corrupt and more so justified.” Beliefs and behaviors such as this are paramount in my personal decision to not consider myself a member of either the Democratic and Republican Parties; they’re both filled with morally corrupted people. I have honestly been moving closer to the Democratic Party over the years but watching the manner in which they have tried to push Bernie away for the sake of thrusting Hillary into the spotlight has all but severed that movement (at least for this time in my life).

Now what was Hillary’s part in this cover up? It’s fairly obvious that she was rather terrible at maintaining her perspective on things during the pre-re-election period for Obama. On the outset she stood behind the notion that the attacks were not really “attacks” but rather they were the violent results of a very tense protest going on in response to a film posted on YouTube titled, “Innocence of Muslims”. This was reportedly a comedic take and an essentially insulting perspective on the Prophet Mohammad, which incited extreme hostility in heavily Muslim populated places, and it was this rage that led to the attacks occurring (and an explanation for why Americans were killed seeing as the video was done by Americans). This was a remarkable claim as much as it was seemingly not a very well thought out one. The video in question wasn’t even a full film but rather just a silly YouTube video, of which there are millions. It’s perplexing to me that something as simple as a 14-minute YouTube video could spark international protest and ultimately homicidal death, especially when even big budget Hollywood productions have been made poking shots at the Muslim faith that haven’t garnered anywhere near the attention that this random video reportedly did. The film had also been up on YouTube for over three months, openly available to see, before these supposed protests took place. What were these protestors waiting for? And the Secretary of State couldn’t even keep this story straight as she fluctuated.

The Administration (Hillary included) even fraudulently promoted the use of footage of an actual demonstration as evidence backing their claims, when this footage was of a protest occurring in Egypt. Another lie. Even while Hillary publicly defended the YouTube video protest as the spark for the killings on the outset she knew almost immediately that it was a terrorist attack perpetrated by Al Quada. On the very evening of the attacks she even composed an email stating as much, providing a paper trail of proof that she knew the truth right away. The following day, September 12th, Hillary spoke with the Egyptian Prime Minister, once again expressing the reality that it was a terrorist attack and not an incident following a protest. Nevertheless, on the very next day after that she expressed at a State Department meeting that a YouTube video, “Innocence of Muslims”, was to blame. She lied to her own Department! To add insult to injury, despite Hillary and the Obama Administration knowing the truth outright, a massive smear campaign was launched against anyone who tried to get the truth out. These individuals were dismissed as fanatics and conspiracy theorists… even though the conspiracy was real. And after all of this, and Hillary making deceptive public announcements on it, still, only days later at the conclusion of the Democratic National Committee, Barack Obama reiterated his prior statement that Al Quada was on its way to defeat. Whether or not he still believed this to be true, the fact is that only days before Al Quada had successfully pulled off another attack against Americans!

Another reason most people want to sweep the Bengazi attacks under the rug is because most believe the extent of Hillary’s involvement was merely a misdirection ploy in claiming the attacks were the result of a protest. However, this is not true. Pulling a card from her experience in the Whitewater investigation, wherein we must remember her claims of missing and stolen documents that magically turned up in her own home with her fingerprints on them, Hillary pulled essentially the same stunt when she went before a Congressional group looking into the attacks. While she denied having documents that she possessed in regards to Whitewater, in the case of Bengazi she turned over several documents to Congress, claiming that she had given them every one that they had requested. The investigation was completed and two years later, after a Freedom of Information Act request was processed, more than forty further documents came out that Hillary had held back from Congress. This was yet another example of obstruction of justice committed by Hillary wherein she wasn’t charged or even taken to task on the matter. Even if all the hoopla against her regarding the Bengazi cover up was nothing more than processed hot air, this simple fact that she lied to Congress and withheld information should have been enough to have her removed from her office and to be indicted on the matter. And yet she roams free.

While being grilled further on the Bengazi matter, Hillary drew some more negative press when she had an outburst in which she addressed the events of the real attack. In regards to how it happened she spouted, “What difference, at this point, does it make?!” Technically her statement has merit in that where or when the attacks occurred does not change the final conclusion, but what is infuriating is that this is classic Hillary. The woman had blatantly lied and once the truth came out there was no sense of remorse on her part, nor a hint of an apology, but rather just another justification for her deplorable behavior.

It may have been in part due to her future Presidential ambitions, and I believe the reasons are more sinister, but Hillary announced before Obama’s re-election that if he won she would not seek another term as Secretary of State. I personally believe she dismissed holding on to this position as a way to escape all of the corruption she had left in her wake. Often times when a politician just says, “I’m done” with a given position the American people just forget about it. Lyndon Johnson did it in 1968. A man who had been power hungry his whole life told the American people that he would not seek re-election. With civil unrest all over the country and an unpopular Vietnam War that he had continued to escalate while in the White House, Johnson practically fled from the Presidency and lived his final years in relative exclusion, apparently deeply troubled by all that he had done in his life. I believe Hillary’s cut and running from the State Department served a similar purpose in leading a highly corrupt Department along with endless controversies, driven by the Bengazi scandal, she would have just increased her problems had she stayed. And imagine where her Presidential campaign would be at right now if she had added three or so more years of corruption to her political record. She left her position in early 2013, replaced by former Democratic nominee John Kerry.

PRESENT DAY HILLARY

After leaving her position at the State Department Hillary Clinton became a private citizen for the first time in quite a while. She passed much of her time engaging in various speaking engagements, of which she charged a minimal fee of $300,000 in most cases, even if her speeches were relatively short or insignificant. She also garnered some criticism for taking on a speaking engagement on behalf of Goldman Sachs, an investment banking firm with a very seedy past. Despite extensive controversies, Hillary praised the bank. With Goldman Sachs’ close connections to the economic collapse of 2007/2008 Hillary, who of course now argues against and holds big banks accountable for the economic fall of that time, did her best to divert focus away from the banks, arguing about various other factors. She even once went on a rant about how the key reason for this economic fall was uneducated Americans trying to buy what they should’ve known they couldn’t afford (in reference to purchasing expensive housing). Now while this is somewhat true, the fact of the matter is that big banks chose to take advantage of this level of ignorance, while they ignorantly ignored the fact that all of these housing loans they were providing were going to go into default and suddenly that cash cow they were taking in was going to run dry, leaving them to cover the bill (watch “The Big Short”). Just another example of the woman changing her perspective whenever its beneficial to herself. And this is hardly a rare occurrence. Even further suspicion has fallen on Hillary due to her unwillingness to release a transcript of what she said in these Goldman Sachs meetings when asked for them by interested parties. Like a politician, she denied the release claiming that the American people wouldn’t care about what she had to say in such speeches. Well, obviously we do care. And it wasn’t even the American people that weren’t asking for them in this regard. Intrigued individuals were. There is no reason to persistently avoid releasing something so simple, unless it might include content detrimental to Hillary’s image and potentially her campaign. It’s a running thing in politics that so few ever seem to catch on to even though it’s right in front of them: if a politician holds something back that he/she has no reason to hold back, it’s almost always something corrupt.

In recent years Hillary has made an addictive habit of altering statements she has made in the past, when she didn’t just flat out change for the sake of political popularity. This applies to her Wall Street connections (which again ties back to her buddy buddy behavior with Goldman Sachs). She likes to present herself as a candidate for the everyman, but her Wall Street/big business connections and support make that claim appear rather thin as she’s buddying up to the very individuals that are making a killing in careers that suck more and more money away from the lower class. Hillary didn’t help herself recently when she was confronted about her Wall Street connection by her election counterpart, Bernie Sanders. In response, Hillary tried to pull a dirty trick that she was caught on. She immediately referenced 9/11, wherein the attacks on the World Trade Center towers led to a major financial downfall on Wall Street. Hillary used 9/11 to discuss and defend her work and connections to Wall Street, leading to harsh and well deserved criticisms. The attacks on 9/11 are a convenient go to topic when a politician wants to invoke an emotional or patriotic response from the American people as it is an event that still effects us deeply, and she used it to not only try and manipulate the situation, but in essence, she used it as a way to avoid legitimately answering the question. A classic Hillary tactic.

However, her Wall Street perspectives are hardly the one place where she’s flexible. We have already discussed her proclivity to imaginative creation in the section about her Bosnia trip, but beyond mere creation, Hillary also has a reoccurring tendency to merely change her statements when it’s beneficial to do so. Her two greatest examples of this are in regards to the Iraq War and her stance on same-sex marriage. Her support and then disdain for the Iraq War has already been discussed: when everyone was gung ho and behind the idea, Hillary jumped on board and when it became a sore spot for many Americans Hillary was against it. Her prior support for it however was a contaminating aspect in her 2008 Presidential run. The fact that Barack Obama was one of very few Senators to be against going to war with Iraq in the first place didn’t help things either.

What is most revealing about Hillary is her perspective on same-sex marriage and how that perspective has vacillated over the years. Once more, it’s abundantly clear that her fluctuations were done specifically based on whatever opinion was popular at the time. I remember growing up in the 90s and even in the early 2000s when to call something “gay” mostly meant that it was something stupid. Granted there is still strong anti-gay sentiment in America it is nowhere near where it was fifteen years ago. However, while that kind of sentiment began to sway, it would be a long time before the American majority would begin opening up to the notion of same-sex marriages. I’ll even admit, as a young Republican back in 2004, I voted against two bills in Oregon that sought to legalize same-sex marriage. It was just one hurdle that the people were a little hesitant and, let’s be honest, uneducated about. And so, like the racial Civil Rights Movement, at its peak in the 1950s and 1960s, it took a lot of time for America to real start taking notice. So of course, while same sex marriage was still a step too far for the American majority, Hillary Clinton was vehemently against same-sex marriage. I’ve never heard another Democrat spout off “marriage is between one man and one woman” more than I heard her say that. On the flip side, in regards to our current election, I’ve seen videos dating back to my birth with Bernie Sanders arguing for same-sex marriage.

The funny thing is that Hillary has always, again when it’s convenient or in front of the right crowd, described herself as a progressive politician. A progressive politician who repeatedly holds a stand against same-sex marriage? A minor dash of hypocrisy I must say. Of course, Hillary has also been seen numerous times referring to herself as a moderate when dealing with a more moderate crowd. Hillary even held her perspective on same-sex marriage for much longer than other politicians in her same party did. She was seen as late as 2010, by my account, saying that she did not support it. But now she calls herself a champion of equal rights and a champion in support of gay rights. But of course being a member of the queer community doesn’t make you stupid, and practically everyone I know who is anything but sexually straight (and most of them are women) cannot stand Hillary, and it’s because they see right through her rhetoric.

So what happened to Hillary in these past five years? Nothing. Her alteration in perspective syncs up perfectly with the transition of queer rights in the past fifteen or so years. By 2004, even with same-sex marriage legislation being presented to the public, it failed in many states, including my own state of Oregon (a rather liberal, progressive state). There was even major controversy in my state in 2005, following similar controversy in San Francisco, wherein several same-sex marriages performed in the state were deemed invalid. During this time very few states had legalized this form of marriage and it was still a social issue that many people were not comfortable with. So Hillary went with the flow of popular opinion, supporting the one man/one woman notion on things. After years of unsuccessful elections and court cases in various state, 2008 marked the start of the transition with California and Connecticut legalizing same-sex marriage. However, with still little states support for a change in marital laws, by Hillary’s 2008 campaign her perspective remained the same. But intriguingly, and certainly not surprising, 2010 was the first year in American wherein the bulk of all polls and surveys of the American people on the issue of same-sex marriage had breached 50% in support of it. For the first time there was consistent evidence that the majority of the people had transitioned from lacking support to being supportive. And right around this time is when Hillary’s tune on the matter miraculously changed. Go figure!

By 2012 even Hillary’s boss, President Obama, had proclaimed his open support for same-sex marriage. And then 2013 marked a rampant change in states perspectives on same-sex marriage laws and obviously the bulk of the American public had transitioned with that. Then the red letter day, June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court determined that the denial of marital rights to those desiring a same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, effectively making same-sex marriage legal in the whole country. So, over the past five years in particularly, with the growth of major support for equal rights to all in regards to marriage, Hillary has conveniently jumped on the bandwagon. It’s hard to say exactly what perspective she truly holds, but does it really matter? Even if she were openly in support of same-sex marriage all along, and gay rights as a whole, it wouldn’t change the fact that for years, to bolster her own image and reputation, she turned her back on supporting the matter. When confronted about it on a radio program, while discussing the clear fact that she had the total opposite opinion even only five years ago than she does now, Hillary openly stated that part of her reasoning for supporting same-sex marriage was political. And when the host practically reiterated her own words to her, mentioning that her way of changing was political in nature, Hillary got offended and accused the host of intentionally misrepresenting her position, which was utter nonsense. She then made the statement that she had a strong commitment to the issue, meaning she had strong committal support for same-sex marriage… again, now that it’s convenient for her to do so.

This is a particularly disturbing aspect regarding Hillary Clinton and where she stands. Clearly it’s another example of her prostituting her perspectives for the sake of winning popular opinion. But on the other hand, it’s one thing to flip flop one’s opinion on a small bill here and there, but this was a flip flop in regards to basic human rights and the desire of all Americans to live equally. And she treated it like a parlor game, playing the odds. She has already proven not only that she is willing to say whatever it takes to win, but that she will play with the rights of people and play with the desired happiness and empathy of the people who she craves to be the leader of. How can any sane American believe a single thing that comes out of her mouth? How can any sane person justify her as an honest and viable candidate with the ongoing storm of sickness and insanity that she leaves in her wake in practically everywhere she goes? And the sickness never ends…

Hillary’s current quagmire, as everybody knows, is her current email scandal, known conventionally as Emailgate to some. This is a significant issue as it is even threatening her current campaign for the Democratic nomination. Reports have claimed that the FBI is in the midst of a rather intense investigation of her actions as Secretary of State, and in particular to her decision to use a private server for work and government related emails. There have been claims that they have a fairly strong case and that potentially an indictment of some kind could come down before the Democratic primaries are even over. I hope, though I am doubtful, that this happens. I’m not hopeful because it secures Bernie Sanders the nomination, but because this individual should have been in prison years ago for a litany of corruption. She does not deserve to even have the opportunity to represent us as our Commander in Chief. She would merely make us all look like fools again as we continue to clamor for a respectable Presidential candidate and then continue to elect into office corrupt sellouts like her. And if, after all of her corruption, I have to accept that she was finally taken down over a simple government emails violation, I will take it, because at least she will finally be where she belongs. And if you are reading this and feel that my perspective on this matter is perhaps a hair too strong, please tell me the positive side to anything you have read in this piece thus far.

So what is Emailgate? It’s obviously a fairly significant issue. And of course it’s your run of the mill case wherein Republicans are using it to rip the woman apart while many Democrats, in particular Hillary supporters, are treating the scandal much like the Bengazi affair. “Okay, maybe what she did was wrong, but come on! It’s just emails, right?” Now, of course, the bulk of the American people, as with most cases, don’t know much of the details regarding Emailgate and exactly what Hillary Clinton did that was so wrong. So let me elaborate…

In short, Hillary came under scrutiny when it was revealed that as Secretary of State, as opposed to other government employees who produced all emails using a government server which is not only secure but does backups of all emails produced, she was producing all of her emails using her own private server. This was cause for great concern because it meant these emails were not being backed up, but even more importantly, she was using a much less secure server, which left her account susceptible to being hacked into. And if she was emailing about sensitive government information, and someone gained access to that information, Hillary could be single-handedly responsible for a massive domestic and/or international incident. Even throwing her a bone, to do something like this was grossly irresponsible. However, it offered her one key benefit in that it potentially allowed her a way to keep her words from going on the public record (which in and of itself is illegal by the way). It’s stated in law that the American citizens have the right to access any emails produced by government personnel and that law rings true from the President all the way down to city council personnel. They are all subject to Freedom of Information Act requests, which likely doesn’t bother Hillary at all as both her and her husband have ignored in excess of 300 of these types of requests in their past.

According to law, this action by Hillary is punishable by a hefty fine and potentially up to three years in prison. There have been arguments trying to deny the notion that Hillary committed any actual wrongdoing. I even read an article that staked this claim, only after reading through the whole thing I discovered the claim was not being made that she had broken the law, but rather that it was a difficult case to prove against her (which, in essence, admits that she still broke a law). But what is even more criminal is that when she agreed to provide her emails when they were requested by the State Department (oddly her old stomping ground) she had held back thousands of emails that she deemed personal. Her perspective was that these emails were irrelevant because they were not government related. However, this is insignificant as the only way to prove these were insignificant emails would be by letting the State Department see them. Otherwise we have to take Hillary at her word, which would be a foolish proposition. This is also a problem because all of Hillary’s emails are public record, meaning in deleting some of these emails, as she has admitted to doing, it equates to the destruction of documents. Now what practically nobody realizes, and it’s something I was fortunate to stumble onto, is that there is a code in our legal system that makes these deleted messages a serious problem for Hillary. Under the U.S. Code, Title 18, Par 1, Chapter 101, Section 2071, Paragraph b it states that anyone engaging in action representing the destruction of government records such as this must forfeit their office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States! Therefore, ipso facto, Hillary destroyed these records and thus, by law, she should not be allowed to run for the Presidency of the United States. This may sound nitpicking to some, especially to her supporters, but that’s the law in our country, and until somebody changes it, Hillary should be disqualified. These emails were not hers to destroy.

However, this is hardly the only argument against Hillary in regards to this Emailgate fiasco. One of the simplest issues is the fact that we now have missing emails to which one cannot determine the info within. This means Hillary could have written anything in these emails. With her past I can only imagine some of the things that she deemed “personal” and thus subject to illegal destruction. But I am merely speculating there. To further muddy the waters, while being investigated on the matter Hillary couldn’t get her own story straight. By the numbers she had turned over almost 60,000 emails but had held back around 30,000 emails. Despite these known figures, when questioned why she would hold so many back, Hillary took to deception in stating on the record that she had handed over around 90-95% of all her emails. This is a far deviation from the known amount. She also stated that this was a State Department figure that was presented to her and she even went so far as to claim that it didn’t matter because these emails were already in the Department’s system, and thus anyone could go check them. This came back to bite her. It made no sense. If these emails had been in the governments system all along then why was an investigation being pursued, with the whole scope of the thing being that Hillary was using a private server and not backing up her email files on the government’s server. It’s astonishing, but again, Hillary is so used to getting away with blind deception that sometimes her lies are beyond absurd. After presenting the idea that she had turned over substantially more emails that she really did a finding from an Inspector Generals report stated that less than 1% of her emails from that time were on the government’s server. This figure makes much more sense when we consider the significance of the investigation and the idea that pretty much all of Hillary’s emails were done on a different server all together. Obviously, the former Secretary of State didn’t have much of a response for this. Later she would lie again when she came under legal scrutiny on the matter, stating that when she set up her private email that she was following all governmental rules and regulations regarding such matters. The presiding judge’s response to this: he found her guilty of violating government policy.

Hillary had support in her deception as well from her old friends at the State Department, which sided with her claims for as long as they could, in particular in regards to one of the main concerns of the investigation which was the probability that some of these emails contained top secret and/or classified information. There has been a split on this regard, obviously rolling along party lines and between the pro-Hillary and anti-Hillary camps. Of course, Hillary has claimed there was no classified or potentially revealing information in any of these emails, which is convenient for her to say. But on the flip side, she was the head of our State Department! How could she have had absolutely no emails that contained significant or revealing information? The fact of the matter is that the intelligence community’s Inspector General revealed that some of Hillary’s emails did, in fact, contain very sensitive and classified information. So Hillary was outright lying… again. And she sent this information over her own server, which was far less protected than that of the government. Even the State Department’s own contention that claims of Hillary’s emails containing sensitive information had no foundation came apart when a request came through for them to turn over all these emails. The State Department’s response was to deny the full request, and why? Because twenty-two of the messages they had in their possession contained “top secret information.” Obviously after this admission the State Department had no choice but to joint the crowd in regarding this email scandal as a serious problem.

I have to scoff then, when all is said and done, when ardent Hillary supporters address her checkered past with the statement of, “Well, she can change!” I have heard that dismissive excuse so many times that it almost makes me queasy just thinking about it. Yes, we can change. But this woman not only has not changed in the past 40+ year, but if anything, she has become even more corrupt. Even now, as we work our way through the Democratic primaries, we are discovering more and more of her lies everyday. Emailgate is not a “yesterday” scandal, but it’s still an unsettled investigation, meaning this is a serious scandal right now at this very moment! And when those who have worked with Clinton recently have discussed this issue, multiple people have expressed that Hillary’s contention on the matter is that she has done nothing wrong. Of course she would believe that because she believes she is above the law. She has been so riddled and contaminated by corruption that when a little email scandal comes along she can’t even acknowledge her own shortcomings. Can people change? Certainly… But Hillary Clinton has proven that she never will. So it concerns me to a great degree that she still has so much support behind her when she doesn’t deserve that respect and she certainly doesn’t deserve the opportunity to be our President.

CONCLUSION

When all is said and done what does this all mean? What is my motive? I’ve obviously spent a lengthy period of time researching and writing this piece, so why? It’s hard for people to believe someone would write such a lengthy piece without having an agenda of some kind. And fine, in this case I do have an agenda. I don’t want a raving criminal, who has been boosting her criminal resume like a junky for over forty years in the White House. I am a Bernie Sanders supporter, yes that’s true. So certainly one can argue I have an agenda to divert attention from Hillary to Bernie, but I’m not that big of a Bernie fanatic. Maybe I’m just sexist and, one, frantically fearful of a woman ever becoming president, and/or two, taking the opportunity to openly attack the one viable female Presidential candidate for this upcoming election. And maybe I’m just still the strong conservative I once was ten years ago and I’ve just been lying to the world about changing my stance. The truth is that none of these are the case and whether one chooses to believe me on this statement really doesn’t matter as I’m the only one who knows where my true motivation comes from.

The reason I write this is not out of fanaticism for Bernie, but for the simple truth that he’s the only candidate running right now who is going to actually make an effort to change things in those many ways that we claim we want things to change. What is Hillary going to do? She already has a lengthy track record of being useless once she gets into a position of power. She was a waste of space as a New York senator and even she couldn’t really conjure up any accomplishments she had as Secretary of State. On the other hand she engaged in a corrupt senatorial campaign and ran a State Department overwhelmed with controversy. The reason I do not and will never support Hillary Clinton in any avenue or level of government is because, as objectively as one can be, she is a crooked, corrupt, narcissistic lunatic drowning in her own self-righteousness. She’s made a life out of crookedness and being allowed to get away with it has literally taught her that you can be crooked and lie and deceive and it’s all right because there are no repercussion to come of it. And in that vein we as the people have only helped her in that venture by letting her become a worse and worse criminal, which is exactly what she is! I know when the Republicans come out and refer to her as a criminal it’s easy for one to say, “Oh well that’s ridiculous!” or, “Oh, well that’s taking it too far.” But despite the obvious agenda of the opposing party, that’s the truth.

How else would you describe a person wherein practically everything she does is for the benefit of herself, whether it’s corrupt or not? Who is Hillary Clinton? A great leader? What kind of a leader rips off her own people? What kind of a leader defrauds our market? What kind of a leader denies basic human rights and/or Constitutional rights to its people? What kind of a leader lies with practically every word she says? Is complacent in the brutal murder of high ranking governmental officials? Violates our rights to privacy for her own personal gain? Uses people, even children, for whatever they’re worth just to progress her own selfish agenda or artificial image of herself? And she’s supposed to be a great pillar and representative of women and feminism? What kind of a feminist manipulates the rule of law to get a guilty rapist a deal for raping a 12-year old girl? What kind of a feminist treats the women that work under her like such inferiors that she degrades them to tears? What kind of a feminist stands by and supports her husband with a smile while he uses, abuses and rapes women by the scores? What kind of a Presidential candidate is this? How is this a person worth supporting for anything? I know practically every Presidential candidate has some skeletons in their closet but that doesn’t nullify their significance. I know there’s lots of crooked, juvenile, archaic Republicans running for the 2016 Presidency that we could go on and on about, but I’m not talking about them right now. I’m taking about one very specific, very dangerous person.

We were spoiled as a country during the 80s with a booming economy, an economy that stayed fairly strong during the 90s. We are easily distracted when times are good, but as the 2000’s journeyed on, especially when the economy faced downfalls following 9/11 in 2001 and the collapse of the housing market (among other things) in 2007/2008, we found ourselves not only distracted but blindly frightened. For all our contrivances we have seen the middle class rapidly disappear leaving lots of people struggling to survive. During the last few Presidential elections, along with the numerous Congressional elections we have had during that time we have clamored on and on, some of us out of a sense of spoiled American entitlement and others out of a genuine desire to make things better. And yet we continue to elect whoever has the greatest budget and turns out to be the most recognizable… and it’s always the one’s bolstered by the powers that be. Thus we complain about corporate control in one hand and then elect and re-elect those with their best interests over ours at heart in the other. Over the past few years I’ve seriously wondered if we would ever consider electing someone who really wants to make these changes that we keep bitching about but never lift a finger to attain. That is what astonishes me about the fact that there’s a powerful following for Hillary Clinton, a woman who in many regards is worse than those who have come before her. A woman who’s got every bit the criminal background that any Congressional member could boast.

Hillary is a person who will supports anyone as long as they’ll give her enough money. She created a fund with her husband specifically so other people would pay their endless legal costs, which might make sense if they weren’t 100% responsible for their own legal snafus. In Whitewater she helped her husband and others as they drained manipulable older folks, some out of practically their entire life savings. More than once she’s illegally accepted financial contributions for campaigns from known criminals. How many more examples does one need to recognize that she is as money-grubbing and power-hungry as they come. So what in the hell, I ask you, is her motivation to help the homeless? To help low income families, that are increasing like rabbits? To work with college students who are thousands of dollars in debt before they even get an interview in a field towards their hopeful careers? And beyond that, what is going to be her motivation for decreasing the power of major corporations, which is something that needs to be done if anything is going to change, especially when lots of these people are investing money in their campaign?

I’m not attacking this woman, nor am I misrepresenting her. She has such a record one doesn’t even need to embellish it to make a strong point against her. I’m a member of the largest class we have: the poor class. I’m invested in changing things for those who need change the most. I support democratic reform. I have no intent of supporting anyone running on the Republican ticket. I have no incentive to be this revealing of a Democratic candidate just for the hell of it. I have made the choice to do so in that I am tired of the same old nonsense going on. I don’t buy into the scuttlebutt that Donald Trump will likely be elected President, nor do I believe that any of the others running on the Republican ticket will defeat whoever the Democrats choose (unless, of course, Hillary wins the nomination but finds herself overwhelmed if her past scandals come back to haunt her). I believe there are more with Democratic leanings than Republican and most Democrats, whether they support Hillary or not, will support her if she gets the nomination. But I won’t be joining them in their effort. No matter what, when election day comes there will be one name on my ballot, and you know who that is. It’s easy for one to argue that I’m only helping the Republicans by supporting a Democrat who can’t win, but the fact of the matter is Hillary is just as screwed up as those idiots running on the Republican ticket, only she’s smarter (which makes her just as dangerous). And no, my vote for another candidate is not helping put the Republican winner in the White House. It’s those who support the Republican ticket that will put that individual into the White House. But because I believe the Democratic candidate will likely win the Presidency I see Hillary as the greatest threat in this election not just overall, but to a change for the better, which is what Bernie Sanders is striving for.

I’ve said my piece. Whoever wants to read and listen, I thank you greatly and I hope you read with a desire to understand as oppose to reading with an already tainted mind. I know many won’t make it this far as they will become bored with this piece or they will be too overwhelmingly dedicated to the Hillary cause to make it past the first few paragraphs before letting their own misguided perceptions get the best of them. When all is said and done, my objective in writing this is purely positive and my convictions regarding it are clear. And hopefully I’ve made my point clear: I will never support Hillary Clinton for the Presidency.

ARTICLES, SOURCES AND FURTHER READING

In writing this piece I just wanted to take the knowledge I had an openly write in the inspiration and in the moment. Thus I was not interested in pausing every other sentence to site sources like a journal article. I know this leaves me open to critiques and presumption that I’m making up a great deal of what I’ve written about here, or taking true stories and hyperbolizing them to create a stronger effect. But trust me, I am well read on this matter and have known much of the information conveyed here about Hillary Clinton for quite some time. I have thus listed below here a large collection of links, many of which I used as sources on this piece, while others just provide further reading and articles involving Hillary and her checkered past. Some of them, granted, are from fairly strong conservative/Republican sites, so one can feel free to take those sources with a grain of salt. But remember, just because it’s an article from an opposing persons site does not mean it’s not without basis. And none of the sources listed below are articles and writings that are totally without basis or evidence. So take heart in knowing that what is written about this is fairly well researched.

https://www.truthorfiction.com/clinton-watergate/

http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-37-old-clinton-financial-103000172.html

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2015/04/hillary-clinton-vince-foster-murdersuicide-coverup-the-strange-death-of-vincent-foster-christopher-ruddy-investigation-newsmax-articles-resurrected-by-citizen-wells-scathing-foster-investigation-2488700.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajvZYcQgmzI

http://freebeacon.com/politics/watchdog-hillary-clinton-in-league-of-her-own-with-ethics-violations/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAXUVdybAh4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDbCwFm1Cmo

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/01/the_big_hillary_realism_lie_clinton_supporters_present_a_false_choice_and_misread_our_political_moment/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/31/politics/hillary-clinton-ipad-e-mail-devices/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DSzcdCv8_s

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-2016-emails-213241?o=2