Google+ Followers

Google+ Followers

Thursday, August 29, 2013


Former President Bill Clinton expressed passing support for the Common Core education program while speaking at the “Let Freedom Ring” rally commemorating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington led by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
“We cannot be disheartened by the forces of resistance to building a modern economy and good jobs or to rebuilding our education system to give all our children a common core or to give all Americans access to affordable college training programs,” Clinton told the audience.
Bill Clinton Calls for Rebuilding Our Education System with a Common Core
WASHINGTON, DC – AUGUST 28: Former US President Bill Clinton delivers remarks during the ‘Let Freedom Ring’ commemoration event, at the Lincoln Memorial August 28, 2013 in Washington, DC. The event was to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech and the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.Credit: Getty Images
Common Core is the controversial education standards adopted by 46 states for English and math in K-12. The system was developed and supported by the National Governors Association and the teachers unions. It is also backed by the Obama administration and its “Race to the Top” education framework.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

90 Percent of Funds Raised by Rand Paul from Individual Contributors

With over two years before any candidates begin announcing for the presidency, Kentucky US Senator Rand Paul is making the fundraising rounds and retrieving a sizable sum.

To top off his numbers, on Monday the Senator also attended a barbecue fundraiser for Republican US Rep. Jeff Duncan in South Carolina, a key primary state. Paul is also scheduled to attend a fundraiser for Iowa Republican governor Terry Branstad next month, the first voting state.

The release of Paul’s early 2013 fundraising numbers show that he disclosed raising $1.9 million. This places him in third place among potential 2016 Republican presidential candidates, behind Marco Rubio of Florida and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Yet, what makes this fundraising success impressive is that these totals for the first half of 2013 equal what Paul raised in the two previous years of fundraisingcombined.

Like his father, Ron Paul, Paul has largely received money from individual donors, not corporations. According to the pro-transparency website, Open Secrets, 90% of Paul’s contributions have come from individual contributions. 38% of those were small donations of $200 or less. Only 7% came from PACs. However, the nearly $2 million numbers that were just released included his senatorial re-election fund and his PAC.

Paul may be in high fundraising mode because 2016 will be a pivotal year in his political career. Not only will 2016 have a presidential election, but it will also be the end of Paul’s first term in the US Senate. However, it presents a dilemma for the Senator: Kentucky law precludes candidates from running for two offices concurrently. Paul will not be allowed to appear on the ballot for re-election to the US Senate and the Republican nomination for president.

If Paul is going to pursue the presidential nomination, he will likely need to be fundraising even more feverishly than he is presently. Altogether in 2012, Ron Paul raised $40 million while fellow challengers Newt Gingrich raised $23 million and Rick Santorum brought in $22 million. Eventual nominee Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama each spent over $1 billion during the general election. For contrast, during his 2010 Senate campaign, Paul spent approximately $8 million.

The freshman Senator has consistently stated that he will not make a decision on 2016 until after the 2014 midterm elections. Money will be a key element of any big political campaign in 2016, but the early Rand Paul fundraising show that he is taking an early initiative to make sure that the funds will be available for his future political plans.

Benghazi: No one left to lie to

Judicial Watch has now filed four separate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits in our continuing effort to force the Obama administration to finally tell the full truth about the Benghazi massacre. And the story that is emerging is one of political treachery in the highest places, beginning with outright lies about the nature of the attack itself and culminating with a great stone wall of secrecy to avoid accountability for one of the most deadly political scandals in recent American history.
On June 21, we filed our latest FOIA lawsuit in an attempt to obtain the “updates and/or talking points” provided to Obama U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice concerning the September 11, 2012, attack, which left four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, dead. Following the attack, Rice joined the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a high-profile – and patently false – campaign to portray the attack as solely related to a privately produced YouTube video that Muslims reportedly found offensive.
On the Sunday following the attack, Rice went on five Sunday talk shows, repeatedly claiming that the attack was “a spontaneous – not a premeditated response” to “a hateful video that was disseminated on the Internet.” Obama went before the United Nations to decry the videoClinton promised the father of slain Benghazi martyr Tyrone Woods that she would apprehend the video maker. And, together, Obama and Clinton even went so far as to film a television commercial apologizing to the Pakistani people for the video.

All the while, every one of them knew that they were lying about a lie. In fact, shortly after their worldwide campaign of deception, the Obama administration was forced to admit that Rice, Clinton, and, indeed, the president himself had provided false information, and that the attack was neither spontaneous nor the result of an Internet video.
On September 28, 2012, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) reported that their “revised” assessment had determined the attack to be “a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists” and that “some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to, al Qaeda.” But according to General Carter Ham, the head of U.S. forces in Africa, it was apparent “within hours” not weeks, as DNI claimed, that Benghazi was an act of terror.
On July 19, 2013, General Ham told the Aspen Security Forum that he was in a meeting with Secretary of Defense Panetta and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey when word of the attack came in: “It became apparent to all of us quickly that this was not a demonstration, this was a violent attack,” Ham said.
Nonetheless, Rice, on behalf of President Obama and in place of Clinton (whom Rice claimed was just “too tired” to talk about Benghazi), took to the talk shows immediately following the attack to advance the false narrative blaming an Internet video. And the claim has been made that they were simply reading from the talking points they were given. Which raises the question, which talking points?
Former CIA Director General David Petraeus reportedly testified before Congress that the initial talking points produced by the CIA “stated there were indications the attack was linked to al Qaeda,” and suggested the terrorism reference was removed sometime during an interagency review process.

So what happened between the time of General Ham’s meeting with Panetta and General Dempsey, the creation of the CIA-generated talking points that noted the terrorist connection, and Ambassador Rice’s Sunday talk circuit circus? Given the spin and the contradictions, Judicial Watch is going to court to obtain the talking points. As Congress spends time debating and dithering over this supposedly “phony scandal,” these independent investigations may be the best way to clear up this web of lies.

Read more:

Howard Dean: ‘At this point, I’m supporting Hillary Clinton’.

Despite reports that former Vermont Governor Howard Dean might be considering another presidential run, the Democrat said Wednesday is currently supporting a Hillary Clinton presidential run.
“At this point, I’m supporting Hillary Clinton,” Dean, who ran for president 2004, told The Des Moines Register in a short interview in Iowa on Wednesday.
When asked by the paper if he has ruled out his own run for the presidency the former Democratic National Committee chairman cut the interview short: “Ahhgh, we’re done here. Thank you.”

Dean was in Altoona, Iowa Wednesday to speak at the 57th annual Iowa Federation of Labor Convention, the paper reported.
On Tuesday, there was some speculation that Dean’s visit to Iowa and scheduled visit to New Hampshire next month was a sign that the Democrat — perhaps best known for his signature “Dean scream” in 2004 after he placed third in the Iowa caucuses — might be “testing the waters” for a run in 2016.
As TheDC recalled in a Tuesday report, Dean said in June he was open to another presidential run.
“I am not driven by my own ambition,” Dean told CNN. “What I am driven by is pushing the country in a direction that it desperately needs to be pushed; pushing other politicians who aren’t quite as frank as I am who need to be more candid with the American people about what needs to happen. I am not trying to hedge, it’s a hard job running. It’s really tough. I am doing a lot of things I really enjoy. But you should never say never in this business.”
In his conversation with the Register Wednesday, Dean added that Republicans need to be defeated.

Republicans] are destroying the country, they’re taking away people’s right to vote, and that’s the core of what makes this country a great country,” Dean added to the Register. “I think we’ve got to get rid of them. They’re really a cancer on the United States.”

Read more:

The anti-Clinton media: here we go again

Not everyone is as apparently obsessed with writing vitriol about the Clintons as Maureen Dowd, the Times‘ op ed columnist. For example, last Saturday, Ms. Dowd compared the Clintons to the self-destructive cartoon character, Wile E. Coyote. Her first example of “little explosions” for which she holds the Clintons responsible, and I am not making this up — the tragic and painful experience of Huma Abedin, due to the conduct of her husband, NYC mayoral candidate, Anthony Weiner, whom she loves and forgives. Go figure.
At least it can be said that Ms. Dowd writes opinion on the Op-ed page of the Times. But that cannot be said about the two news reporters, Nicholas Confessore and Amy Chozick, who wrote a 2,839-word front-page article on Sunday, August 13, with the headline that there was “unease” and “multi-year deficits” at the Clinton Foundation. Those reporters are supposed to write confirmed facts to support their headline and core conclusions. They did not.
The first fact asserted by the reporters to explain the “unease” and “concerns” at the foundation was that during 2007 and 2008, the foundation “piled up a $40 million deficit” and in 2012, “it ran more than $8 million in the red.” But, as President Clinton pointed out in a published rebuttalthe $40 million assertion is based on IRS Form 990s, which requires multi-year commitments to be reported in the year the commitment is made, not the year the cash actually is received. Thus, he wrote, in 2005 and 2006 as a result of multi-year commitments, the foundation reported a surplus of $102,800,000, though we collected nowhere near that. “In later years, as that money came in to cover our budgets, we were required to report the spending but not the cash inflow.” In other words, the 990 can report a paper deficit for a particular year when, in fact, there is substantial cash in the bank or soon to be deposited. Thus, the reporters misled readers by relying on the numbers in the paper 990′s without further explanation of the actual cash realities.

Moreover, Mr. Clinton stated that for 2012, the reported deficit of $8 million was “inaccurate” — since it was “based on unaudited numbers included in our 2012 annual report. When the audited financials are released, they will show a surplus.”
The second core accusation in the Times story is that of “potential conflicts” of interest, represented by Teneo, a corporate consulting/public affairs/public relations firm co-founded by long-time senior aide, friend, and Clinton Foundation leader, Doug Band, and to which Mr. Clinton was a paid consultant for a brief period of time.
But then one cannot find a single instance of an actual conflict of interest, which is commonly defined as taking positions adverse to one another or having conflicting loyalties. But the factual examples reported in the Times article demonstrate exactly the opposite:  Teneo clients were successfully solicited by Band and his colleagues to contribute money to the foundation, which the Times reports has been used in the hundreds of millions of dollars to help the world’s poor, hungry, AIDS victims and to avoid global warming.
One of the best political reporters in Washington, Politico’s Maggie Haberman, posted an op ed piece yesterday August 20, unfortunately headlined, “The Clinton Drama:  Here we go again.” In fact, the more accurate headline should have been, “Bogus media-created Clinton scandals:  Here we go again.”
Remember Whitewater? A 20-year old real estate deal on which the Clintons lost about $40,000, which led to the appointment of Kenneth Starr as independent counsel?  Between 1993 and 2001, according to Google, the New York Times mentioned Whitewater 2,290 times and the Washington Post, 3,175 times. I would estimate tens of thousands of column inches in both papers and thousands of headlines, all implying wrongdoing by the Clintons regarding Whitewater.

The final result: On September 20, 2000, after seven years and over $50 million of public funds spent by the Office of Independent Counsel, the then-Independent Counsel, Robert W. Ray, successor to Mr. Starr, announced that the Whitewater investigation had closed without bringing any charges of wrongdoing against Bill or Hillary Clinton involving their Whitewater investment.

Read more:

Monday, August 26, 2013

Think the 2016 presidential race hasn’t started yet? Look out below.

Jan. 1, 2016, is 859 days away. But, judging from the headlines about the 2016 presidential race blaring across news Web sites and cable channels this August, you might think it were next month.
Hillary Rodham Clinton (along with her husband and daughter) is trying to raise $250 million for the family’s philanthropic foundation prior to 2016, in hopes of avoiding bad optics if she runs for president. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) spent last weekend in Iowa and was in New Hampshire on Friday. Vice President Biden’s political team is making clear that he is thinking seriously about the next presidential contest, and he’ll be in Iowa next month to show just how serious he is.

All of the early machinations by Republicans and Democrats who want to be the next president — even though President Obama won reelection just 292 days ago — have spawned a cottage industry of people wondering whether this is the earliest start ever for a presidential race and whether that’s a good or a bad thing. (Almost everyone, The Fix most definitely excluded, says it’s a bad thing.)
While the 2016 race may have started earlier than most, American presidential politics have been governed for some time by what we like to call The Fix’s Iceberg Theory. Here’s the theory in a sentence: Like an iceberg, the bulk of a presidential race happens underwater, or, out of sight of the average person.
Now, for the longer explanation.
Most regular people — even those living in states such as Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina that play an outsize role in picking presidents — are paying absolutely no attention to what the people who might run in three years’ time for the nation’s highest office are doing right now.
That lack of interest tends to drive a narrative that what happens now simply does not matter for the 2016 race. That’s wrong. Simply because the average voter isn’t aware of what’s happening in presidential politics at the moment doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter.
The truth of presidential races is that the dominant story line for each of the potential candidates is built out of sight of the average voter, crafted years in advance of the political iceberg popping above the surface for everyone to see.

It was during the 2006 midterm elections that buzz started to build around Barack Obama, the freshman senator who was drawing massive crowds everywhere he went to stump or raise money for Democratic candidates.
It was during his 1998 Texas gubernatorial reelection campaign that George W. Bush built and honed the “compassionate conservative” message that he rode to the Republican nomination and the presidency in 2000.
On the other side of the equation, it was in 2006 that then-Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) was cast as a vanilla centrist, a characterization that played a major part in his decision not to run for president in 2008. Biden battled the perception that he was not serious enough to be the nominee throughout the 2008 race, an impression drawn from years of blunt/impolitic comments.
Fast-forward to the present day. Is Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) a conservative who can broaden the Republican Party’s reach to crucial Hispanic voters or a moderate in conservative’s clothing, as evidenced by his key involvement in the Senate immigration bill? Is New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) a blunt-talking problem solver or a bullying blowhard? Is Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) a danger to the GOP or its savior? Is Clinton the inevitable nominee or the same flawed politician that Obama exposed during the 2008 Democratic primaries?
All of these questions will be answered — or come close to being answered — before a single vote is cast — and, in many cases, before the average person even begins to think about the 2016 presidential race.
And it’s not just narratives that get formed years in advance of actual votes. Building a national fundraising operation that can collect tens — if not hundreds — of millions of dollars takes massive amounts of time. Constructing a political team that has the right combination of experience and fresh-eyed insight can be the work of a political lifetime. Courting key activists in Iowa or New Hampshire or South Carolina or Nevada is an arduous process in which time spent can make all the difference.
Ignoring the iceberg nature of the presidential race then can have huge negative consequences. In 2008, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R) became the momentum candidate after winning the Iowa caucuses. But because he and his team either didn’t understand or ignored the iceberg theory, he was unable to build on that momentum in New Hampshire, where he finished a distant third. After a runner-up showing in South Carolina, Huckabee’s chances at the nomination vanished.
Smart candidates — and their campaigns — understand that the bulk of the work that goes into winning the presidential nomination happens well out of sight of a single voter. Momentum still matters — a lot — but without a structure to take advantage of that momentum, it can peter out as quickly as it comes. And if the primary fight drags out — a la the 2008 Democratic primaries or the 2012 Republican fight — what a candidate and his/her campaign team did years before when no voters were watching can be the difference between winning and losing.
If you remember one thing about the presidential race then, remember this: What’s going on below the surface can — and almost always does — make or break the candidates.

Friday, August 23, 2013

Clinton faces rumblings from her left ahead of 2016

It's good to be Hillary Clinton. She and her husband Bill are spending a few days with family this week at a six-bedroom beach-house in the Hamptons. Though staying coy about the possibility of a 2016 presidential run, she's leading every poll of possible Democratic candidates. 

Meanwhile, since leaving the secretary of State post, Clinton has been making public appearances, and headlines, on a regular basis. 

But behind all the buzz, several liberal Democrats have begun dipping their toes in the 2016 Democratic primary pool -- likely positioning for the chance to take on the Democratic powerhouse and tease at any weaknesses team Clinton might have. 

The emergence of possible Clinton challengers began earlier this year when an investigation was revealed into whether government strings had been pulled inappropriately on behalf of a company owned by Clinton's brother Tony Rodham -- which was seeking visas for wealthy foreign investors. 

It wasn't long before Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, a liberal Democrat who had been openly hinting about running, announced he would begin making speeches outlining his national vision and agenda. 

O'Malley is seriously positioning himself to run. As with others testing the 2016 waters, there are benefits for trying -- increased attention and name recognition help plus, even in defeat, a nomination race well run can earn a place on the winner's vice presidential shortlist. 

In the last couple months, Clinton was also dragged into the Anthony Weiner muck, too. When it was revealed that the disgraced former congressman and current New York City mayoral candidate had not kicked his sexting habit when he said he did, his wife Huma Abedin took a leave of absence from Clinton's side as her closest aide, to help her husband's collapsing candidacy. 

Other lesser-known Dems continued to flirt with 2016. Just two weeks ago, visiting the first caucus state of Iowa, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., spoke at a fundraiser and pointed out repeatedly that her home in Minnesota is just a couple hours away, and the two states are so similar they are like one big family. It sounded a lot like Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann's rhetoric in the run-up to her Ames Iowa straw poll victory in the last GOP nomination race. 

"You are the state that has gained notoriety for picking presidents. We are the state thanks to Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale that supplies the country with vice presidents," said Klobuchar, playing the vice presidential fallback card. 

The biggest irony is that the event Klobuchar was speaking to was an awards dinner for Clinton. Iowans expect Clinton to run and therefore are impatient for her to visit. Clinton, though, did not attend.    
Then came another blow for Clinton. Last week, Clinton's successor as secretary of State, John Kerry, reinstated the four midlevel State Department staffers whom Clinton had disciplined after the Benghazi attack, saying they did not deserve the punishment. Republicans voiced outrage, and the incident showed how instantly the Benghazi scandal can resurface for Clinton. 

And as all that was unfolding, down came word that former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who lost a bruising nomination fight to Kerry in 2004, is visiting Iowa twice and New Hampshire once in the next two months. Dean, who was the first Democrat to tap the Internet for major donations, has indicated there is plenty of room for a progressive to run for the 2016 Democratic nomination, and if people like what he's offering, he'll run. 
There is yet another name on the lips of liberal Democrats and progressive activists. Whether it's cocktail-party gossip in Washington or activists beating the summer political bushes out in the real world, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is getting serious buzz.  National polls have begun including her name among other potential candidates, liberal blogs are spotlighting her, and while she downplays the idea, she has not ruled it out.  

Read more:

Issa: The State Department’s Benghazi investigation has been “a charade” from day one

After the news that the four State Department employees who had been superficially and symbolically ‘held accountable’ following last September’s terrorist attack in Benghazi are now back at work at the State Department, House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa issued the appropriately scathing statement: “Obama administration officials repeatedly promised the families of victims and the American people that officials responsible for security failures would be held accountable. Instead of accountability, the State Department offered a charade that included false reports of firings and resignations and now ends in a game of musical chairs where no one misses a single day on the State Department payroll. It is now clear that the personnel actions taken by the Department in response to the Benghazi terrorist attacks was more of a public relations strategy than a measured response to a failure in leadership.”
Sadly, charades and musical chairs seems to be a pretty apt way of describing this particular bout of never-ending stonewalling. Following up on Fox News this morning, Issa enumerated some of the ways in which the State Department is still obfuscating on Congress’s requests coming up on a year after the attack, and that the Accountability Review Board report to which Democrats and the White House endlessly pointed as the authoritative source on what went down in Benghazi and who was responsible for it — but our new secretary of state evidently is ready to pretty much just throw it out the window.

Our investigation continues. We’re issuing subpoenas, we’re reviewing documents. Right now we’re having an interesting argument where the State Department is trying to say that documents they’ve already provided to us, they want to up-classify. They were unclassified, now they want to, because we’ve asked to release some of them, they want to make them classified… So, there’s clearly still a coverup in the State Department going on. But you know, the way you classify what Secretary Kerry, I think has to be re-characterized. These people never lost a day’s pay, they were on “administrative leave,” and they’ve now been fully reinstated. Which means, absolutely nobody has been held accountable. I repeat: No one has been held accountable for four Americans dying. The Accountability Review Board only managed to find four people to use as scapegoats. They may have had some responsibility, but they certainly were not the highest-level people who have responsibility… If he can wrap this up, it does help former Secretary Clinton. … And of course, you mentioned, the coverup. The false statement, the knowing false statement that was perpetrated against the American people for about a week and even beyond, all the way until October 10th… the president really allowed the American people to be mislead and to think that this was a video rather than a planned attack on September 11th.

Sources: NBC worried about retaliation from Clintons over Hillary miniseries

Via Newsbusters. C’mon: You didn’t really think they were intimidated by the RNC, did you?
Although the Clinton project underscores the conflict between the networks’ news and entertainment divisions, the public statements by Todd and Mitchell, who both appear on NBC and MSNBC, expose the divide between NBC News and the liberal-leaning cable network.
“It’s a bit rich for [Chuck] Todd and [Andrea] Mitchell to cry foul now about their journalistic purity being contaminated by commercial and ideological considerations,” says independent TV news analyst Andrew Tyndall. “As if the MSNBC lineup where Todd and Mitchell ply their trade every day is not shared with activist ideologues such as Al Sharpton and Ed Schultz.”
To that end, sources at NBC News say that it was not simply Republican ire that set the news division on edge. Rather, it was the specter of retaliation from the former first lady and secretary of state, who very well could be a leading 2016 presidential candidate. The Clintons’ penchant for grudges is legendary. And Hillary in 2008 threatened to boycott an MSNBC-sponsored debate over former anchor David Shuster’s comment that Chelsea Clinton had been “pimped out” for her mother’s campaign. Any scripted Clinton project almost certainly would include content objectionable to Bill and Hillary. “The Clintons are the ones to worry about,” says an NBC source. “Who needs those headaches?”
So NBC thinks Hillary will soon be President Hillary and that President Hillary and her cabinet won’t be quite as eager to talk with Brian Williams as she will the other network anchors. That’s the only scenario I can imagine where they’d have reason to worry about a Clintonian grudge. Note the standard here, though: Evidently any “content objectionable” to Billary, no matter how effusive the rest of it is about America’s need for a Strong Woman, is a risk in NBC’s hivemind of alienating the next White House. Are the Clintons really that sensitive, or is it more the case that — as I explained before — there’s really no such thing as a drama about Hillary that focuses more on highlights than on her perseverance through lowlights? And the source of most of those lowlights is, of course, the guy whom she’s counting on to be one of her chief weapons on the trail in 2016. “[W]hat exactly has she ever accomplished — beyond bullishly covering for her philandering husband?” said Camille Paglia to Salon today. No matter how well Hillary comes off in the miniseries, her chief dramatic nemesis necessarily must be Bill, which makes for a … complicated campaign commercial for a second Clinton administration.
Riddle me this, though. Precisely how much Clinton ass does NBC have to kiss before they get to stop worrying about being cut off? There are big Democratic donors at Comcast who’ll doubtless kick in for her presidential bid; the news division hired Chelsea as a special correspondent even though she seems to have zero talent for “journalism” or whatever it is she was doing there; their cable news division is a motley crew of liberal hacks who’ll happily go face first into the tank for her once she’s the Democratic nominee, if not sooner. They’ve done, and will continue to do, yeoman’s work in promoting the Clintons and now they’re in a panic that a miniseries that’s only mostly incredibly flattering to her might destroy all of that goodwill? Good lord.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Top 8 Hillary Clinton “Blue” Quotes

People in politics often have a public facade which is dramatically distinct from their true, private character.

However, I’ve found, the more alike the public and private personas, the more respectable and follow-worthy the candidate or legislator.
And then there’s Hillary. Ms. “Who’s your buddy, Vince” Whitewater, infamous for her expletives directed toward staff and Secret Service detail.

Here’s a round up of just 8:


“Where is the G*damn f**king flag! I want the G*damn f**king flag up every morning at f**king sunrise.”

Inside the White House by Ronald Kessler, p.244- Hillary to staff at the Arkansas Governor’s mansion on Labor Day 1991.  


F**k off! It’s enough I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I’m not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut.”

AmericanEvita America Evita by Christopher Anderson, p.90-Hillary to her State Trooper body guards after one of them greeted her with “Good Morning.” 


“If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags!”

FirstPartner The First Partner p.259- Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident. 


“Stay the f**k back, stay the f**k back away from me! Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else!  Just  f**king do as I say, Okay!!?”

UnlimitedAccessUnlimited Access by Clinton FBI Agent in Charge, Gary Aldrige, p.139- Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.  


“Where’s the miserable c**k sucker!”

TruthAboutHillaryThe Truth About Hillary by Edward Klein, p.5- Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer. 


“You f**king idiot”

 CrossfireCrossfire p.84-Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event. 


“Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo.  I need those sunglasses.  We need to go back!”


Dereliction of Duty p.71-72– Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One


“Come on Bill, put your d**k up!  You can’t f**k her here!!”

InsideTheWH2“Inside the White House” by Ronald Kessler, p.243-Hillary to Gov. Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female. 

This is a woman with a nefarious past littered with discarded lives and careers of co-workers and associates. Sec. Clinton’s legendary appetite for power surpasses every other emotion and attribute — so much so that she ignores her husband’s equally legendary womanizing.
The press mercilessly ridiculed George W. Bush as a bumbling, “mis-pronunciating,” idiot cowboy. And yet, W and Laura loved and respected their Secret Service detail, often hosting Detail barbecues on their Texas ranch. And that love and respect was returned in equal measure.
I don’t know about you, but if a man or woman was tasked with taking a bullet, if need be, to save my life, I darn sure would treat that agent with the honor and highest esteem they deserve.

Surely we can do better than Hill the Profane Pill for POTUS?

The Scandal Society From Nixon and Clinton to Obama

Remember Black Jesus? The Lightworker? The One? The next Lincoln, the Democrats’ Reagan, the neo-FDR? He is now standing next to Tricky Dick and Slick Willie, caught in a quartet of burgeoning scandals, charged with rewriting the facts when they became inconvenient, harassing the press, and using the Internal Revenue Service to get at his enemies, subverting their rights of assembly, and speech.
 “Richard Milhous Obama,” writes Carl M. Cannon, and there are also Clintonian levels of cover-ups, literally in the case of Hillary Clinton’s role in the Benghazi debacle. In The Presidents’ Club, Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy tell us of the bonds that unite former presidents, but within this club is a still smaller subset, the Scandal Society, those shadowed by crimes and abuses of power, who were caught up in snares of their own making and traps that they set for themselves. How do their troubles compare with each other’s, and with those that the current incumbent is facing? Let us look at them and see.

Born in obscurity, to far-from-rich parents, all three used their wits to rise to fame early. But while the Democrats adapted quite quickly to ruling-class manners, Nixon saw himself as a lifelong outsider, despised by the press, the establishment, and the people who mattered, forever imperiled and circled by foes. Where others evolved as they rose, he took the wrong side of the tracks along with him, never believing he really had made it, and the higher he rose in the rankings of power, the more embattled he thought he became. Never a charmer, he built his career on the corpses of three liberal icons​—​Rep. Jerry Voorhis, whom he defeated when he won his House seat in 1946; Rep. Helen Gahagan Douglas, the film star he trounced in a Senate race four years later; and Alger Hiss, the well-born New Dealer he exposed as a traitor, which opened an early-day culture war, and made him despised by the left. When he was just 39, he was picked by Dwight Eisenhower to balance his ticket, but the hero of D-Day looked down on the eager, unsure, young politician, letting him twist in the wind in 1952 in his fundraising scandal, trying to force him off the ticket four years later, using him as a hatchet man, and, perhaps worst of all to the insecure Nixon, never inviting him into his house. When Nixon ran on his own, Ike refused to endorse him before the convention; said “If you give me a week, I might think of something” when asked to name what Nixon had done to help him in office; and in his prime-time speech at his last convention, recalled the achievements of his eight years in office without mentioning his vice president’s name.
It was Nixon’s fate to take on John Kennedy, privileged, rich, and in Nixon’s words, “glamorous,” from the rarefied world that Nixon aspired to and never quite managed to crack. Ironically, Kennedy, who liked Voorhis, Douglas, and Hiss no more than did Nixon, sympathized with him and defended him until the day he started to run against him for president, telling one critic, “You have no idea what he’s been through” (referring to the beating Nixon took from the press when he defeated Helen Douglas), and saying shortly before announcing for president that if he were not nominated, he would be voting for Nixon himself. This did not stop the press from worshipping Kennedy, or Theodore White, in the first of his political sagas, from describing the race as a fairy-tale contest that pitted a graceful and witty modern-day Arthur (which would be Kennedy) against an awkward and much darker knight. 
His loss was hard, but the coup de grĂ¢ce seemed to come two years later, when, attempting a comeback in his home state, California, he was beaten in the governor’s race by Edmund (Pat) Brown, whom he considered run-of-the-mill and a hack politician, well below his own level of play. No one who heard his farewell press conference​—​“You don’t have Nixon to kick around any more”​—​would ever forget it or think he had a political future. But having nowhere to go except up, he began to remake himself, biding his time, playing the healer. Pacing himself, appearing largely in controlled situations, he had been able to hold things together. But this would not be possible once he held office, and then it would all fall apart.