First detail as co-president in 1993 was to hand her husband five executive orders for him to sign - all dealing with abortion.
She is the Mistress of Death and she runs to do evil.
Posted on 04/12/2015 11:13:33 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The fanaticism with which the Clinton Machine went after Gerth and Van Atta over the notion of their shared presidential “project” helps make the point that the Machine is obsessed with public imagery and getting even with opponents. “[Bill] gets angry, and he gets over it. She gets angry, and she remembers it forever,” Robert Boorstin, who oversaw communications for Hillary’s health-care task force, told former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein for Bernstein’s 2007 Hillary biography A Woman in Charge. At another point in his interview with Bernstein, he said of Hillary: “I find her to be among the most self-righteous people I’ve ever known in my life.”
“Ambitious” is an understatement, and the public is wary.
In the run-up to Hillary Clinton’s presidential announcement, a lot of commentators dismissed criticism of her or suggested it would boomerang against Republicans. Her former consultant James Carville accused MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough of “scandalmongering.” On Sunday, Chuck Todd of NBC’s Meet the Press, speaking to radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt, expressed his skepticism of Republican efforts against the Clintons: “I look at sort of an obsession on the right of beating Obama and beating Bill Clinton over the years . . . is there a point where you do this too much?”
But clearly many voters disagree. A new Bloomberg poll finds approval of Hillary at 48 percent in the wake of her e-mail scandal. The poll finds 53 percent of Americans believe “she purposely withheld or deleted some relevant e-mails from a private account and home server she used while in office.” Just 29 percent of respondents think she is being truthful.
“Voters do think she is a strong leader — a key metric — but unless she can change the honesty perception, running as a competent but dishonest candidate has serious potential problems,” concludes Quinnipiac’s assistant polling director Peter Brown. His firm’s new polls find majorities in the swing states of Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia don’t believe she is honest or trustworthy.
Reams of copy have been written by reporters about Hillary’s lack of warmth, her secrecy, and her belief in hand-to-hand political combat. But what seems to bug voters I speak with is the sense that she is mostly a pure political animal. New York magazine reported that “in the Senate, [her Democratic colleague] Chuck Schumer used to tell aides that Clinton was ‘the most opaque person you’ll ever meet in your life.’” He would then add, “If [I’d] lived her life, I’d be that way, too.”
But the life she and Bill Clinton have led includes a degree of ambition and tactical ruthlessness that is remarkable even by Chuck Schumer’s standards. Jeff Gerth and Don Van Atta, two Pulitzer Prize winners formerly with the New York Times, wrote in their 2007 biography of Hillary, Her Way, that in the early 1970s, she and Bill had “made a secret pact of ambition.” They would “embark on a political partnership with two staggering goals: revolutionize the Democratic party and, at the same time, capture the presidency for Bill,” they wrote. “They called it their ‘twenty-year project.’” Indeed it took them only two decades until Bill was elected in 1992. “Once their ‘20-year project’ was realized, their plan became even more ambitious: eight years as president for him, then eight years for her. Their audacious pact has remained a secret until now.”
Apologists for the Clintons have attacked Gerth and Van Atta’s account, noting that their source for the his-and-hers White House plan is former New York Times reporter Ann Crittenden and her husband. They in turn heard it from historian Taylor Branch, a friend of the Clintons. After Her Way appeared, Branch reversed an earlier statement he had made to one of its authors, saying “I don’t remember” the conversation about a pact. But “I’m not denying it,” he also stated. When contacted by the Washington Post in March 2007, Branch said, “I never heard either Clinton talk about a ‘plan’ for them both to become president.”
But the accuracy of their original “20-year project” citation hasn’t been challenged. Gerth and Van Atta say their source was none other than Bill Clinton’s White House chief of staff, Leon Panetta, who heard about the “project” from Bill Clinton himself on Air Force One in 1996. Clinton “allegedly told Panetta that’s why they relied on people like adviser Dick Morris, who has since become an outspoken Clinton basher,” ABC News reported in June 2007. “According to the authors, Clinton told Panetta that ‘you had to hear from the dark side,’ referring to Morris, and ‘we had to do what we had to do.’” Leon Panetta has never altered his on-the-record account.
The fanaticism with which the Clinton Machine went after Gerth and Van Atta over the notion of their shared presidential “project” helps make the point that the Machine is obsessed with public imagery and getting even with opponents. “[Bill] gets angry, and he gets over it. She gets angry, and she remembers it forever,” Robert Boorstin, who oversaw communications for Hillary’s health-care task force, told former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein for Bernstein’s 2007 Hillary biography A Woman in Charge. At another point in his interview with Bernstein, he said of Hillary: “I find her to be among the most self-righteous people I’ve ever known in my life.”
None of these behavior patterns are unknown among politicians, and voters know the game is a dirty business, so they usually focus on other issues. But electing a president is different, and there are signs that Hillary will be held to a higher standard the closer she appears to be returning to the White House. You’re likely to see more stories like the one last month from Gerth, writing for Pro Publica: “Hillary Clinton’s Top Five Clashes over Secrecy.” Another scandal could suddenly pop up, further increasing her trust deficit with the public.
Some Democrats seem almost to relish all the incoming fire Hillary attracts from Republicans. Paul Waldman, a leftist who writes for the Washington Post and the American Prospect, gloated earlier this month: “I’m sure the idea that Hillary Clinton might enjoy immunity from low-level political scandal because she’s been involved in so many previous scandals (real and fake) just drives Republicans batty.”
But there are signs that the evasions and counterattacks that worked for a first lady, for a U.S. Senator, and even for a secretary of state might not serve Hillary as a full-fledged presidential candidate, especially over the long 20-month stretch until voters go to the polls in November 2016. After all, they didn’t work for her in the 2008 primaries against Barack Obama — a contest in which she was also viewed as an invincible frontrunner.
David Horowitz: Hillary Clinton and "The Third Way" How America's First Lady of the Left Has Bamboozled Liberals and Conservatives Alike
"My subject is Hillary Clinton in her role as America's foremost leftist. This is not an obvious idea to those leftists who identify themselves as radicals. Purists of the creed are likely to regard both Clintons as opportunists and sellouts of their cause. But the left is not and has never been a political monolith, and its factions have always attacked each other almost as ferociously as their political enemies.
It is possible to be a socialist, and radical in one's agendas, and yet moderate in the means one regards as practical to achieve them. To change the world, it is first necessary to acquire cultural and political power. And these transitional goals may often be accomplished by indirection and deception even more effectively than by frontal assault. Political stratagems that appear moderate and compromised to radical factions of the left may present an even greater threat from the perspective of the other side. In 1917, Lenin's political slogan wasn't "Socialist Dictatorship! Firing Squads and Gulags!" It was "Bread, Land and Peace."
Yet Hillary Clinton as America's "first lady of the left," is also not an obvious subject to many conservatives. And since conservative politics begins with the defense of America's constitutional order, this is a far more significant matter. Underestimating the foe on any battlefield can be a fatal fault; in politics likewise.
This problem is exemplified in a brilliantly etched and elegantly deconstructed portrait of Mrs. Clinton by former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan. Thus, the focus of The Case Against Hillary Clinton is not Mrs. Clinton's kitsch Marxism or perverse feminism or cynical progressivism. Instead, it is her narcissism. It is this psychological nexus in which Noonan finds the key to Hillary Clinton's public persona. It is almost as though Mrs. Clinton's politics were merely instrumental to her career, as changeable as her famous hairstyles.
"Never has the admirable been so fully wedded to the appalling," Noonan writes of the subject and her faithless spouse. "Never in modern political history has such tenacity and determination been marshaled to achieve such puny purpose: the mere continuance of Them."
The wit is sharp but the point just wide of the mark. There are many unprincipled narcissists in politics. But there has never been a White House so thoroughly penetrated by the political left. Noonan's psychological characterization is surely correct. But if Hillary and Bill Clinton were unable to draw on the dedication and support of the left—if they were Republicans, for example—there would be no prospect of a continuance of Them. [A FULL READ well worth it - written in 2000, it holds up and informs to this day.]
[”She gets angry, she remembers it forever”]
What woman doesn’t?
The only open question is: Which pro-abortion Catholic is Hillary! going to choose for her Veep? Julian Castro is a good candidate. The bishop have been helping to import tens of millions of pro-abortion voters just for a candidate like him.
Remembering is one thing.......
Hillary has long been a staunch supporter of legal, abortion on demand, but has teamed up with pro-life leaders to push for an increase in federal funding to promote sexual health awareness. In reality, such calls would only increase government funding to abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood......"
__________________
"....But they are lying. (And when they defend racial preferences now—a principle they denounced as "racist" then—even they must know it). [fill in the blank for other issues - that are truly never the issue - the issue is always the revolution]
The first truth about leftist missionaries, about believing progressives, is that they are liars. But they are not liars in the ordinary way, which is to say by choice. They are liars by necessity—often without even realizing that they are. Because they also lie to themselves. It is the political lie that gives their cause its life.
Why, for example, if you were one of them, would you tell the truth? If you were serious about your role in humanity's vanguard, if you had the knowledge (which others did not), that you were certain would lead them to a better world, why would you tell them a truth that they could not "understand" and that would hold them back?
If others could understand your truth, you would not think of yourself as a "vanguard." You would no longer inhabit the morally charmed world of an elite, whose members alone can see the light and whose mission is to lead the unenlightened towards it. If everybody could see the promised horizon and knew the path to reach it, the future would already have happened and there would be no need for the vanguard of the saints.
That is both the ethical core and psychological heart of what it means to be a part of the left. That is where the gratification comes from. To see yourself as a social redeemer. To feel anointed. In other words: To be progressive is itself the most satisfying narcissism.
That is why it is of little concern to them that their socialist schemes have run aground, burying millions of human beings in their wake. That is why they don't care that their panaceas have caused more human suffering than all the injustices they have ever challenged. That is why they never learn from their "mistakes." That is why the continuance of Them is more important than any truth.
If you were active in the so-called "peace" movement or in the radical wing of the civil rights causes, why would you tell the truth? Why would you tell people that no, you weren't really a "peace activist," except in the sense that you were against America's war. Why would you draw attention to the fact that while you called yourselves "peace activists," you didn't oppose the Communists' war, and were gratified when America's enemies won?
What you were really against was not war at all, but American "imperialism" and American capitalism. What you truly hated was America's democracy, which you knew to be a "sham" because it was controlled by money in the end. That's why you wanted to "Bring the Troops Home," as your slogan said. Because if America's troops came home, America would lose and the Communists would win. And the progressive future would be one step closer.
But you never had the honesty—then or now—to admit that. You told the lie then to maintain your influence and increase your power to do good (as only the Chosen can). And you keep on telling the lie for the same reason........More
First detail as co-president in 1993 was to hand her husband five executive orders for him to sign - all dealing with abortion.
She is the Mistress of Death and she runs to do evil.
The Clintons and their inner circle will do whatever it takes to stay and keep power, and America’s enemies know it.
The Clintons are for sale - they use their power to advance themselves [power of the pardon, power of the purse] so bad actors around the world will gladly reach out and fill their war chest and attack anyone who stands in their way.
The Clintons truly are a criminal enterprise.
Check out the Clinton Crime List I have on my profile page.
April 12, 2015 - Slate: The Indispensable Hillary Clinton - Why she is more vital to the future of the Democratic Party than even Democrats realize.
......................"Today,” wrote Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report after the 2014 elections, “about 55 percent of all state legislative seats in the country are held by Republicans. That’s the largest share of GOP state legislators since the 1920s.” What’s more, “just 11 states have an all Democratic-controlled legislature,” and Democrats hold single-party control in just seven states. By contrast, “Republicans have a legislative majority in 30 states, including the battleground states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina,” and single-party control in most of the South.
Not only do Republicans stand to control the redistricting process in 2020—solidifying their majority in the House of Representatives—but they also have a huge farm team of new candidates. To that point, two of the brightest stars of the GOP’s 2014 class—Sens. Joni Ernst of Iowa and Thom Tillis of North Carolina—came from state legislatures. Democrats are less lucky. Their losses mean only a few places stand as incubators for progressive ideas, strategies, and candidates. Indeed, liberal counterparts to Republican governors such as Walker, New Jersey’s Chris Christie, Indiana’s Mike Pence, and Ohio’s John Kasich—ideologically motivated leaders with national profiles—don’t exist.
The simple fact is that even if everything goes well for Democrats in 2016, even if they hold the presidency and pick up the Senate as well, their long-term prospects are dire. After eight years in the White House, the party has atrophied, and given the partisan and demographic trends that are driving American politics—in particular, the demographic divergence in midterm and presidential elections—it’s not clear what Democrats can do to fix the problem.
Here’s where we are: Far more than its competitor, the Democratic Party is at a crossroads. At the moment, it’s being held together by its president and his potential successor, Hillary Clinton. But this obscures intraparty conflict and the extent to which the party is in desperate need of rebuilding for the second and third decades of the 21st century.
This, of course, is normal. After an eight-year term with the White House, an incumbent party is often exhausted. But with likely vacancies on an ideologically split Supreme Court—to say nothing of the programs of the Obama administration—the stakes for the next election are high. Winning the White House is absolutely vital for Democrats, and although Hillary Clinton is a great asset, she’s—potentially—their only one."
Leftists don’t care if their policies “fail” (to produce “jobs” or “energy”) or result in mass death, etc., because that’s not what the Revolution is all about. The Revolution is all about screwing everything that moves. Somehow, that part of the Revolution never fails.
One of the tired, old Lefty lines is “Surely we can agree on efforts to reduce the NEED for abortion.”
Right. And let’s also agree on programs to reduce the NEED for wife-poisoning.
We don't need to fear Hillary because she cannot use any kind of stealth activity on us. We know her like the back of our hands. And it will be that knowledge that will be her undoing.
Obama's (and the rabid Left's) entrenched Science an Technology Adviser - John P. Holdren (joined at the hip for 50 years with John and Anne Ehrlich].
EDITORIAL: Obama’s mad science adviser
".....In case compulsory abortion wasn’t enough to diffuse his imaginary population bomb, Mr. Holdren and the Erlichs considered other extremist measures. “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men,” they wrote. “The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control.”
It gets worse. The Holdren-Erlich book also promotes “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods.” After noting that, well, yes, there were “very difficult political, legal and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems,” Mr. Holdren and his co-authors express hope that their idea may still be viable. “To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements,” they wrote. “It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets or livestock.”
Most Americans can be forgiven for thinking that mass sterilization through drinking water is never acceptable and that someone who supported such horrors should have no place on a prestigious White House council. The question naturally arises why President Obama chooses to surround himself with extremists like Mr. Holdren or Dr. Emanuel. No matter how much they claim their views have “evolved,” health and science under Obamacare would be a frightening prospect with people like this advising the president."
The Clintons, indebted by over $5 million in legal bills from the investigations that have marked the Clinton Presidency, were able to buy the white-shingled, five-bedroom home in Chappaqua after Mr. Clinton's chief fund-raiser, Terry McAuliffe, personally secured the loan. The White House said that Mr. McAuliffe had put up $1.35 million of his own money with Bankers Trust. Under the terms of the mortgage, Mr. McAuliffe will get the money back, with interest from the bank, once the Clintons pay back the mortgage, or, as is more likely, refinance it in five years.
The deal was announced in a three-paragraph statement issued by the temporary press office of the White House -- a room in the Holiday Inn in Auburn, about seven miles from where the Clintons are vacationing in upstate New York. It apparently concludes one of the more unusual house-hunting expeditions embarked on by any American family, complicated by the Clintons' station in life, the fact that they have not owned a home in 16 years and Mrs. Clinton's political ambitions in New York."....
2000: Clintons Buy $2.85 Million Washington Home " WASHINGTON, Dec. 29— President Clinton and Senator-elect Hillary Rodham Clinton signed a contract today to buy a five-bedroom, brick colonial-style house near Embassy Row for $2.85 million.
Mrs. Clinton plans to use the Washington house when the Senate is in session and as a base to write her memoirs, officials said.
The Clintons have designated their home in Chappaqua, N.Y., which they bought last year for $1.7 million as their primary residence.
''We appreciate all the hard work of everyone who made our search for a place in Washington, D.C., productive and enjoyable,'' the Clintons said in a statement.
''We particularly want to thank the homeowners and brokers who have been so kind to us during our search.''
The purchase price was considerably less than the $3.5 million asking price, an anomaly in Washington's superheated real estate market. Real estates agents said the house, which had been on the market for nearly six months, had been overpriced. It was assessed for taxation at $1.1 million earlier this year.".....
2013: Here's What Chelsea Clinton's $10.3 Million Apartment Looks Like
Clinton announced her resignation in an email to the foundation’s employees Sunday afternoon, not long after launching her presidential campaign with a digital media blitz.
“While I have cherished my time serving on the board and engaging in the day-to-day work of the Foundation, in order to devote myself to this new, all-encompassing endeavor, I have resigned from the Board of Directors effective today,” she wrote in an email obtained by POLITICO. “As I step down from that position, I know that I am leaving the Foundation in great hands. I am equally as excited that Chelsea will continue to lead the Foundation’s mission with Bill, building upon our family’s commitment to help all people live their best life story.”
Hillary Clinton had joined the board of the $2-billion foundation soon after stepping down as Secretary of State in February 2013. Her daughter Chelsea became vice chair at the same time, and the foundation, which had been established as the William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation, was renamed the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Foundation........" Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-2016-quits-clinton-foundation-116905.html#ixzz3XB1cvQAH
As they were leaving (with thousands of dollars of WH household furnishings) they issued 140 pardons and several communations (including to FALN - 16 terrorists - to help grease the skids for Hillary's Senate run in NY.:
Pardons and commutations signed on President Clinton's final day in office "Clinton issued 140 pardons as well as several commutations on his last day of office, January 20, 2001......"
Politico Magazine has a lengthy report on the recent termination of Eric Braverman as CEO. Braverman, who was Chelsea Clinton’s boss during her brief employment at McKinsey & Company, was brought in to install more professional management of the nonprofit, and perhaps (my speculation) to head off questions of slush fund-like behavior, such as financing millions of dollars a year in luxury travel for the probably Democrat candidate for president in 2016.
In the words Kenneth Vogel, Braverman had only a “brief, and occasionally fraught tenure trying to navigate the Clintons’ insular world.”
Some brief excerpts:
At the foundation, sources say, Lindsey and other longtime Bill Clinton confidants hampered Braverman’s reform efforts by warning the former president not to allow too many changes that could be interpreted as a course correction. The result was that Braverman would develop consensus around reforms, but, when he tried to implement them, the old guard would try to undercut him, say people familiar with his tenure. They say he lacked the political background or allies to navigate between the Clintons and their sometimes divergent power bases........"
Needless to say, the gargantuan troll-like conflict of interest that arises as soon as the foundation of the leading candidate for the presidency of the United States begins accepting money from overseas is apparent to every sentient being on the planet except members of the Clinton family and the growing number of advisers, consultants, strategists, pollsters, groupies, allies, and hangers-on whose livelihood depends on that family’s political success. “These contributions,” the foundation said in a statement to the Journal, “are helping improve the lives of millions of people across the world, for which we are grateful.”
What I love about this statement is its flip shamelessness, the way in which its airy, sentimental public-relations gobbledygook is both a denial of what is obviously a corrupt practice and an implicit endorsement of it. I do not doubt for a moment that the Clinton flack who led the e-mail chain that came up with this blistering retort to the Journal is indeed “grateful” for every single one of the donations that foreign governments are making to his organization, because life in Manhattan and North Caldwell, N.J., is very expensive, and these kids are not going to be paying for college on their own, you know. If a little charity on the part of his excellency Sultan Qaboos of Oman can help pay for the lake house in Connecticut and the monthly installment on that brand-new Tesla you’ve been eyeing through the window of the store on 25th Street, well, what’s the harm? The programs you run — “transforming communities,” “creating partnerships of purpose,” devising other alliterative slogans — “improve the lives of millions of people across the world.” OK, maybe not “millions of people,” but certainly the lives of the oligarchs and monarchs and functionaries and foreign agents who sign checks to the Clintons and can count on reciprocity, not to mention the lives of one very special pair of grandparents, their beloved daughter, her husband (especially when Goldman Sachs is footing the bill for losses at his hedge fund), and beautiful Charlotte."......
“The choice of a home in New York removes one of the chief obstacles in Mrs. Clinton’s path as she prepares for a run for the United States Senate.”
...The other was JFK JR
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
