Tag Archive for: Bill Clinton

Have you been sexually harassed by Bill Clinton?

That is the $24 question asked on a new website titled “A Scandal A Day.” The website was launched just in time for the Democratic 2016 Presidential Primary. The lady behind this effort is Kathleen Willey.

Kathleen Willey was a White House volunteer aide who, on March 15, 1998, alleged on the TV news program 60 Minutes that Bill Clinton had sexually assaulted her on November 29, 1993, during his first term as President. She had been subpoenaed to testify in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

World Net Daily reports:

The site is partially aimed at recruiting other women who may have been assaulted by the former president.

Calling Hillary Clinton “without a doubt the most corrupt politician that this nation has ever seen,” Willey announced the launch of her new website Sunday on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM and online.

[ … ]

“The Clintons have made it extremely easy for me,” she said in the radio interview. “I don’t have to do a lot of research, because it’s not just a scandal a day. It’s about two or three scandals a day. So what I’m doing is kind of a compilation of these scandals and explaining them in simple terms so most people can understand what’s going on, and what they’re up to and why they are lying every day.”

Read more.

Willey may be on to something given the Scandal A Day involving Bill Cosby. To date 35 women have come forward with allegations that Cosby raped them after drugging them.

cosby women New Yoker coverIn the New York magazine cover story article on Cosby: The Women, Noreen Malone writes:

More has changed in the past few years for women who allege rape than in all the decades since the women’s movement began. Consider the evidence of October 2014, when an audience member at a Hannibal Buress show in Philadelphia uploaded a clip of the comedian talking about Bill Cosby: “He gets on TV, ‘Pull your pants up, black people … I can talk down to you because I had a successful sitcom.’ Yeah, but you rape women, Bill Cosby, so turn the crazy down a couple notches … I guess I want to just at least make it weird for you to watch Cosby Show reruns. Dude’s image, for the most part, it’s fucking public Teflon image. I’ve done this bit onstage and people think I’m making it up … That shit is upsetting.” The bit went viral swiftly, with irreversible, calamitous consequences for Cosby’s reputation.

Perhaps the most shocking thing wasn’t that Buress had called Cosby a rapist; it was that the world had actually heard him. A decade earlier, 14 women had accused Cosby of rape.

Are you ready for Clinton: The Women?

RELATED ARTICLE: Camille Paglia: How Bill Clinton is like Bill Cosby – Salon

Obama’s Iran Nuke Deal: It’s Déjà vu All Over Again

Democratic Party leader Barack Obama is doing in 2015 with the Iran Nuclear Deal what another Democrat Party leader did with a nuclear deal with North Korea in 1994. That Democrat is Bill Clinton, whose wife Hillary is running for the White House in 2016.

Perhaps it is time to read excerpts from what President Clinton said on October 18th, 1994:

Good afternoon. I am pleased that the United States and North Korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework document on North Korea‘s nuclear program. This agreement will help to achieve a longstanding and vital American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.

This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the region. It’s a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.

[ … ]

Today, after 16 months of intense and difficult negotiations with North Korea, we have completed an agreement that will make the United States, the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer. Under the agreement, North Korea has agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities.

This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. It does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States and North Korea have also agreed to ease trade restrictions and to move toward establishing liaison offices in each other’s capitals. These offices will ease North Korea‘s isolation.

[ … ]

Throughout this administration, the fight against the spread of nuclear weapons has been among our most important international priorities, and we’ve made great progress toward removing nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and from Belarus. Nuclear weapons in Russia are no longer targeted on our citizens. Today all Americans should know that as a result of this achievement on Korea, our Nation will be safer and the future of our people more secure…

Read the full text of President Clinton’s announcement of a nuclear deal with North Korea click here.

Sound familiar? Here are the comments by President Obama on the Iran nuclear deal:

History shows us what happened with the North Korean nuclear arms deal. Today North Korea is exporting its nuclear and missile technology to other nations, such as Iran, with impunity.

As Yogi Berra once said this is Déjà vu All Over Again.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Meet 7 Dangerous Iranians Who Will No Longer Be Sanctioned

Iran Vows to Buy Weapons Anytime, Anywhere

Ted Cruz: Because of Iran Deal, Jihadists ‘Will Use Our Money to Murder Americans’

Investigative Project on Terrorism: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates Obama Administration

Film ‘Crying Wolf’: An Exposé on How Illegal Wolf Reintroduction has Harmed Nature and Mankind

crying wolf film cover“Crying Wolf: Exposing the Wolf Reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park” is an eye-opening exposé of the illegal introduction of non-native Gray Wolves to Yellowstone and beyond during the Clinton administration.

Film maker Jeff King grew up in the thick of the wolf controversy. This is the real true story from the people who lived it. The wolf on King’s film cover photo [right] was one caught less than a mile from the King family home when Jeff was a teenager.

Crying Wolf is available for purchase on Amazon.com. The first release of Crying Wolf was on Vimeo where it received close to 100,000 hits.

The “Crying Wolf” exposé has been credited with helping to bring the ‘wolf versus mankind’ issue back to the political table in Montana.

EDITORS NOTE: Jeff King’s new film, Blue Beats Green is a critique of the Green Movement with a vision to replace it with a better alternative. You may support Jeff on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/bluebeatsgreen, Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bluebeatsgreen and by purchasing Blue Beats Green on Amazon.com.

The Ghosts of Spying Past by Gary McGath

In the 1990s, the Clinton administration fought furiously against privacy and security in communication, and we’re still hurting from it today. Yet people in powerful positions are trying to commit the same mistakes all over again.

In the early days, the Internet was thoroughly insecure; its governmental and academic users trusted each other, and the occasional student prank couldn’t cause much damage. As it started becoming available to everyone in the early ‘90s, people saw the huge opportunities it offered for commerce.

But doing business safely requires data security: If unauthorized parties can grab credit card numbers or issue fake orders, nobody is safe. However, the Clinton administration considered communication security a threat to national security.

Attorney General Janet Reno said, “Without encryption safeguards, all Americans will be endangered.” She didn’t mean that we needed the safeguard of encryption, but that we had to be protected from encryption.

In a 1996 executive order, President Clinton stated:

I have determined that the export of encryption products described in this section could harm national security and foreign policy interests even where comparable products are or appear to be available from sources outside the United States, and that facts and questions concerning the foreign availability of such encryption products cannot be made subject to public disclosure or judicial review without revealing or implicating classified information that could harm United States national security and foreign policy interests.

The government prohibited the export of strongly secure encryption technology by calling it a “munition.” Putting code on the Internet makes it available around the world, so the restriction crippled secure communication. The Department of Justice investigated Phil Zimmerman for three years for making a free email encryption program, PGP, available.

The administration also tried to mandate government access to all strong encryption keys. In 1993 it proposed making the Clipper Chip, with a built-in “back door” for government spying, the standard for serious encryption. Any message it sent included a 128-bit field that would let government agencies (and hopefully no one else) decrypt it.

But the algorithm for the Clipper was classified, making independent assessments impossible. However strong it was, it would have offered a single point to attack, with the opportunity to intercept virtually unlimited amounts of data as an incentive to find weaknesses. Security experts pointed out the inherent risks inherent in the key recovery process.

By the end of the ‘90s, the government had apparently yielded to public pressure and common sense and lifted the worst of the restrictions. It didn’t give up, though — it just got sneakier.

Documents revealed by Edward Snowden show that the NSA embarked on a program to install back doors through secret collaboration with businesses. It sought, in its own words, to “insert vulnerabilities into commercial encryption systems, IT systems, networks, and endpoint communications devices” and “shape the worldwide cryptography marketplace to make it more tractable to advanced cryptanalytic capabilities being developed by NSA/CSS.”

The NSA isn’t just a spy agency; it’s one of the leading centers of expertise in encryption, perhaps the best in the world. Businesses and other organizations trying to maximize their data security trust its technical recommendations — or at least they used to. If it can’t get the willing collaboration of tech companies, it can deceive them with broken standards.

Old software with government-required weaknesses from the nineties is still around, along with newer software that may have NSA-inspired weaknesses. There are still restrictions on the exporting of cryptography in many cases, depending on a complicated set of criteria related to the software’s purpose. Even harmless file identification software, used mostly by librarians, may have to carry a warning that it contains decryption code and might be subject to use restrictions.

With today’s vastly more powerful computers, encryption that was strong two decades ago can be easily broken today. Some websites, especially ones outside the United States that were denied access to strong encryption, still use the methods which they were stuck with then, and so do some old browsers.

To deal with this, many browsers support the old protocols when a site offers nothing stronger, and many sites fall back to the weak protocols if a browser is limited to them. Code breakers have found ways to make browsers think only weak security is available and force even the stronger sites to fall back on it. Some sites have disabled weak encryption, only to be forced to restore it because so many users have old browsers.

You’d think that by now people would understand that secure transactions are essential, but politicians in the US and other countries still want to weaken encryption so they can spy on people’s communications.

The FBI’s assistant director of counter-terrorism claims that strong encryption gives terrorists “a free zone by which to radicalize, plot, and plan.” NSA Director Michael S. Rogers has said, “I don’t want a back door. I want a front door.” UK Prime Minister Cameron says,

In extremis, it has been possible to read someone’s letter, to listen to someone’s call, to mobile communications. The question remains: are we going to allow a means of communications where it simply is not possible to do that? My answer to that question is: no, we must not.

In 2015 over eighty civil society organizations, companies, and trade associations, including Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Adobe, sent a public letter to President Obama expressing concern about such actions. The letter states:

Strong encryption is the cornerstone of the modern information economy’s security. Encryption protects billions of people every day against countless threats — be they street criminals trying to steal our phones and laptops, computer criminals trying to defraud us, corporate spies trying to obtain our companies’ most valuable trade secrets, repressive governments trying to stifle dissent, or foreign intelligence agencies trying to compromise our and our allies’ most sensitive national security secrets.

In the United States, we have a tradition of free speech, but in many countries, even mild criticism of the authorities needs to travel in secret.

A country can pass laws to weaken its law-abiding citizens’ access to cryptography, but criminals and terrorists exchanging secret messages would have no reason to pay attention to them. They can keep using the strong encryption methods that are currently available and get new software from countries that don’t have those restrictions.

Governments would gain increased ability to spy on people who follow the law, and so would free-lance data thieves, while competent criminals would still be able to communicate in secret. To crib David Cameron, we must not let that happen — again.

Gary McGath

Gary McGath is a freelance software engineer living in Nashua, New Hampshire.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Encryption stalemate: A never-ending saga?

Why Cameron’s encryption limitations will go nowhere

The dynamic Internet marketplace at work: Consumer demand is driving Google and Yahoo encryption efforts

Hillary to Stand Trial!

Hillary Clinton has been ordered to stand trial for racketeering. A great day for America.

Soviet Socialism in the 21st Century: A Malignant regime of Political Correctness

Don’t you think that Political Correctness is getting people killed? I believe it does. If you are watching the discussions on TV and radio today, you will be overwhelmed by the variety of opinions on how to deal with Terrorism, Ebola, ISIS, Syria, Iraq, and Ukraine. Yet, all the participant doctors, generals, politicians, and journalists are missing the major topic, the root cause of all events – Russia and its Political Correctness. Do you know the significance of the subject? Do you have an idea of the author and architect of it? We, the people who immigrated from Russia and other former Socialist countries know well Political Correctness – we lived through it half of our adult lives.

Political Correctness is a Stalinist policy, driven by the political agenda, a skillfully crafted design and a long-term strategy of war against Western civilization and creation of One World Government.

When my language allowed me to grasp current politics, I was stunned by how deeply rooted Political Correctness was in America. How could that happen? Where was the usual common sense of the nation? Where were all American intelligence agencies? If logically Knowledge is Power, unfortunately, as a result of Political Correctness, today Ignorance reins in America… And that makes me angry, because I have spent twenty-five years of my life and money to give you needed knowledge about Russia to warn you, but our Intelligence Service sabotaged my books and my numerous articles to block the information conveyed in them. Yet nothing can stop me in my mission to provide you with the Truth, because I believe in an upcoming major American re-awakening.

So, you are perhaps asking yourself: What does Political Correctness has to do with Ebola, the military, or with everyday life of the American people?

It has to do with everything and it affects the life of each citizen of America, because Political Correctness is a central part of the ongoing WW III. To present a credible explanation, I had to go to the internet to find a linguistic and historical definition of Political Correctness. It was not an easy task: the vast majority of people from academia presented only a surface commentary and a vague interpretation on the matter. Finally, I found more or less close to reality explanation of political correctness that gave the concept itself and the time of the history it was born. Timing is the key issue to comprehend the subject: “In the early-to-mid 20th century, contemporary uses of the phrase ‘Politically Correct’ were associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between formal Communists (members of the Communist Party) and Socialists.”

In order to have an understanding of the topic, you have to know the Soviet History of those days, the real history, not the history presented in the Soviet books.

As you know, I am a child of Stalinism, I lived through that history. The timing–”In the early–to mid 20th century” is telling you almost everything— at the time, Stalin was building his cult of personality and one party system in the country. All the methods and devices were directed to those goals… For your information, Russia had numerous political parties in the early 20th century. After Lenin’s death in 1924, Stalin began the immediate elimination of a political opposition–leaders and people from different parties with political agendas contrary to his. Nobody could compete with him in the art of double-dealing and intrigues. Trotsky was the first target and he was exiled by 1927. The liquidation of other leaders was going on full speed. I do not need to present the list of them, the history of that time is telling you the methods, tools, and devises the Stalinist regime used to liquidate millions – Show Trials, Purges, imprisonments, Gulags, deportations to Siberia and Central Asia, and many other horrifying methods.

I was a tiny girl, when my Mother was imprisoned. At the time I did not know politics and I loved Stalin, but later, somewhere in the end of the forties or in the beginning of the fifties, thanks to my Father, my political education had begun. The radio was the only source of information for the masses of people; it was on in our room from early morning to a late evening. The entire country was sitting frozen, listening to Stalin speak, being afraid of missing a word from his speech. So, I too was listening to Stalin. I knew his voice well, the timbre and the manner of developing the address very slowly. Listening to the radio one day I heard Stalin using some strange words spoken by a very different intonation and tone. I cannot tell you the exact year and time of a day; I remember only the strange and unusual, to me, intonation in his voice. The phrase was very simple: “those Comrades are politically incorrect.” The intonation in his voice kind of surprised me; it was a combination of threat and sarcasm at the same time. Perhaps for this reason I remember the phrase. It stayed in my mind for a long time, however not knowing the political system of human liberty, I was unable to identify the exact meaning of the term.

If you haven’t read my books, to conceive the predicament we lived in, please just remember, that we lived in a highly centralized, one party system of total corruption in the vertical of power. All Soviet media was the property of the government; there was not a single private or independent source of information in the country. Each media unit had Department of Agitation and Propaganda and censorship. The Russian writer of the time Lidia Chukovskay wrote about our lives that we were indeed “poisoned by lethal gas” of lies and deception. She was right. To indoctrinate us in the Stalinist ideology, an arsenal of different devices was used: lies, fraud, deceit, distortion, fabrication, perjury, and so on to substitute the promising result with a process…

At the time, the predicament in Russia was so constant that I did not know how to evaluate, explain and identify the system we lived under. I knew that it was the central part of the ideology, a modus operandi in our lives, when perverted truth was putting logic up-side-down. That way Russia became a model of goodness and America became a rotten country. If at the beginning Political Correctness served as a method of fighting political oppositions, the ultimate goal was much wider–mind control, manipulation of human psyche in a variety of its methods.

Only after coming to America I was able to grasp the essence of the lethal matter – Political Correctness designed by Stalin. So, living in America, I began searching for the first official indication of the use of the term Political Correctness in Russia. The internet allowed me to go far back in political history of the world. However, my understanding of politics in America began with the Presidency of Ronald Reagan and the first surprise came with Bill Clinton–he lived in Russia with a family of KGB members. That told me a lot. Unfortunately; his presidency was not firmly investigated. You can read about my suspicions in the Epilogue, What is Happening to America?, Xlibris, 2012. In Clinton’s politics, I found a lot of methods that could have been qualified as a policy of Political Correctness with usage of the arsenal of the devices indicated above–the true components of it. Clinton was surrounded by other Democrats resembling the Soviet Mafia a great deal. That told me that the transformation of the Democrats had started before Clinton….I had to go back in history to find the first official usage of the term Political Correctness.

Meanwhile, being in the process of writing my second book The Russian Factor: From Cold War to Global Terrorism, Xlibris, 2006, I had attempted to present the concept of Political Correctness, I called it–Sovietization of America. My American friends asked me what it meant Sovietization. So the term remained in dark. It took me many months to find the first official usage of the term Political Correctness. I wasn’t successful in my search; internet did not give me the answer. The answer came quite unexpectedly. My favorite TV show is Jeopardy, I try not to miss any of them. Watching the show a couple of months ago, I got the answer. The participants couldn’t answer the question and the anchor gave the answer: the first time the words Political Correctness were published by the Soviet official newspaper Izvestia in 1933. I jumped as if cold water had awakened me–the answer came in such a simple way! The time was correctly identified by the Encyclopedia! The answer also confirmed my vision of Political Correctness. The year 1933 was a preparation to Show Trials and Purges, as you know, no one governmental newspaper could publish the words of a new policy without Stalin’s awareness or by his order.

Moreover, knowing Stalin’s connection to the Muslim culture, his long-term strategy had included Islam as a vehicle and physical doer in implementing Political Correctness. Please, remember the words of the KGB Chairman Yuri Andropov in1972 about a mechanism of training and turning the Muslims into the arms of Stalin’s strategy. The Soviets were very successful in using them in WWIII–today Jihad is an ideological movement around the world. I believe, I am right–Stalin is the author of Political Correctness and to prove his long-term strategy, let me give you the document confirming that. If you haven’t read my books, but know the history, here is the official Soviet document with my small preamble to it.

At the end the 1940, after the Germany’s defeat, Stalin gave an order to the KGB and the military to study the effects of drugs on human psyche. The effects of drugs were analyzed by scientists from the Soviet Academy of Sciences and the conclusions were that the drugs trafficking would be extremely effective and the most vulnerable countries would be the United States, Canada, France, and West Germany. This study was approved in 1955 by the Soviet Defense Council. It was the first formal Soviet decision to launch narcotics trafficking against the bourgeoisie and especially against the American capitalists. Here is the document:

“Soviet strategy for revolutionary war is a global strategy… narcotics strategy is a sub-component of this global strategy. …First was the increased training of leaders for the revolutionary movements—the civilian, military, and intelligence cadres. The founding of Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow is an example of one of the early actions taken to modernize the Soviet revolutionary leadership training. The second step was the actual training of terrorists. Training for international terrorism actually began as ‘fighters for liberation.’ …The third step was international drug and narcotics trafficking. Drugs were incorporated into the revolutionary war strategy as a political and intelligence weapon to use against the bourgeois society and as a mechanism for recruiting agents of influence around the world.” p.128 What is Happening to America?, by Simona Pipko, Xlibris, 2012.

There were the fourth and fifth steps in the strategy, you can read about both and see when an undeclared war began. Please pay attention to the words:” recruiting agents of influence.” Do you know how many of them have been recruited in the last 60 years? To answer the question, you should know who is practicing Political Correctness and all components of it. In this respect, it is important to remember what party was against the Soviet politics, and what party was soft on it. The Democrats were not only soft to the Soviets for a long time, moreover, they have employed the components of Political Correctness and used them against the Republicans very successfully for the last forty-fifty years. By their softness and incompetence they gave the opportunity to the Soviet Mafia to grow and spread the venom of ideology across the world, to Balkanize America and the globe. This is the reason we are witnessing dramatic changes in our culture and within the Democratic Party–the party of President Truman is dead…Do you know what ideology the Democrats are adhered today?

Unfortunately, the politicians and our Media are focused on ideology and the agenda of Saul Alinsky, who is only one example of an agent of influence on the surface. In fact, there are thousands of them, spreading and implementing the Stalinist concept. Look at our culture: what we used to define as the greatness of America now is under a siege–the heroes became criminals now, the criminals became heroes.

Remember the essence and devices of Political Correctness:

“[T]o propagate us in Stalinist ideology an arsenal of different devices has been used: lies, fraud, deceit, distortion, fabrication, perjury, and so on to substitute the promised result with the process.”

Just look at the Obama administration and you will find the exact formula of the Stalinist Political Correctness in the 21st century.

If you remember, I have already introduced you to the Obama/Putin joined venture named Destruction of the American Republic. Do you know that people from former Soviet Republics are joining ISIS? The field commanders of ISIS are Chechen or the former Saddam’s security operatives, both were trained by the Russian security forces. Did you notice a pattern of being late to many important issues of our days by Obama? ISIS, Syria, Iraq, Iran, IRS, Benghazi, Ukraine: You know the list of the so-called scandals in Washington. In fact, those events are the components of ideology working against the interests of America. And again as you can see; Putin is up, and America is down. Obama is not lazy, stupid or incompetent, as some suggested, on the contrary he is very successful in his joined venture implementing Political Correctness. Just watch!

The last event is Ebola, a threat known since March 2014. It is a real danger to America and the entire world–a mortality rate is 70%, according to World Health Organizations. The disease requires fast and decisive actions by the government. Instead you will see a continuation of Political Correctness: Ron Klain, a man from the Clinton political circle, a political operative, without any background in medicine has been appointed as the Ebola Czar in October, 2014. The task of the administration is to enforce loyalty to the Obama Democratic Party not the health of the Americans. A logical response to the predicament is a travel ban to America from West Africa countries, but it is still only on discussion, when the time is a matter of life and death. A highly qualified specialist-epidemiologists must be involved in the process. Even Nigeria stopped the epidemic of Ebola by enforcing quarantine–a travel ban.

For those who blame America for instability in the world, I would recommend to read my books and articles to learn about a real aggressor and a sponsor of global terrorism–Russia. Mr. Romney was right in 2012, naming Russia as our geopolitical foe No.1. Fortunately, NATO begins to grasp some truth about Russia, the truth, I have been writing about for the last twenty-five years. Please read Financial Times, Friday August 29, 2014: Russia’s new art of war.

“NATO has struggled to counter Moscow’s tactics in a conflict where traditional military force is only one part of the fight…” NATO is still underestimated the role of Political Correctness–that insidious evil of the world…

The midterm election in November is upcoming and I’d like to point out some politicians who are taking our country in the wrong direction and blaming everybody else for their mistakes. Look at Obama, Charlie Christ, Al Sharpton, the leader of the Democrats “poor Debby,” and many others. They are constantly changing their minds and definition of words. Incompetent and arrogant, they are frequently lying to survive politically. They are promising the successful results for six years; you know that they failed in all aspects of our lives; foreign policy, economy, education, national security, social tranquility, job creation, and so on. They are lying to us like good salesmen. Do you know what they are selling? Don’t you think that they replicate the Stalinist strategy and surrender to the New World Order and One World Government?

Political Correctness cannot be spread by air or wind–people do that. My heart bleeds for my America. To prevent a catastrophe, I want to punish evil and heal our land. That is the reason I am writing about the Party called Democratic. Dr.Martin King Jr. was a Republican and so Frederick Douglass, who said; ”It’s not about color: it’s about values. ”Yes, it’s about values and, in this respect, I’d like to give you very important information to think about…

Another Russian author Daniel Estulin had written a book titled: The True Story of the Bilderberg Group. On page 52 of this book, I learned that on June 9, 1991, two-and-a half months before announcing his candidacy for the U.S. Presidency, Bill Clinton flew to Moscow and had a meeting with the KGB Chairman. The Arkansas Democrat ran the story under the headline “Clinton Has Powerful Buddy in the U.S.S.R.—New Head of KGB. Do not be surprised as Clinton helps Obama in the upcoming election–they are adhered to the same ideology and have the same political agenda.

To be continued www.simonapipko1.com

Hillary Clinton: An Unfit Woman

What are the odds that the American people, after being plagued for eight years by the most incompetent president and the most lawless attorney general in American history, will want to take a chance on another Democrat in the White House? If past history is a reliable measure, the chances are not good, even though the Democratic Party remains populated by the same low-information voters who twice elected Barack Obama. But would the people really understand what they’re getting in a Hillary presidency? What do independent voters need to know about Hilary that would cause them to reject her?

On January 21, 2009, Hillary was confirmed by the US Senate and sworn in as Secretary of State. Then, on March 6, 2009, just forty-four days after being sworn in, Clinton demonstrated that she is just as clueless and incompetent in foreign affairs as Barack Obama and the rest of his administration. On her first trip to Russia as Secretary of State, she attempted to engage in a bit of gimmickry, which often serves as real substance in the Obama administration.

As she met for the first time with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Hillary turned on the charm. Laughing (cackling), she said, “In anticipation of this important meeting and our time here together, I wanted to present you (with) a little gift which represents what President Obama and Vice President Biden and I have been saying. We want to reset our relationship.”

Lavrov opened the box and held it up for all to see. The box contained a large red button with the English word “reset” and the Russian word “peregruzka” emblazoned on it. Lavrov was understandably puzzled. The word “per-e-GRUZ’-ka” means “overcharged” in Russian. The correct word for “reset” in Russian is “per-e-ZA’-gruz-ka,” So while a little “za” among friends may not seem important, it was just one more piece of evidence that Hillary Clinton is no more competent at surrounding herself with people who can accurately translate a single English word into Russian, than she was in her ability to find staffers who could respond appropriately to an ambassador’s plea for added security at a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya.

Hillary Rodham graduated from Wellesley College in 1969 and later moved on to Yale Law School. There, while enrolled in a civil liberties class taught by Professor Thomas I. Emerson, nicknamed “Tommie the Commie” by his students, Hillary met Bill Clinton, of Hope, Arkansas. They began dating in the spring of 1971 and were married four years later, in October 1975.

As part of their course work in Emerson’s civil liberties class, students were assigned to monitor the trial of Black Panther leader Bobby Seale, who was charged in connection with the torture and murder of a former Black Panther, Alex Rackley, who was suspected of being a police informant. Hillary was charged with the responsibility for scheduling her fellow students to monitor the trial, looking for what “Tommie the Commie” might view as a violation of Seale’s civil rights. It was a major stepping stone in the radicalization of Hillary Rodham.

The following year, as the House Judiciary Committee prepared articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon, Hillary joined the staff of Jerry Zeifman, counsel to the Watergate Committee. She was recommended for the job by a former law professor, Burke Marshall, who represented Ted Kennedy when he was being investigated for his role in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, a senate aide, at Chappaquiddick Island, Massachusetts, on July 18, 1969.

However, Hillary and other Democratic staffers were apparently not interested in justice for Richard Nixon. According to recollections published by Zeifman… who came forward when Hillary was running for president in 2008… she and other Democratic staffers wanted Nixon to remain in office so that Ted Kennedy, or another Democrat, would have a far better chance of being elected in 1976. As they saw it, if Nixon remained in office as a disgraced president, he would be far more valuable to Democratic prospects than if he were successfully impeached. When the investigation was completed, Zeifman fired Hillary and refused to give her a letter of recommendation. When asked in 2008 why he had dismissed Hillary in 1974, he replied, “Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee, and the rules of confidentiality.”

Zeifman explained, “In December 1974, as general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, I made a personal evaluation of Hillary Rodham, a member of the staff we had gathered for our impeachment inquiry on President Richard Nixon. I decided that I could not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust.” He regrets that he did not report her unethical behavior to the bar association for investigation and possible disbarment.

Then, in October 1978, after moving to Arkansas to marry Bill Clinton… who was elected governor the following month… Hillary decided to build a financial nest egg for their future. However, with just $1,000 to invest, and with no experience in futures trading, she relied on the advice of attorney James Blair, who served as outside counsel to Tyson Foods, Arkansas’ largest employer. Under the careful guidance of Blair and an associate, the First Lady of Arkansas invested in cattle futures, turning her $1,000 initial investment into $100,000 in just ten months.

One wonders, has the statute of limitations run out on Hillary’s futures trading fiasco? On September 4, 2014, former Republican governor Robert McDonnell, of Virginia, and his wife Maureen, were found guilty of trading political influence in exchange for plane flights, golf trips, and a $20,000 shopping spree, all financed by Virginia businessman Jonnie Williams. A federal jury in Richmond found McDonnell guilty on 11 counts of a 13-count indictment, while his wife was convicted on nine of 13 counts. The McDonnells, who are scheduled to be sentenced on January 6, 2015, each face as much as 30 years in prison.

But aren’t Bill and Hillary Clinton guilty of essentially the same crime? And would it not be appropriate for us to refer to her… not as the former First Lady of Arkansas, not as the former First Lady of the United States, not as a former senator from New York, and not as a former Secretary of State… but as an unindicted co-conspirator?

Most Americans know only the Hillary Clinton they see on television… the plastered smile, the pastel pants suits of every color in the rainbow, and her cackling laughter. But there is another side to Hillary that the American people will become acquainted with if she runs for president in 2016 and wins the Democrat nomination. What they will be most surprised at is the foulness of her language and the utter contempt she demonstrates for her subordinates… as numerous former Arkansas state troopers and members of her Secret Service detail have confirmed.

Now, as the House Select Committee on Benghazi has conducted its first public hearings into events surrounding the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in the 2012 terror attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Raymond Maxwell, has come forward to tell what he knows of events that took place behind closed doors at the State Department as the Clinton-appointed Accountability Review Board (ARB) issued subpoenas for State Department documents. It appears to be the “smoking gun” that the House Oversight Committee has been seeking for nearly two years.

In the days leading up to the investigation by the ARB, co-chaired by former Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, Maxwell arrived at the State Department on a Sunday afternoon, only to find one of his subordinates, along with a number of other State Department employees, sorting through boxes and stacks of documents in a basement operations center. Maxwell has told investigators that he had not been consulted about her weekend assignment and had not authorized it.

According to Maxwell, “She told me, ‘Ray, we are to go through these stacks and pull out anything that might put anybody in the (Near Eastern Affairs) front office or the seventh floor in a bad light,’ ” In State Department lingo, the “seventh floor” can mean only one thing: the offices of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her principal advisors. Maxwell asked, “But isn’t that unethical?” To which she responded, “Ray, those are our orders.”

Shortly thereafter, two high-ranking State Department officials, Cheryl Mills, then-Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton, and Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan, entered the room.

The documents that were being “scrubbed” were documents under subpoena by the ARB… a serious criminal act… while the presence of Mills and Sullivan appears to connect Hillary Clinton directly with a conspiracy to obstruct justice. So, just as Richard Nixon had his John Dean, Hillary Clinton has her Ray Maxwell. The difference is, no one died in the Watergate affair. When she next appears before the Benghazi Select Committee, under oath, Hillary will have a lot of explaining to do. It should make for very interesting TV viewing.

So this is the real Hillary Clinton, the woman that few Americans have ever been allowed to see. She is, as her former boss on the House Judiciary Committee staff described her, a woman unfit “for any future position of public or private trust.” Like virginity, integrity is lost in an instant. And, like virginity, integrity cannot be regained once it is lost. Hillary Clinton’s virginity, or lack thereof, is of no concern to anyone but herself, but every American has the right to know that she is totally lacking in integrity.