Archive | HILLARY CLINTON RSS feed for this section

Mark Caserta: Regarding Hillary Clinton, actions speak louder than words

14 Oct


Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor


It will go down as one of the darkest moments in our nation’s history, literally 13 hours of hell on earth.

And despite liberals trying to bury this story, millions of Americans will take the facts of Benghazi and Hillary Clinton’s lies with them to the polling booths.

On Sept. 11, 2012, Islamic militants launched an organized attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. Attackers set fire to buildings and launched mortar rounds at the CIA compound, killing U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and two CIA operatives, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, former Navy Seals.

In my opinion, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are guilty of not only refusing to provide military assistance, but for attempting to cover up the details.

Outmanned and certainly outgunned, Ambassador Stevens was said to have retreated to a place security officers called a “safe area” during the first round of attacks. But apparently it was anything but safe.

Outside a crowd of angry militants gathered, banging on the fortified safety gate of the bunker-like villa. Multiple news agencies reported the complex was doused with diesel fuel and an immense fire was started, trapping Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith inside.

Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith died in this first round of attacks.

CIA timeline provided to the Washington Post and other news organizations confirms Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were attempting to defend the area from the roof of the CIA facility.

Doherty and Woods were killed in the second round of attacks, reportedly seven hours after the White House was initially notified.

According to the Select Committee on Benghazi report, no military assets were sent to Benghazi and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost eight hours after the attacks had begun.

Following the attack, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and surrogates fiercely condemned an “inflammatory” viral video multiple times for inciting the attack and even spent a reported $70,000 on television ads in Pakistan condemning it.

But the Obama administration knew these were terrorist attacks on the consulate and for several days continued to falsely blame the video. Many, including myself, believe it simply didn’t fit the Obama narrative that Osama bin Laden had been killed and Al Qaeda had been “decimated” under his watch.

Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State betray her heart when it comes to America.


For you see, it wasn’t Obama’s legacy with which she was concerned, it was hers. And facts be damned when it comes to her vying for the presidency.

Hillary refused to take action to save American lives.

And actions speak so much louder than words, don’t they.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Mark Caserta: Clinton presidency would put nation at risk

19 Aug


Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot Editor


We are a nation of laws. Without them we would surely fall.

Take for example, our highway safety laws. A set of fairly universal laws regarding the privilege of driving have been set in place to protect us while traveling in our vehicles. A red light means stop. A green light means go. There are definitive right-of-ways established. You get my meaning.

Well, what happens if just one person refuses to follow these laws?

The governing laws of our land with regard to our nation’s leaders are no different. We have laws protecting information and guarding behaviors consequential to the safety of our nation and its citizens. And no person, indiscriminate of race, ethnicity, gender or stature can be above these laws.

And when these laws aren’t followed, it can be detrimental to our nation’s security and the safety of massive numbers of people.

And I submit that is precisely what Hillary Clinton has done.

The majority of Americans now believe Hillary is guilty of committing criminal acts compromising our national security, according to a recent ABC News poll.

Additionally, I believe she is essentially being granted immunity and illegal asylum within the confines of the Obama administration and liberal factions of major media sources, such as MSNBC, CNN and The New York Times.

During the recent House hearing on Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., a former prosecutor, grilled FBI Director James Comey regarding his findings of Hillary’s actions while Secretary of State.

Here is an excerpt of the exchange published by multiple news sources, including the New York Times.

You be the judge.

Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or received. Is that true?”

Comey: “That’s not true, there were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.”

Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said, ‘I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email, there is no classified material.’ Was that true?”

Comey: “There was classified material emailed.”

Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?”

Comey: “She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”

Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?”

Comey: “No, we found work-related emails, thousands, that were not returned.”

So, has Hillary compromised our nation’s security?

A July column in the New York Times by David E. Sanger reports that while the FBI states it doesn’t have “direct” information that Hillary’s email account was hacked, cyber experts agree it’s indeed “likely.”

The implications of classified information and/or Clinton’s wrongdoings being privy to our enemies are vast in their scope. And we most likely wouldn’t know of it until “after” she became president.

By then, it would be too late.

Hillary’s disregard for our nation’s safety renders her unqualified to lead, much less become commander-in-chief.

A Hillary presidency places our nation and Americans at risk.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Doug Smith: The Clinton Coarsening

18 Aug

doug smith





Doug Smith: Author, historian and lead contributor to Free State Patriot


clinton 1

This is just one more example of the Clinton Effect on our society. It is a decidedly coarsening one. Bill Clinton testified under oath that he didn’t think a certain sexual act was truly sexual, and in the decades since the Clinton effect has made that a more common thing in our schools, as low as middle school, because “Bill Clinton said that s not really doing it”.

Not so long before Clinton, Gary Hart saw the end of his political career in a photo of his secretary sitting on his lap in a bathing suit. In the Clinton era, none of that seems to matter.

Clinton perjured himself. He was disbarred, but still gets hundreds of thousands for a speech, and millions for a no show job at a university. Lying, even under oath, is apparently now ok.

The net and long term result of the Clinton infection on the body politic and the society at large has been a coarser, less moral, less honest society. Standards have been pushed down to the level of “anything the Clintons do must be alright, because…”

Now there is the part I don’t quite put my arms around. Has the left in our society lowered standards for the Clintons because of their love for them, or are they simply the most blatant in pushing the limits downward? Perhaps the left prefers the lack of standards and a moral code, because they do not wish to be judged by any standard, so they let the Clintons take the lead in debauchery, dishonesty, avarice, and disregard for life. They defend them furiously, so they don t have to defend themselves. Then, once a Clinton has gotten away with it, it is forever ok for them. Perhaps that is the Clinton effect: a push of the left to eliminate all sense of morality and judgment in our society, so they can all live the life Libertine.

I confess I do not know the answer, although that one makes as much sense as any. I do know the Clinton effect has been a coarser, and worse place to live than before they came on the scene.

Donald Trump may be coarser in language and discourse, but he does not seem to lead the society into that direction. He says I am what I am, take me or leave me. Not so the Clintons. They say we are what we are. Love us. And follow us.

With Trump it is somewhat like having a large, boisterous dog that knocks things over in your house. With the Clintons, it is more like sleeping in a den of wolves, and wondering why you itch all the time and find you have a taste for sheep.

Trump is a unique phenomenon. I don’t expect to see another on the scene. But the Clintons want a dynasty. If Hillary is entitled to high office for putting up with Bill, then surely Chelsea is as well. She was entitled to a $ 600,000 starting salary at NBC.

Surely she is entitled to move her scamming, hedge fund husband into the White House someday.

clinton 2

Or perhaps. Just perhaps. We might say, a barbarian who is very good at war may win power, but ought not to drive the culture for generations. A coarse, uncultured lothario who is very good at politics may likewise win power, for a time. But should we let the vices of the Clintons drive our society for generations to come?

Perhaps it is time for a long corporate shower.




Here’s The Full list of 92 Paychecks Hillary Collected from Wall Street

22 May
Here’s The FULL List of 92 Paychecks
Hillary Collected From Wall Street
By Robert Gehl

The media’s going nuts that Hillary Clinton took three big paychecks for three speeches at Goldman Sachs.
At $225,000 a pops that’s pretty good scratch – but it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

She’s been very, very   busy, raking in millions in a three-year stretch since she left her post as the Secretary of State.
Her defense? It varies from ” It’s   what they offered me ” to the hilarious, “I happen to think we need more
conversations about what’s going on in the world.” Pricey “conversations” indeed.
Here’s a list of the 92 “conversations” that Clinton has had in just the past three years.
The total: $21.7 million.
She’s been very, very busy. What did Hillary promise in all these speeches?

What was her advice to Deutche Bank, Cisco and the Council of Insurance Agents? What did she tell eBay?

Or the ” American Camping   Association ” and why on earth would the American Camping Association pay $260,000 to hear from Hillary? Has she ever been camping? We may never know because she refuses to tell us. 

What Hillary discloses to us peasants is on a ” need to know ” basis only.

Robert Gehl is a college professor in
Phoenix, Arizona. He has over 15 years journalism experience, including two
Associated Press awards.

New Trump Ad Hits Hillary Hard Over Benghazi Statements

11 May


Would like to give her a lie detector test.


Advertisement – story continues below

Go to this link to see this amazing video:

New Trump Ad Hits Hillary Hard Over Benghazi Statements

Donald Trump released a new ad Tuesday with family members of Benghazi victims saying Hillary Clinton misled them to believe the 2012 Benghazi attack was the result of an internet video.

The video released on Trump’s Instagram account opens with Clinton speaking about the “awful internet video” that she proclaimed sparked the Benghazi attacks in remarks made at Andrews Air Force base shortly after the strikes on the American consulate and CIA annex.

Next comes news footage of victims’ family members, including Patricia Smith, mother of State Department employee Sean Smith; Charles Woods, father of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods; and Kate Quigley, sister of Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, speaking about how Hillary Clinton did not tell them the truth.

Advertisement – story continues below

Mark Caserta: Will the rule of law be applied to Hillary?

6 Feb

2013 0613 caserta 01

Have some government officials risen so high in political power that they’ve indeed risen above the law? Do Americans still value the rule of law over the ruler?

Consider retired Gen. David H. Petraeus, arguably one of the finest minds in military history and certainly a man who played a major role in the U.S. success in the Iraq War.

Originally appointed by George W. Bush to head multinational forces in the 2007 surge in Iraq, Petraeus later served as commander-in-chief of Central Command, head of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

But even Petraeus wasn’t above the law.

In April 2015, he pleaded guilty to providing classified information to his former mistress and biographer and was sentenced, in a plea deal, to two years of probation and ordered to pay a $100,000 fine by a North Carolina court, as reported by Reuters.

So if a decorated general, who no doubt helped save American lives, isn’t above the impropriety of compromising classified information, should an ex-secretary of state?


Fast-forward to last Friday, where an Associated Press Newsbreak, written by Bradley Klapper, reported the Obama administration had finally confirmed that Hillary Clinton’s home server contained closely guarded government secrets and at least 22 emails that contained material requiring one of the highest levels of classification, despite telling the American people that she had “never sent or received any material marked classified.”


The article went on to say the AP had learned of seven email chains containing “top secret” information so highly restricted that it would not be released even with redactions.

“The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information,” State Department spokesman John Kirby told the AP, calling the withholding of documents in full “not unusual.” That means they won’t be published online with others being released, even with blacked-out boxes.

In what I believe was a calculated attempt to “feign” her innocence, Clinton campaign spokesman Brain Fallon issued a classic Clinton bluff.

“We firmly oppose the complete blocking of the release of these emails,” Fallon said. “Since first providing her emails to the State Department more than one year ago, Hillary Clinton has urged that they be made available to the public. We feel no differently today.”

Right! The Clinton camp knows these top secret emails can never be released, further compromising national security, hence the assuming dare to release them.

As a younger man, I viewed hours of the Watergate hearings with great wonder. Soon thereafter, I witnessed President Nixon tender his resignation, fearing impeachment from an espionage operation inside the offices of the Democratic National Committee. While tragic, the system worked and forever changed politics as we know it.


Now, over 40 years later, could we be witnessing Hillary’s escape from indictment for far greater crimes against these United States of America?

If so, Americans will never again be able to trust that the rule of law will apply indiscriminately in Washington.


Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page

Mark Caserta: Hillary’s testimony may yield truth about Benghazi

24 Oct


Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

  • Oct 22, 2015

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is slated to testify today before a special House committee chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., regarding the Sept. 11, 2012, attack. I fully expect this much anticipated testimony could significantly impact Hillary’s campaign for her party’s presidential nomination.

In an article this week in the Los Angeles Times by W.J. Hennigan, Gowdy was quoted as saying the investigation “has taken on new importance” after receiving Ambassador Stevens’ emails leading up to the attack.

 MONICA 3bb6

“If you want a window into Libya and what was happening in the weeks and months before these four were killed, why would you not look at the ambassador’s emails?” he said. “He was a prolific emailer.”

An Associated Press release this week reported that emails from Ambassador Stevens to the State Department show that additional security was requested for the area almost from the moment the ambassador arrived, but were virtually ignored. According to the release, in one of the Ambassador’s emails he joked, “Maybe we should ask another government to pay our security upgrades because our government isn’t willing to do it.”

In fact, multiple email trails continue to haunt the former First Lady.

clinton 3benghazi 1

A piece in the Wall Street Journal by Peter Nicholas and Byron Tau reported that 300 emails recently released by the State Department revealed that Hillary had received emails from her top aides warning about the dangerous security conditions in Benghazi prior to the terrorist attack.

You may recall, following the incident, President Obama and members of his administration attempted to blame the attack on a “spontaneous protest” resulting from an obscure, anti-Islamic video. It was several days before the administration finally admitted it was, indeed, a terrorist attack.

Hillary’s testimony before the committee will surely be more awkward than her 2013 testimony. Rep. Gowdy and his committee have pursued and acquired additional facts which will be difficult for her to explain.

Since leaving the administration, then-defense secretary and CIA chief Leon Panetta has divulged that he knew that Benghazi was a “terrorist attack” right away. In a 2014 interview with MSNBC, Panetta said he sensed it from the beginning.


“I didn’t have any specific information, but the fact was, when you bring grenade launchers to a demonstration, there’s something else going on,” Panetta said. “And I just, from the very beginning, sensed that this was an attack – this was a terrorist attack on our compound.”

Now, I’m sure most liberal Democrats share Hillary’s position of “What difference, at this point does it make?” and would like for Benghazi to just go away.

But for the families of the victims who lost their lives, the difference is the closure of finally knowing the truth.

And we surely owe them that.

benghazi firstbenghazi

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Hillary’s troubles are only beginning

24 May

Sliver of Clinton emails hint at lingering political trouble

May 23, 4:23 AM (ET)


 (AP) Democrat presidential candidate speaks on healthcare

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton received information on her private email account about the deadly attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi that was later classified “secret” at the request of the FBI, underscoring lingering questions about how responsibly she handled sensitive information on a home server.

The nearly 900 pages of her correspondence released Friday are only a sliver of the more than 55,000 pages of emails Clinton has turned over to the State Department, which had its plan to release them next January rejected this week by a federal judge.

Instead, the judge ordered the agency to conduct a “rolling production” of the records. Along with a Republican-led House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, the slow drip of emails will likely keep the issue of how Clinton, the front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, used a personal email account while serving as the nation’s top diplomat alive indefinitely.

Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said that the released emails were incomplete, adding that it “strains credibility” to view them as a thorough record of Clinton’s tenure.

(AP) Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks to child care…

The prospect for political complication in Clinton’s choice to use a personal email account, rather than one issued by the government, was evident in the messages released Friday. They included several that were deemed sensitive but unclassified, contained details about her daily schedule and held information — censored in the documents as released — about the CIA that the government is barred from publicly disclosing.

Taken together, the correspondence provides examples of material considered to be sensitive that Clinton received on the account run out of her home. She has said the private server had “numerous safeguards.”

Campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton said Friday she was aware that the FBI now wanted some of the email to be classified, “but that doesn’t change the fact all of the information in the emails was handled appropriately.”

Asked if she was concerned it was on a private server, she replied, “No.”

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said, “It was not classified at the time. The occurrence of subsequent upgrade does not mean anyone did anything wrong.”

(AP) In this Jan. 18, 2013 file photo, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham…
Full Image

It’s not clear if Clinton’s home computer system used encryption software to communicate securely with government email services. That would have protected her communications from the prying eyes of foreign spies, hackers, or anyone interested on the Internet.

Last year, Clinton gave the State Department 55,000 pages of emails that she said pertained to her work as secretary sent from her personal address. Only messages related to the 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were released by the department on Friday. The 296 emails had already been turned over to the House Benghazi committee.

A Nov. 18, 2012, message about arrests in Libya was not classified at the time, meaning no laws were violated, but was upgraded from “unclassified” to “secret” on Friday at the request of the FBI to redact information that could contain information damaging to national security or foreign relations.

Twenty-three words were redacted from the message, which detailed reports of arrests in Libya of people who might have connections to the attack, Harf said.

The redacted portion appears to relate to people who provided information about the alleged suspects to the Libyans. That part of the email had been categorized by the State Department as “NOFORN,” meaning that foreign nationals weren’t allowed to read it, including close U.S. allies.

(AP) Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton shakes hands after touring…
Full Image

The message, originally from Bill Roebuck, then director of the Office of Maghreb Affairs, was forwarded to Clinton by her deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan, with the comment: “fyi.”

No other redactions were made to the collection of Benghazi-related emails for classification reasons, officials said. They added that the Justice Department had not raised classification concerns about the now-redacted 1 1/2 lines in the Nov. 18 email when the documents were turned over to the Benghazi committee. The committee retains an unredacted copy of the email, the officials said.

Clinton also appeared to send and receive protected information about the CIA, which was withheld on Friday because the State Department said federal law prevented its disclosure. The department did not offer a detailed description of what it was withholding, such as a name or other sensitive information.

A number of the messages were marked with codes indicating that the information had been censored for reasons related to the U.S. intelligence community, law enforcement or personal privacy — a process that happened after they’d already been circulated through Clinton’s home server.

Much of the correspondence concerned the mundane matters of high-level government service, press clippings, speech drafts, and coordination of calls with other top officials as well as chit-chat about shopping between Clinton and top aide Huma Abedin.

“What a wonderful, strong and moving statement by your boss,” Christian Brose, a top adviser to Sen. John McCain, writes in an email to Sullivan, forwarded to Clinton just after Stevens’ death. “Please tell her how much Sen. McCain appreciated it. Me too.”

There are repeated warnings of the unrest in Libya, though Clinton has said she was never personally involved in questions of security in Benghazi before the attack. One message describes a one-day trip by Stevens in March 2011 to “get a sense of the situation on the ground” and prepare for a 30-day stay in the future. A request for Defense Department support was made, the email adds, but no approval had yet been received. Stevens was killed in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.

As early as April 2011, Clinton was forwarded a message sent to her staff that the situation in the country had worsened to the point “where Stevens is considering departure from Benghazi,” The email was marked “Importance: High.”

Associated Press writers Matthew Daly, Stephen Braun and Eileen Sullivan in Washington and Ken Thomas in Hampton, New Hampshire, contributed to this report.

How long has it been since Hillary answered questions from the press?

19 May

Doug Smith: Character matters after all

25 Apr

doug smith

Doug Smith: Author, historian and regular contributor to Free State Patriot.


The phrase “character matters” was batted about some years ago.  It was also widely discounted by the Clintonphiles when it came to the Clintons.  Odd that a DUI 20 years previous to an election was a major character flaw for Bush, but peccadilloes in office, ( Literally, in office: The Oval Office) were excused as a private matter when it came to The Clinton ( Like The McGregor, but with less kilts and more charm.)

One of the most iconic pronouncements of the 20th century, and one that typifies the Clinton approach to ethics, truth, and behavior came from the lips of Bill, The Clinton.

I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.


And later,

I did, indeed have an inappropriate relationship with Miss Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, they were not correct.

Don’t these guys just make you love lawyers? As long as no one specifically asked if he engaged in the particular act, at a particular time, in a particular place, his lies and evasions were, to his way of thinking, ok – until they were not. Perhaps they should have had a divorce lawyer question him, or a psychiatrist.

But all the Clintonese parsing of words aside, when Bill Clinton answered under oath, the question “Did you have sexual relations with her?” with a flat “No.”, it was a lie.

When he famously uttered the Miss Lewinsky pronouncement to all of America, it was a lie – Period.

But Bill was charming (so was Charles Manson), handsome, and popular. The economy was good. No active wars were underway.

So, did the character of the Clintons (Hillary has the same relationship with the truth as Bill, her gravy train, but without the charm) matter? The Arkansas Supreme Court, to their credit, felt that a lawyer perjuring himself was a bad thing and disbarred him. The judgement of many supporters, and the Senate, at the time was, no, not so much.

So, does it matter, the character of those we entrust with power over our lives and our country?

Hillary  would have us believe at one time she  picked up the Wall Street Journal one day, said, Hmm, cattle is going up, and plopped down $ 1,000 bucks, and made a neat return of $100,000, good day’s work.

Except, the odds of that happening at millions to one.

Hillary’s investment was made by a trader tied to Tyson foods, not by her.

Her investment was 60,000 in the red at one point, and she was not required to put up more to cover the loss, as were other investors, who lost their shirts.


If Hillary, and he, had played by the rules, she would have lost the 1,000, and more.

Her investor was disciplined by the Chicago Mercantile Board for the practice of “straddling”, i.e. waiting till the winners and losers are known then allocating the trades, in short picking the winners and losers after the trades are done. That is like making a bet in poker after the other guy shows his cards. It is fraudulent. (He lost his license to trade for a year over the practice.)

Gradually, bit by bit, the Clinton White House revealed the truth of the trades, that it was not Hillary, that it was in fact guided by the trader tied to Tyson Foods. But as is their wont, they released the truth only when caught, and bit by bit, so that no one notices.

Tyson Foods was in turn the beneficiary of millions in favors from the state of Arkansas, under Clinton.  Governor Clinton refused to enforce his own clean up rulings against them at a chicken plant, which caused many residents to sicken, and the Governor to declare it a disaster area, forcing (surprise!  ) the State, and not Tyson, to clean it up.  When allegations surfaced of envelopes of cash from Tyson arriving at the Governor’s mansion for the Clintons, a special prosecutor sought to investigate the apparent quid pro quo. But by now, it was 1994.  Attorney General Janet Reno, now President Clinton’s appointee, refused his request to investigate, and the allegations reported by Time were never pursued.

Chelsea Clinton (net worth 15 million) said, a few years ago, “I guess I got this from my parents. We have just never cared about money.”


But in fact, for the Clintons, it is all about money. Power, to be sure, but power as a means to get money. They like the Park Avenue lifestyle, the private jets, hobnobbing with the rich and famous.

And the record shows they will do anything, say anything, break any rule, to get it.

With a 20 year pattern of such behaviors, underscored in present revelations by the Clintons going back to amend their taxes to include millions in donations from foreigners that they just “ forgot” to report, and forgot to pay taxes on, it is increasingly the question must be asked “ Can we trust  Clinton?”

Even as allegations of impropriety surface with the Clintons receiving money from foreign interests with business before the State Department while Hillary was Secretary of State, supporters are rushing to say

“There is no evidence that those millions had any impact on her decisions as Secretary.”  Huh? So in other words, someone gave her millions, and she made a ruling in their favor, but there is no proof she would not have ruled the same way even without the money.

Seriously? That is the story they are going with?

Now, just by way of perspective, let us consider this.  A week after President Obama was inaugurated, President Bush, Treasury Secretary Paulson, and Energy Secretary Bodman, got to look at their holdings for the first time since taking office. In the case of President Bush, he placed all his wealth into a blind trust with Northern Trust in 1999, when he began running for President. None of these men, all millionaires, received any information, nor were able to see where their money was invested, by the terms of the blind trust, until it was removed from the trust, after they left office. In this way, they avoid the appearance of impropriety in their decisions. They don’t know if their money is in oil, or real estate, or Uranium.  So their decisions cannot be influenced by what will do those good financially, but on what they think is right. That is a sound approach.

So we might start out with this question.  Why didn’t the Clintons recuse themselves from the Clinton Foundation, and take no money, or salary, or free travel from them, and meet with no donors, and not be made aware of the donors, during the time when Hillary was Secretary of State.  Henry Paulson did, and he was worth far more than the Clinton Foundation.

And again now, why don’t the Clintons take that action now that Hillary is a candidate for President, so she can avoid the appearance of impropriety as she runs for the highest office in the land? After all, Bush did. And he lost money in the 2008 collapse.


After all, we don’t want the appearance that our leaders are for sale.  Except, of course, if they are.

Now, many people like Bill Clinton. He is a likable guy. A scoundrel, but a likable guy. I might enjoy grilling hamburgers with him, but would I trust him with my wallet?

But Hillary?  That one has me puzzled.  Some people seem to worship her as a political icon of the Left. But why? She is NOT likable, as is her husband. She is not accomplished.  Everything she has been involved in has been tainted with failure, disaster, and scandal.  She is, to say the least, ethically challenged. Somehow she has wrapped herself in the mantel of “First Woman President.”

But let us follow that to its logical conclusion. Support Hillary, because only she can be the 1st Woman President. Really? So, even discounting her failures and her questionable ethics, are the feminists seriously telling us that of all the women out there, of all the smart, accomplished, personable women who have been on the national scene, there is only one that might win the Presidency? If that is true, what an indictment on feminism and on women. Really? One? That is all you’ve got for 100 years since Susan B Anthony?


Character? Yes, it does matter.  Condi Rice would make a fine President. As would Nicki Halley. As would Carly Fiorina. As would, were she still living, the former Ambassador to Britain, Shirley Temple Black.  These are 3 fine choices from the conservative side of the spectrum.  Again, my liberal friends, are you really saying that among all the liberal women on the national scene, all you have is one? It is not, nor has it ever been, Hillary or no woman President.

Character matters. As the latest revelations, and Clinton scrambling to revise the lies toward truth as they are caught, to pay taxes they evaded to set the record straight, (any ideas what would have happened if Mitt Romney, or you, or me, had REALLY evaded our taxes for 5 years?) continue to unfold, we need to get past the tunnel vision of Hillary because….Hillary.

Ironically, Hillary Rodham was involved for a time in efforts to remove Richard Nixon for his dishonesty and deception.  Now, after a lifetime of showing herself to be so very much like him, she wants his old job.

It is time to take a hard look at the actions, words, deceits, and record of this person and ask seriously, Will having her as our President be a good thing?

%d bloggers like this: