You are how you treat others, right @HillaryClinton?

October 1, 2015
Above the rules.

“Silence, peasant!”

In which case, she’s a witch with a capital “B.”:

In a recent book, former Secret Service agent Ron Kessler writes about the presidents, their families, and how they treated the people who are duty-bound to give their own lives to save theirs. According to the National Review article, most come off more or less well, treating their protective details and other staff with respect. The Reagan and Bush 43 households were especially well-known for that.

And then there is Hillary Clinton.

Read the whole article, but here are a few choice excerpts:

Within the White House, Hillary had a “standing rule that no one spoke to her when she was going from one location to another,” says former FBI agent Coy Copeland. “In fact, anyone who would see her coming would just step into the first available office.”

One former Secret Service agent states, “If Hillary was walking down a hall, you were supposed to hide behind drapes used as partitions.”

Hillary one day ran into a White House electrician who was changing a light bulb in the upstairs family quarters. She screamed at him, because she had demanded that all repairs be performed while the Clintons were outside the Executive Mansion. “She caught the guy on a ladder doing the light bulb,” says Franette McCulloch, who served at that time as assistant White House pastry chef. “He was a basket case.”

White House usher Christopher B. Emery unwisely called back Barbara Bush after she phoned him for computer troubleshooting. Emery helped the former first lady twice. Consequently, Kessler reports, Hillary sacked him. The father of four stayed jobless for a year.

Thanks to Hillary.

Many years ago, in his brilliant The Case for Democracy, Israeli author Natan Sharansky wrote that one could tell how a government and its rulers would behave in the international community by how they treated their own people. It’s a lesson I’ve never forgotten.

And, if true, then how can we expect Hillary Clinton –a self-entitled, arrogant, mean-spirited Leftist who treats her staff like filth stuck to her shoe, including the people sworn to protect her…

How can we expect her as president to treat us any better?

Character counts, and Hillary Clinton’s character is one more reason why she should never be president.

Quote Of The Day: 2015 is the new 1938 edition

September 12, 2015

The fruit of appeasement

National Review’s David French on Democrats voting for the Iran deal:

It’s entirely appropriate that the Democrats filibustered Republican efforts to block the Iran Deal on September 10. After all, the Democrats — now fully the party of jihadist appeasement — are the primary political repository of September 10 thinking, but without the excuse of ignorance. We know what jihadists are capable of. We know their war aims. And yet the Democrats overwhelmingly voted to grant the world’s most powerful terrorist state a $150 billion economic stimulus, access to international arms markets, and access to ballistic missile technology – without even stopping their nuclear program or establishing a viable inspection program

Remember that. Democrats know just how bad a deal Obama and Kerry have crafted: that’s why they filibustered the cloture motion — the cowards didn’t want to be on record voting to let genocidal maniacs in Tehran get their hands on nuclear weapons. It doesn’t matter, however; the public knows the Democrats own this fiasco-in-the-making.

And for those who forget, we’ll make sure to remind them. This is unforgivable.

To paraphrase Cato the Elder: Factio Democratica delenda est.

PS: Click through to the original post for video explaining the subject line.

How much damage has @HillaryClinton done to our national security?

September 10, 2015

Hillary’s legacy

While everyone focuses on just what Hillary did when she routed all her (classified, top secret) work emails through an unsecure private email server, the question left hanging is just how much damage was done to our national security by having our secrets left in the open like laundry on the line.

I’ve assumed any intelligence service worth its pay –especially, but not exclusively, those of our enemies– was of course reading these communications. But Stanley Kurtz points out the harm done even if no one did:

“There’s a widely held belief among American counterspies that foreign intelligence agencies had to be reading the e-mails on Hillary’s private server, particularly since it was wholly unencrypted for months….senior counterintelligence officials are assuming the worst about what the Russians and Chinese know.”

So America’s intelligence agencies are assuming that every communication of America’s Secretary of State for months or more was read by our adversaries. Isn’t that likely to amount to one of the worst intelligence breaches in American history? And here’s the kicker. Even if we got lucky and the Russians and Chinese didn’t actually intercept some or all of Hillary’s e-mails, our intelligence agencies now have to behave as if they did.

Doesn’t that mean that we are now making massive changes to the sources and methods of our intelligence? Are we now withdrawing valuable agents? Are we trying to replace methods that cannot be easily replicated? Are we now forced to rebuild a good deal of our intelligence capabilities from the ground up? Are we not suffering tremendous intelligence damage right now, regardless of what foreign intelligence services did or did not manage to snatch from Hillary’s server—simply because we are forced to assume that they got it all?

The extent of this train wreck will itself be secret: that’s the nature of intelligence work — you don’t want your enemy to know you know how much they know.

But the fact itself that we have to go through all this because of her sense of entitlement and her miserable judgment should be enough for any reasonable person to disqualify her from ever holding another office, let alone the presidency.

It should also land her before a judge and jury.

Hillary’s Sources, Methods, and Lies

September 9, 2015

Phineas Fahrquar:

An interesting discussion of how the same piece of information can wind up assigned different levels of classification by different agencies: it depends on how the information is obtained.

Originally posted on The XX Committee:

I’ve been doing my best to explain the complex intelligence realities behind Hillary Clinton’s on-going #EmailGate scandal for months now, and we’re still far from the end of this messy saga.

Hillary’s take on what happened with her State Department “unclassified” email and her “private” server has see-sawed with the customary Clintonian lawyerly evasions, untruths, and now something approaching half-truths.

First it was: everything done was legal and acceptable.

Then came: mistakes were perhaps made, but not by me, and I’m not apologizing.

Followed by: the inevitable Clintonian sorry-not-sorry.

Now, having seen her polls dropping in rock-like fashion, we’re at: I’m kinda sorry but still nothing I emailed was “marked” classified.

The last is a particularly dishonest evasion, given that the Intelligence Community has twicedetermined that in fact TOPSECRET//SCI information was included in Hillary’s “private” email on at least two occasions. Given that’s from a sample of just forty…

View original 1,185 more words

All is well, America. @HillaryClinton has apologized AND taken responsibility

September 8, 2015

“Quick! Bill! Slip me another excuse!”

Well, this makes everything better, now, doesn’t it?

Hillary Clinton on Tuesday apologized for the scandal surrounding her private State Department email server, and said in a new interview with ABC News that she takes full responsibility.

Using an unauthorized and unsecured email server “was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility,” she told David Muir in a “World News Tonight” interview that will air later this week.

Clinton’s apology marked a sharp departure from when she said earlier this month that she owes no apology for using a private email server when she worked the top position at State.

Let’s be honest about this: they only reason Lady Macbeth is apologizing is that she has seen her “inevitable” march to the White House crippled by a poorly run campaign and a scandal that would have anyone else facing a judge in federal court. She got in front of the cameras with Muir because her poll numbers among Democrats have collapsed 15-20 points since July. In survey groups these days, the word most commonly associated with her is “liar.” Apologize? She’s so desperate, I’m surprised she didn’t go on her knees to Canossa.

How bad have thing’s gotten? She’s using stupidity as an excuse:

Clinton said she used the personal email account for convenience and did not give the issue much thought when she started her job as secretary of state.

“I was not thinking a lot when I got in. There was so much work to be done. We had so many problems around the world. I didn’t really stop and think what kind of email system will there be,” she said.

Just what we need, America: a Chief Executive who doesn’t think a lot…

But, to answer my question above, no, this does not make everything better.

Let’s forget her lack of sincerity. She’s about as sincere as her husband was when he denied having sex “with that woman.” She’s taking “responsibility” while expecting not to be held responsible. No one except the most die-hard Clinton droid will believe she means a word of this or is willing to be held accountable for serious violations of federal law. Her hope is that an act of public contrition, no matter how pro forma, will be enough to start defusing this scandal.

Well, it isn’t. The information she allowed to be placed on that unsecure server includes some of the most sensitive national-security secrets of the United States, which by law people of her rank in the government are expected to recognize and handle appropriately. But, instead of using the approved government email system, she had her own private server to, I assume, kept her doings away from pesky FOIA requests. If you or I had done anything remotely similar, we would have gone through “interrogation Hell” until we cried for our mommies and then were hauled into court. And you can bet your last dollar that the Russians, the Chinese, and any foreign intelligence agency worth their salt read everything on her server. They would have to be incompetent not to.

Sorry, Hillary. An apology just doesn’t cut it.

RELATED: Jonah Goldberg on Hillary — “Who cares if she apologized?”

Hilarious Tweet of the Day at @HillaryClinton’s expense, @TheRickWilson edition

September 8, 2015
Above the rules.

“Does this look spontaneous enough?”

So, I’m not the only one to note that the “planned spontaneity” the Lady Macbeth Hillary Clinton campaign is working on sounds a bit… Stalinist:


From the linked NYT article:

There will be no more flip jokes about her private email server. There will be no rope lines to wall off crowds, which added to an impression of aloofness. And there will be new efforts to bring spontaneity to a candidacy that sometimes seems wooden and overly cautious.

I hate to tell Her Inevitableness’ handlers this –God alone knows, they have a hard enough job anyway just trying to make people not hate her– but, if you have to game out how to be more spontaneous, you’re probably doing it wrong.

On the other hand, this guy approves:

Centrally-planned spontaneity

Centrally-planned spontaneous glory!

via Jim Geraghty

Former Aide to Democratic Front-Runner to Plead the Fifth. #emailgate

September 2, 2015
Above the rules.

Above the rules.

As Lt. Joe Kenda of the entertaining “Homicide Hunter” like to say when he’s about to nail a suspect, “Well my, my, my.”

A former State Department staffer who worked on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private e-mail server tried this week to fend off a subpoena to testify before Congress, saying he would assert his constitutional right not to answer questions to avoid incriminating himself.

The move by Bryan Pagliano, who had worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009, came in a Monday letter from his lawyer to the House panel investigating the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

The letter cited the ongoing FBI inquiry into the security of Clinton’s e-mail system, and it quoted a Supreme Court ruling in which justices described the Fifth Amendment as protecting “innocent men . . . ‘who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.’ ”

Yeah, setting up a private email server that carried Top Secret information without proper security and against all the rules is awfully ambiguous.

Why do I think a deal may soon be made?

The FBI is investigating whether Clinton’s system — in which she exclusively used private e-mail for her work as secretary of state — may have jeopardized sensitive national security information.

There’s no “may” about it. She even asked for classified information to be sent to her personal server:


Her campaign is done.

via UrbanAchievr


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 16,106 other followers