Clintonism, Unplugged

Column by Kevin M. Patten.

Exclusive to STR

Yes, that is what I would have said, and because there is no cosmic point to the life that each of us perceives on this distant bit of dust at galaxy’s edge, all the more reason for us to maintain in proper balance what we have here. Because there is nothing else. Nothing. This is it. And quite enough, all in all.” ~ Gore Vidal, “Armageddon?

Anybody growing up in the late Nineties would have realized that, at the very least, the 42nd President of the United States was as good a liar as he was an adulterer. The “Mrs. Clinton” always seen on T.V. seemed nice enough, and, well, how dare this guy! Obvious, or perhaps not, was the fact that he was also deceiving the unduly-elected Congress, along with our comically incompetent media (or was that duly complicit?), in order to salvage that charming, jazzing, indelible image.

That strange and seductive and nostalgic episode, therefore, might have made “Monica” the first political word heard by millions of ears. (I personally recall one of my earliest uses of the Internet as looking up the details of Bill Clinton’s affair with Ms. Lewinski. Something about a cigar. And insertion. “Stains” and “blue dress” were also roving nouns during this time. After all, I was young, and, like many others, had far less interest in politics than I did about pornography.) Though we must note that her name arose only amidst the legal proceedings of another woman, one Paula Jones. 1991: Jones was working a conference booth in the Excelsior Hotel, Arkansas, when Governor Clinton had asked her to come and visit him in a room upstairs. There, she says, without asking permission, he ran his hands up her dress, tried kissing her, and then pulled down his pants with an offer to perform fellatio. She escaped and fled downstairs. The case settled when “Slick Willie” gave her $850,000, sans apology but with sly admittance of guilt.

Less obvious back then was the inseparability of the two: they’re now known as “Billary” – the equally evil spouse that completes this political Orthrus, and who is, yet again, campaigning for that High Office. Hillary displayed those enduring oratory skills during one of her campaign stops: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” she said with her usual sternness. FBI head James Comey – likely threatened – attested without revelation that these lies were just that. Not surprisingly, no indictments will be brought against members of the ruling class.

This updates the clock. And as a viewer of the infamous Clinton Chronicles documentary (perhaps the only decent thing Jerry Falwell did), or reader of stories generally thought to be on “the outside,” or even a regular student of the late Christopher Hitchens, who had just finished veteran insider Roger Stone’s newest timely indictment, The Clinton’s War on Women – another highly readable expose that details all the known persons and places – one would assess this nasty family much differently than what has been presented by the networks.

That would be, that they truly are: international killers who murder and slaughter without abandon (which would otherwise be called terrorism); sealers of potential loose-lips; traffickers of deadly narcotics; enhancers of a police state that prosecutes the victims the same as the pushers; long-held charges which reveal the Clintons as compulsive and professional liars – not to forget hypocritical “equality” advocates; and, making a central point of this obloquy quite clear, noting with worthy credibility for him – a disgusting and carnivorous woman abuser in the form of a serial rapist who “bites” his victim until she submits. And her, as the wife and accomplice, thereafter hiring private spooks to intimidate, harass, and discredit these women once they decide to speak out. The line that cannot be denied? She’ll do anything to attain Power.

For many (yes, the following can already be seen on the Interwebz), the slogan “I’m Ready for Hillary” has always sounded like bracing for a prostate exam. The average American progressive has overwhelmingly favored Bernie Sanders, and everyone from that pool who now adopts the mantra is currently bending over, gritting their teeth and grinding their toes into the floor.

As evidenced by the fact that these sadistic criminals have hardly had these matters scrutinized by the talking-heads, and instead given a sort of gravitational amiability, this on a sublunary rung consistently held by Wall St., the political establishment, and certain entertainment “activists” (the members of what prof. William Domhoff called “The Higher Circles” seem to have a natural attraction to one another, and so I guess the Clintons can’t ever leave), it can be seen plainly that “Clintonistas” (nod to the author’s coinage) is still a powerful elite organ in this Post-American Century.

Libertarian eyes and ears should alert to the reality that these people don’t merely violate every last consideration of the Non-Aggression Principle – they’ve also successfully convinced our entire body-politic into thinking that it hardly matters at all. This is despite a public record of state privilege shielding what would otherwise be prosecutable offenses, with their story not doing justice to the phrase “conflict of interest,” including and never neglecting the heavily documented testimony relating to “Bill Cosby-style” abuse (Stone likes to capitalize on this contemporary comparison).

Because the U.S. presidency is a repository of violence, theft and corruption, the problem is not so much whether Hillary would make a “good” first-female president as much as whether Bill would make a perfect first-ever first-husband. Urgently, this election cycle shows that it is time, and – yes – long past time, that the juggernaut of Clintonism be unplugged once and for all.

I’ll do my part.

A Memo from the Fearless, if Eccentric, Coauthor

Robert Morrow hates the Clintons. Indeed, he hates the Secret Government that seeks to control the world, which the Clintons and Bushs are part of, and as gears of extreme importance. Recently, Morrow gave up his position as the chairman of the Travis County Republican Party, a post he held to the chagrin of many, so that he might too have his try at becoming the POTUS. For this Texan is, as Stone describes his coauthor, “absolutely an eccentric character.” His Facebook posts might offend a few, but he is a fearless diver into the dark waters known as “deep politics.” It was he who amassed the library used for the distillation of their book. I called Morrow last year to have a chat about these grave matters. My first question was the one already mentioned: How is it possible that these criminals remain in the national spotlight?

“They’re friends with people who own the media,” he answers plainly. Makes sense. As his first illustration, the case of Danney Williams, a 30-year old biracial man who is claimed, and insisted by himself, to be the long-lost neglected son of said-elitist. An Arkansas street hooker, named Bobbie Ann Williams, announced to the public that in 1984 she had copulated with the then-governor while he was out jogging one night, even doing the deed behind some shrubs, and thereafter totaling some 13 trysts, according to the authors. “He just looked at her and said, ‘Yeah . . . that one right there. She looks good,’” Morrow muses in his best Clinton drawl. Bobbie Ann started alleging this in the early '90s, which steadily amplified throughout the decade. (Christopher Hitchens was asked by her to conduct an investigation. And why in Australia? Anyways, he declined.) Although the voice of this seemingly sincere woman grew loud enough to make it onto the pages of several outlets, and into the ear of billionaire independent candidate Ross Perot, it was ultimately drowned out by Clinton’s many other scandals. During Hillary’s Senate run – this in 1999 – the Clinton Machine propagated the story that a DNA test took place, and that it absolved Bill of any possible parentage. This fable initially ran in the yellow-stained pages of The Star, and then soon picked up by The Washington Post and TIME. Morrow says this has proved to be “very important” in maintaining a deception.

“No, no, no, Kevin,” Morrow corrects me. “There was no DNA test done.” He then excoriates the “pumpkinheads of that era who took that disinformation article by a tabloid owned by a best-friend of the Clintons, named Roger Altman.” My interviewee tells me that Howard Kurtz, who wrote up the piece for The Post, never saw that DNA test, nor did Danney Williams ever participate in one. “He’s on Facebook, Twitter,” Morrow says. “He’s all over the place. Anybody in the world could talk to him. They just don’t.” (Note: Mr. Williams is on most social network platforms, and while we were supposed to have a chat for this report, he ultimately declined.) With that assessment in mind – a culpability by major news agencies – let us continue to recognize the mis-and-non-reportage of Clinton Criminality.

What is Clintonism?

The depressing word that comes to mind is “permanence.” This is not all given to the Clinton’s refusal to exit the scene, but instead to what we call their “worldview” – which should be taken in a literal sense. That is, essentially, the often dismissed international policy that aims at consolidating economic and political authority. Conspiratologists will document three instances in which this ominous philosophy is hinted at.

The first comes early in Clinton’s bid for the White House, when he cited as an influence Georgetown history professor Carroll Quigley. He credited Quigley again after winning the nomination. Clinton had taken the professor’s class, receiving a decent “B” grade in what was supposedly a difficult course. In a system that frequently rejects the idea that skullduggery can ever be a factor, the highly respected Quigley is something of an outlier. In 1966, he published a tome entitled Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, which soon experienced efforts to have it “suppressed,” so said Quigley himself. Joseph Plummer has put a summary of the book online. It describes the existence of an “anglophile network” that seeks to bring “all the habitable portions of the world” under its jurisdiction. This group sprung up in the 1800s, in England, with Cecil Rhodes and his “Round Table” groups. By 1919 they had created the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Coming to America, this same cabal established the Council on Foreign Relations – the CFR – which Quigley said was a “front” for JP Morgan. (I don’t wish to unweave the intricacies of the network itself. I merely want to assert that it does exist, and that those two are a part of it.)

The second instance in which Bill alluded to his allegiance came after his presidency, post-9/11, speaking at the Kennedy Center, stating that, like his predecessor, Bush senior, we needed a “New World Order.” The phrase has been conjured too many times by too many movers and shakers to reject any notion of fanciful conspiracy-mongering.

The third striking example would come from Hillary. In October of 1999, iconic newscaster Walter Cronkite gave a speech to the World Federalists Association, receiving an award from them for coming out in favor of world government. Via television set, the Mrs. Clinton congratulated Cronkite for “fighting for the way it could be.” Practicality? It’s the word used in Pro-Trump circles: Globalism. As Justin Raimondo writes in a 1995 preface to Rothbard’s pamphlet about the Power Elite:

“Giant multinational corporations, and their economic satellites, in alliance with government and the big banks, are in the process of extending their influence on a global scale: they dream of a world central bank, global planning, and an international welfare state, with American troops policing the world to guarantee their profit margins.”

Sometimes politely and amorphously dubbed the “FIRE economy” – short for finance, insurance, and real estate – these institutions are internationalist in nature. Hillary has taken a lot of heat for her pandering to Wall St., the entity that has given plenteous funds to the Clinton Machine. Richard W. Behan over at Counterpunch has a comprehensive article on this atavistic alliance. For the Clinton family’s six political races – Bill’s first presidential run, his reelection, Hillary’s Senate run, reelection, her first White House bid, and in the Year of our Lord: 2016 – Wall St. has given a total of $68.72 million. In what might only be a coincidence, after Bill reacquired the Oval Office, helped along with a triple dosage of campaign money (from $11.17 million in ‘92 to $28.37 million in ’96), he signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which effectively repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Now, the financial institutions could mix commercial banking with investment banking, and ended the regulation of derivatives. It has been argued that this eventually led to the “subprime swindle” that nearly wrecked the economy a few years back. Finally, the nation’s Worst Family (Hitchens’ coinage) routinely endures criticism for their post-'90s career choice: giving speeches to powerful bankers at a couple hundred-thousand dollars a pop.

Once again, two Clinton composites emerge: One in which Shillary says something liberal and populist like, “I went to Wall St., in December of 2007, before the big crash that we had, and I basically said ‘cut it out – quit foreclosing on homes,’” but then utters that, in regards to the economic collapse, “there’s plenty of blame to go around” – like homeowners who paid extra fees to “avoid documenting their income.” Lest anyone might think that she’s a foe of the FIRE, William D. Cohan, writing for, thinks that: “Down on Wall St. they don’t believe it for a minute. While the finance industry does genuinely hate [Elizabeth] Warren, the big bankers love Clinton, and by and large they badly want her to be president.” And Warren, who once castigated Clinton on her Wall St. patronage, now loves her. Needless to say, she’s once again the favored pick.

Enter: Hillary’s Village. (On second thought, don’t enter it.) Jonah Goldberg opines that the NYT bestseller has “all the hallmarks of the fascist enterprise” folded within its pages. Right away, Hillary waxes tyrannical that, back in her youth, they “were not subjected to a daily diet of second-guessing and cynicism about the motives and actions of every leader and institution.” She further admits that she “cannot say enough in support of home visits, whether the visitor is a social worker or a nurse from a program” – or, trying to stick to communitarianism and not full-blown authoritarianism – “an aunt who rides the bus on Saturday to see how her niece and the newborn are doing.” What a sweetheart.

Essentially, the book attempts to draw a line between these dichotomies: a friendly, “we’re-just-watching-out-for-the-children” call to action; and the statist, “just-do-what-we-say” prediction. I’ll quote a bit throughout, but most illustrative is her chapter “Seeing is Believing.” Hillary condemns television and video games as “media assault,” saying that we can “look to countries such as Great Britain and Australia, which have stricter codes for violent content.” She cites studies telling of the harmful effects on the developing mind, and the logic that you wouldn’t let strangers tell your children stories with the same kind of content that they ingest on TV and on gaming consoles.

When combining parental vigilance, voluntary boycotts, general concern for the youth, and academic evocation – it sounds good. It becomes sour when applying Hillary’s real intention: censorship. Matt Welch, Reason magazine’s editor-in-chief, wrote an article for their March issue entitled “Hail to the Censor.” His quotations of Hillary amount as such, like in December when she talked about “denying online space” to certain groups. Moreover, she said that the cartoonists of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo had “sparked” their own murders. Hillary then repeatedly asserted that the attack at Benghazi was the backlash of a crudely-made film, the Innocence of Muslims. At a memorial for the victims, she spoke to Charles Woods, father of the slain CIA operative Tyrone Woods. He made notes. “She said we’re going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son.” Patricia Smith, mother of the murdered Sean Smith, was also told that it was the fault of the video. Odiously, Welch reminds us that the Benghazi hearings unearthed a phone conversation in which Hillary admitted to the Egyptian prime minister that “the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film.” Keyboards, cameras, colored pencils, and the people who wield them: these are the real culprits!

That ends my throat clearing. It’s enough to demonstrate that Hillary is correct when she tells her Wall St. benefactors that she has both “public and private positions.” For there is no sewer too low, too dark, too slimly, for the Clinton mafia to wade around in. And there’s Clintonism in a nutshell: an addiction to power that is so strong that they are willing to lie, cheat, and kill in order to get their fix. After all, even Richard Nixon disappeared following his impeachment.

Bill Clinton: Sexual Predator

Allegations of Bill Clinton’s sexual predation go back many decades, to his days as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. The first impulse for anybody hoping for a Clinton presidency is to hone in on the word “allegation,” followed by the glib but not unfair line of, Why wasn’t there an arrest? The journalistic prosecutor is doomed to deal with a minor annoyance, which is the fallacy of how a majoritarian belief hardly equates with the truth; but then, nevertheless, how if all fingers and indictors point irresistibly towards someone or something, especially an object that has much influence in the public sphere, one owes it to themselves and others to give it a taste of validity. In more words, Mr. Bill has had many fingers pointed at him, and they should not be dismissed offhandedly, if only because all voters ought to know about them.

As the book notes, Bill “Clinton is one of the few Rhodes Scholars without a degree from Oxford.” The political website first published the story about then-19 year old Eileen Wellstone, a fellow classmate who is said to be the first woman that Bill Clinton raped, this following a meeting at a nearby pub. The authors of that piece cite a retired State Department employee who spoke with the family and filed a report with his superiors. The college, fearing a scandal, covered it up.

By far the most well-known case against Bill is made by Juanita Broaddrick. The owner of a nursing home and a volunteer for Clinton’s 1978 bid for the governorship, Broaddrick was requested to have coffee with the promising predator while she was visiting Little Rock. Wanting to avoid the press, he asked if they could go up to her hotel room. She obliged. There, she claims, Clinton raped her – twice, after the accused was astonished at his ability to quickly reacquire an erection. During the assault, he bit her lip, making it gush crimson. “Better get some ice on that,” Bill said as he left the room.

There were witnesses to Broaddrick’s condition just after the attack, five in total: Norma Kelsey (a close friend who came along for the trip), Susan Lewis, Louise Mah, Jean Darby (sister to Kelsey), and her husband-to-be, David Broaddrick. Kelsey was featured – not interviewed – in that famous Dateline NBC reveal. But Broaddrick still wanted to remain quiet; she wanted her good life and occupation to continue without any further molestation or complication, and even attended a fundraiser for her attacker a few weeks afterwards.

By the time Paula Jones’ investigators got to the taciturn Broaddrick – this in 1997 – her story had been circling upon whispers for nearly two decades. She repeatedly denied everything, even after Jones’ team had secretly recorded a conversation in which no obvious evasion of her abuse was made translucent. She simply did not want to relive that “horrible, horrible thing,” saying that she would deny it all if ever subpoenaed. (A transcript of the recorded conversation) The next year, Kenneth Starr, lead investigator for Clinton’s impeachment trial, did just that, and Broaddrick made good on her promise to remain quiet. Starr then threatened perjury, citing her own words and the word of Republican lawyer Phillip Yoakum, who she had confided in. An offer of immunity was made in exchange for the truth. Finally, Broaddrick recanted her long-held refractory stance, admitting to the world that Clinton had indeed raped her all those years before. It eventually became a footnote in the Starr Report, as she never claimed “obstruction,” or received any threats, as Starr was specifically looking for. With no need to see into the not-so-fortuitous future, it came to be that her nursing home business was audited, and her own house broken into.

Lionheartedly, in the year 2000, Broaddrick wrote an “open letter” to Hillary, entitled “Do You Remember?” After watching a Fox News interview, she felt “compelled” to address the “same conniving, self-serving person” that she met “22 years ago when I had the misfortune to meet you.” She recalls attending a political rally that took place just a couple of weeks after the attack, in which Hillary approached her as soon as she arrived, wanting to “thank” her for “everything that you do for Bill.” Broaddrick tried to pull away. Hillary held tightly: “Do you understand everything you do?” Translation: Just be quiet! Yes, an authentic American horror story. Broaddrick, married and divorced three times, has recently put her home up for sale so as to relocate, out of fear that she might be in danger for being so vocal this election cycle. WikiLeaks reveals that Hillary’s camp had anticipated Broaddrick – “Jane Doe #5” in the Jones suit – becoming part of a “slimefest.

For those who notice the contradiction – that Broaddrick first said that she had not been intimidated, but then penning that letter, and coming out so loudly against Hillary today – it would be thoughtful to keep in mind that there’s no definitive way to prove that a strong arm accompanied with stern but vague wording could ever be legally deemed as “harassment.” How can an incident like that be argued after two decades had elapsed? “What happened?” “She grabbed my arm and said ‘thanks for what you do.’” Imagine the menacing subtlety. Then picture “middle-America” Broaddrick just coming out of the shadows, now in the national spotlight, saying something that she likely knew would sound foolish to the top-shot prosecutors on Capitol Hill.

There’s many similarly abused women. Kathleen Willey was a volunteer at the White House in November 1993, just after Clinton secured the Oval Office. Not wasting much time in here, the red-faced bastard came alive, horns gorging through his forehead, a tail darting out from a rip in his pants, and, accordingly, he grabbed Willey, fondled her breasts, and forced her hand upon his “small twisted penis” (the quote is a given description). She fled the room. But still needing money, as she was in a financial bind, Willey had a lawyer send Bill requests for a paid job that wasn’t in the White House. In ’97, with reports of the incident coming out of Newsweek, Starr sent a summons. She agreed to talk.

Willey was then subjected to a vicious and sustained program of harassment. Her cats went missing. Car tires slashed. A skull placed on her porch. Most sinisterly, while out jogging, she was approached by an unfamiliar jogger, who inquired about the desecrated items. This worked: in the course of her disposition for the Jones case, her memory lapsed some 63 times. Since then, she has given many interviews, written a book, made a website dedicated to Clinton victims (which has gone defunct), and wrote the preface for Stone and Morrow. “Hillary Clinton is the War on Women,” she urges.

Hillary again? Undeniably, the candidate who said that “every survivor of sexual assault has a right to be heard” is the same one that disparaged Bill’s accusers, calling them “bimbo eruptions.” She is the enabler, partner, and worst-half. Let’s elaborate. Melanie Morgan is a conservative activist and radio host who, in 2003, attended a writer’s conference in California. There, she bumped into famed private dick Jack Palladino, a name first mentioned by the late Mr. Hitchens in an updated 2000 version of his book No One Left to Lie To to be one of the ghostly figures that had intimidated Ms. Willey. Morgan gained the verve to ask: “Aren’t you ashamed of yourself with the business you did for Hillary Clinton? You know, come on. That stuff with Kathleen Willey was pretty outrageous. What was that? You guys ran over her cat? What was that all about?” Palladino replied: “Well, I’m not really going to comment about that, but let me say this: The only regret that I had about the whole thing was that Hillary did not pay me in a timely fashion,” adding that he “saved Hillary Clinton’s ass” and that she should’ve been “more grateful.” The disgraceful PI threatened to sue following Willey’s recount of the story in her book, but in a case that could possibly prove guilt, the suit never happened.

The immediate admonishment to all this should be clear: This is all just hearsay! Baseless allegations! If it were true, Clinton would be behind bars! (Not to forget my favorite: Bill isn’t running for office – ignoring the fact that Hillary is still married to a very likely serial woman abuser.)

First, there’s a welter of accounts about Bill’s sexual impropriety, and I hereby implore the curious Clinton voter, as well as the Clinton opponent, to read the book-in-overview for more names and stories. This is a hint for people like Cenk Uygur, who dismiss the allegations just because the author, Stone, is Trump’s loudest advocate. But who cares about Stone? The women were making these statements long before his book was written. (If Internet researchers need a handy guide, Jason Howerton has made one here.) There’s simply too many of them to all be false, or for me to detail here. And it’s highly unlikely for any person who gets a job in the White House to dare risking their career and reputation making baseless allegations against the leader of the Less-Than-Free World.

Secondly, to illustrate the ruthlessness of the Clinton Machine, I should mention the story of Gary Johnson (no, not the libertarian candidate), the neighbor of one of Bill’s consenting partners, Gennifer Flowers. This was the woman who originally brought publicity to Clinton’s sexual deviances, a relationship that he had to eventually admit was – what’s that evasive word? – inappropriate, and after years of the typical denial. Featured in the original Clinton Chronicles documentary, Johnson claimed to have video footage of Bill coming and going from Flowers’ apartment. Disclosure could not be allowed. His consequence: thugs who kicked in his door, beat him within an inch of his life, and stole the incriminating VHS tape.

We know this because of Larry Nichols, an old friend of the Clintons. In 1988 he was fired for misconduct, and soon began speaking out about Bill’s rapport with Flowers. He wasn’t the only ally-turned-foe. While governor of Arkansas, Bill had something of a private gang – his State Troopers. Their side task, it is said, was to act as liaisons between the licentious Bill and his many partners. To repeat my insisted disputation: it’s highly unlikely that men of this occupation would begin making statements of the governor’s criminality, especially since, if they were participants, the whole thing might backfire and they could see themselves behind bars. But these Troopers did just that. According to Morrow, two of them, Roger Perry and Larry Patterson (who has recorded video interviews), would later tell Nichols that they were the ones who had burglarized and brutalized Mr. Johnson, who was also Nichols’ lawyer. (All of these men are featured in Clinton Chronicles.) Tellingly, this means that the Clintons are willing to go to any lengths necessary to remain on the crest of political power.

As a third depiction of their demonic nature, the judicial case of one of Hillary’s defendants while she was still a 27 year old lawyer working in Arkansas. In 1975, Hillary became counsel to Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year old man who was charged with raping a 12 year old girl. This case came to light a couple of years ago when WashingtonFreeBeacon released portions of an interview (listen to it yourself) that was conducted with Hillary in the mid-'80s. Regarding the “interesting” and “fascinating” case, she remembers that Taylor had taken a polygraph test, which, says the cackling Clinton, “forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.”

Kathy Shelton, who spent five days in a coma and then some ten years in therapy, gave an interview to the Daily Beast, saying that Hillary “took me through hell,” revealing that the witch “intentionally [lied] about her in court documents, going to extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape.” This includes Hillary saying that the victim was “emotionally unstable” and had a proclivity of seeking out older men. Hillary says in the audio that Taylor got off with “time served” after spending about two months in the county jail. PolitiFact reports that Clinton had suffered a memory lapse: it was actually a year in jail and four more of probation.

It remains dubious as to who appointed Hillary; on the tape she said it was done as a “favor”; in her book Living History she says she was put on the job by Washington County prosecutor Mahlon Gibson – neither of which are necessarily contradictory. Gibson told Newsweek, profiling the case in 2008 (which seems to be gone from the web), that Clinton emphatically tried getting herself taken off. Either way, as the late Vincent Bugliosi might have observed (who, despite all his brilliance, was another Clinton fan), even if this was her sworn duty as a public lawyer, what type of monstrous individual would be joking and making light of this horrendous situation, especially considering that she believed the perpetrator had only served a couple of months on a child rape charge? More evidence that the Clintons are void of any semblance of the kind of substance that we might attribute to heartfelt human beings. As written in a 1998 Vanity Fair article: “Feminists have, all along, muffled, disguised, excused and denied the worst aspects of the president’s behavior with women.” And the same goes for Hillary.

Powdered Treason

The Secret Government is the world’s largest dope peddler, or at least one of the largest. This was discovered during the fallout of the Iran-Contra days, then detailed by the investigations of the late Gary Webb. Probably the closest to a comprehensive history on the subject was written in 1998 by journalists Alexander Cockburn (RIP) and Jeffrey St. Clair, in their book Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs, and the Press.

The program of courting the Underworld started at the end of World War Two, when the U.S. government granted immunity to the famously convicted gangster Charles “Lucky” Luciano, the first of five-hundred to be released, and this so they could go to Italy and conscript the ousted Mafia dons – done courtesy of El Duce – as a helpful effort for the Allied forces to attain information. It’ll remain debated as to how much this insidious policy worked, but to quote the authors: “What cannot be denied is that the U.S. intelligence agencies arranged for the release from prison of the world’s most preeminent drug lord, allowed him to rebuild his narcotics empire, watched the flow of drugs into the largely black ghettos of New York and Washington D.C. escalate, and then lied about what they had done.”

In 1978, the U.S. government, under President Jimmy Carter, made a last ditch effort to preserve the Somoza monarchy that had ruled over Nicaragua for many decades. At the time, that government was in the process of being overthrown by the Sandinista revolution. Carter hoped that by supporting Somoza’s National Guard they could remain as the caretaker for “American interests.” The plan failed, with the Sandinistas coming to power. With Carter's approval, Somoza's generals then formed the Contras. Through them, the U.S. government led a proxy war for nearly a decade against the new regime.

A few names are important in the California drug scene: Norwin Meneses Cantarero, a head of security for the leading Contra coalition, and Oscar Danilo Blandon, a Nicaraguan exile. In November of 1981, President Ronald Reagan signed National Security Directive 17, authorizing a $19 million fund for the Contras. Blandon later testified to a U.S. grand jury that more funds were needed. During a meeting with Enrique Bermudez, the CIA’s handpicked man to lead the Fuerza Democratico Nicaraguense – or FDN, the main Contra organization – it was decided that cocaine sales should help out with the cause. Meneses would get the coke from Mexico, coming up from Columbia, and then stash it in places throughout Southern California. Things were slow until they met a young black street hustler named “Freeway” Ricky Ross, who would distribute it widely to the inner-cities. According to Cockburn and Clair, by 1983 Ross was buying over 100 kilos of cocaine a week and selling as much as $3 million worth of crack a day. By 1985 the market had extended to over a dozen U.S. cities. The Nicaraguan exiles, protected by the highest levels of U.S. Power, then sent a portion of their money back to their embattled comrades.

But there’s more!

Barry Seal, a notorious name in the literature of clandestine U.S. operations, was a skilled pilot and convicted drug trafficker, who, by his own admission, flew missions for the CIA. In 1982, Seal moved his base from New Orleans to the small town of Mena, Arkansas – the state which at the time was governed by Bill Clinton. The Agency was anxious to hire their favorite pilot to shuttle supplies to the Contras, then stationed in Honduras and Costa Rica. Seal’s fleet of planes would fly from Mena to Medellin cartel airstrips in Columbia and Venezuela, refuel in Panama and Honduras, and then return to Arkansas, where parachute-equipped packages of cocaine would be dropped onto the surrounding farmland. (Incidentally, the whole saga is now a movie starring Tom Cruise as Seal, which has just been renamed from “Mena” to “American Made,” and also pushed far back into 2017. Coincidence? Naturally!)

This is one of the stories that must be paid attention to if all compasses point irresistibly towards it. For starters, Bill’s brother Roger was arrested and charged with cocaine distribution. He was subsequently pardoned. Next, according to Arkansas Attorney General Winston Bryant, who was later told to stay away from the matter, quote: “There was, in my opinion, more than enough evidence to prosecute a number of people for crimes regarding the Barry Seal case at Mena.” Bryant soon reneged on a promise to convene a grand jury, despite 900 citizen signatures urging him to do so.

Utterly evidentiary is the testimony of two men. L.D. Brown, one of Clinton’s state troopers, who later turned on him and wrote a book. In a 1995 court case, Brown claims that he had flown with Seal to South America to deliver packages. Coming back, he said that duffle bags were kicked out of the plane over the surrounding Mena farmland. After three such flights, he confronted Bill about it, who said “that’s Lasater’s deal. And your buddy [George] Bush knows about it.” Dan Lasater was one of Bill’s closest and most important political contributors. He was also later convicted for distributing coke.

The other man is Terry Reed, an intelligence officer who worked for the Air Force, the FBI, and the CIA. He told Alex Jones that he was recruited by Oliver North to help with the Contra supply operation, stationing him in Mena as a pilot instructor. Stone and Morrow write that, “The first day [Reed] met Barry Seal he was in the company of Dan Lasater and Roger Clinton.” After two years of walking around with “blinders,” Reed stumbled upon a C-130 that was packed with cocaine. 1986, somewhere in Arkansas: Governor Clinton requested that Reed, dining with his wife at the moment, join him in the back of a security van parked outside. Bill was puffing on a cannabis cigarette, and tried to calm Reed’s fears about a planned trip to Mexico, saying that North was expecting him to do so. He went. L.D. Brown, Bill’s “favorite trooper,” writing in his book, claims that at the same time he was also sent down south. His rendezvous was with Felix Rodriguez, notorious killer for the CIA, who equipped him with a 7.62 rifle. His mission: to kill the other man. Upon seeing Reed in his crosshairs, Brown froze, aborted, and then dumped the gun into a roadside ditch. Reed lived to write his own testimonial book.

As further word given by respected officials, former DEA agent Celerino “Cele” Castillo, head man in Guatemala, has repeatedly recalled the time in which he confronted Vice President George Bush about Contra cocaine smuggling, who simply smiled and walked away. Castillo was later convicted for selling unlicensed firearms, spending three years in prison. He says it was retaliation.

Summation: much has been written, testified, and presented about U.S. government narco-trafficking. In 1995, The Washington Post was all set to run a many-thousand worded investigative piece based on an archive of over 2,000 documents. It raised all the same serious questions: Mena, Seal, the Contras, local police inquires. It then quoted Bill as saying, “I’ve always felt we never got the full story there,” but noting that, “Clinton did not offer any further support for any inquiry.” At the very last minute, the piece was squashed, with the editor calling it a “non-existent story.” It was eventually published in Penthouse. One particular paragraph is ironically fascinating:

“Still, most of the larger American media have continued to ignore, if not ridicule, the Mena accusations. Finding no conspiracy in the Oachitas last July, Washington Post reporter typically scoffed at the ‘alleged dark deeds,’ contrasted Mena with an image as ‘Clandestination, Arkansas . . . Cloak and Dagger Capital of America.’ Noting that The New York Times had ‘mentioned Mena primarily as the headquarters of the American Rock Garden Society,’ the Columbia Journalism Review in a recent issue dismissed ‘the conspiracy theories’ as of ‘dubious relevance.’”

Even now, someone writing about this is usually discarded, likely because of the absence of any high-level prosecution. And we can’t assume that James Comey has been overseeing these cases for all this time. Nonetheless, both Menses and Blandon received convictions. Elsewhere, at other times, reporters were said to have been threatened. Prosecutors told to lay off. Citizen watch groups finding themselves in dead-ends. So many people saying so much reveals that there must be, not just the stench of verisimilitude, but the cold hard slap of reality: elected and unelected members of our government have trafficked in drugs, and the Clintons, in all likelihood, have had their noses buried in it. At the very least one would agree with this: drug running was taking place in the state where Bill was governor, and he showed zero interest in helping along with the many inquiries.

This is sacrilegiously treasonous in a country that has half of its federally-incarcerated inmates there for non-violent drug offenses, and yet touts its mantra of freedom and lawfulness. As I see it, the audaciousness of Black America’s longstanding support for the Clintons is appallingly quixotic: polling data shows that it still hovers around 80-90 percent in some states. But this is par for the course. In the late '90s, after Bill’s fall from grace in the eyes of many American voters, Black America maintained widespread favorability towards “America’s first black president,” as anointed by Toni Morrison.

Compounded by the complicity with U.S. government drug trafficking, with the subsequent result of wrecking inner-cities, Bill also helped augment a Police State that had been growing exponentially since the middle of the century, that pointy-edged device which actually does the killing and the arresting. Examples are as follows. He appointed retired general Barry McCaffrey to be his drug czar. He censured and then fired his surgeon general, Dr. Joycelyn Elders, in part because she had suggested drug decriminalization. He started the “COPS” program that saw police departments hire some 100,000 more officers. He subsidized states for hiring military-minded veterans who were returning from the battlefields overseas. He instituted “truth in sentencing” that encouraged states to make it difficult for parolees to get out early. And he instituted the “one strike and you’re out” policy, which meant eviction for any person living in public housing if caught for a misdemeanor drug offense, with Clinton stating: “From now on, the rule for residents who commit crime and peddle drugs should be ‘one strike and you’re out.’” (For more, see Radley Balko’s Rise of the Warrior Cop) “The first step is to take weapons off the streets and to put more police on them,” writes Hillary in her manifesto. A rare moment of honesty: the State is the parent; the individual and the community are the untrustworthy children.

Some of these legislative efforts were part of that malignant 1994 crime bill, popularly passed by representatives on both sides of the aisle. It had an effect. Professor Michelle Alexander makes a few notes in her essay for The Nation, stating that “Bill Clinton presided over the largest increase in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history,” which saw the US having the highest incarceration rate in the world when he left office. She then writes: “Human Rights Watch reported that in seven states, African Americans constituted 80-90 percent of all drug offenders sent to prison, even though they were no more likely than whites to use or sell drugs.” At the same time, Bill was slashing welfare programs with a veracity unlike any Republican. For her part, Hitlery, who “wasn’t picking out the china while she was first lady” (could not have said it better myself), called out the “super predators” who this legislation was aimed at. And thanks to WikiLeaks, the cannabis constituency knows that her stance has evolved innumerable times: from opposing even medical pot in 2007, to being against legalization “in all senses of the word” in 2014, to now thinking the former is okay and accepting Colorado and Washington in experimenting with the latter. More of her whatever sounds good to this person policy.

This gets me to a rather gregarious premise, one found regularly within “Social Justice Warrior” discourse. That is, that racism is the compound of “prejudice plus power.” (Funny how for many Intersectionalists, feminism is assigned Webster’s definition – “equality for women” – but here it means something else.) Professor Alexander opines that the 1965 Voting Rights Act was the “high water mark” of the Civil Rights movement. Was this not a grasp for institutional power? Surely some would concur. And yes, “power” can manifest in various ways – like directing troops from a comfortable seat in the Oval Office, or pushing buttons that makes money appear. But they say that in a representative democracy, casting ballots is the same as pulling levers. As it is: in 2012, for the first time ever, Black America outvoted White America, reelecting the charming sock-puppet nicknamed Mr. Hope & Change, 66% of eligible voters to 64%, according to a government study. (I shan't mention Obama’s record of warmongering and police state augmentation.)

The question must be asked: Why is this influential voting bloc once again giving support to a police state augmenter, an imperialistic warmonger, and – although perhaps forgiven decades ago because of the absence of media attention, can no longer be said in the age of the Internet – an accomplice to narco-trafficking? Will it be said that this is White Supremacy brainwashing people? That such minuscule self-determinism cannot muster a reading of Professor Alexander, whose book The New Jim Crow also sources from Clair and Cockburn (to be fair, the book contains one paragraph on US government drug trafficking, and doesn’t detail Clinton’s involvement), and whose headline of that piece cited above reads, “Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote”? For refusing to endorse the Clintons, Prof. Alexander and Cornel West have the respect of this scribbler.

I don’t mean to say that this exercise in what is at least electoral power necessarily ends all racial problems. Instead, it’s meant as a rebuttal to a prevailing datum: that participation in the System is a repeated widespread action of Black America, which severely diminishes the idea that disenfranchisement, the complete absence of voice or vote, remains as an insurmountable roadblock to the concept of “black liberation.” And as a conundrum: the difficultly of overthrowing an oppressive structure when you’re helping to elect the people who actually do the oppressing. Those who say that black Americans are, once again, victims of indoctrination or fanciful politicking, evade the principle of personal responsibly. Who forces anybody to stay ignorant about Clinton criminality? Put one last way: if someone votes for Donald Trump because they believe in what he says, and that person thereafter labeled as a – what? – racist and sexist (something of which might be true about many Trump supporters), does that mean that anyone voting for Hillary Clinton condones or forgives all of the horrors detailed therein? Does that make them any better or worse than the Trumpers? Does that make one a masochist? Again, I’d beg not. Though it’s hard to see how the logic would be inapplicable, fallacious, or lacking any consideration. Assuredly, this energy could be refocused onto a third party. Now then, someone make a note for Shaun King and Tom Hayden.

A Maroon-Colored Ocean

War: another Clinton specialty. Here, we’ll start with the “Mrs.” and then move to the “Mr.” A lot of information has leaked about Hillary’s role regarding the turmoil in Middle Eastern countries, namely Libya and Syria. Robert Parry, founder and editor of, tells us “What Hillary Knew about Libya,” based on 3,000 emails released by the State Department during last year’s holiday season.

In 2011, amidst political strife that arose with the Tunisia Revolution, Muammar Qaddafi, leader of the state, was disposed, and then murdered without trial. Hillary, as Secretary of State, had a big part in this. Remember: “We came, we saw, he died”? Sidney Blumenthal, one of the Clinton’s most conniving underlings, wrote an email to discuss the “rumors” that Qaddafi had adopted a “rape policy,” in which he was supposedly giving Viagra to his troops. Although no evidence of such a thing ever emerged, Susan Rice presented it as truth before the United Nations.

In April of that same year, Blumenthal wrote an email informing Clinton that “sources close to one of Qaddafi sons were reporting that ‘Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver’ and the hoard had been moved from the Libyan Central Bank in Tripoli closer to the border with Niger and Chad.” It is said that the gold was “accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar” – a $7 billion dollar equivalent that was meant as an alternative to the French franc.

The email outlined the real objectives of Qaddafi’s ouster: a “desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production”; to “increase French influence in North Africa”; for French president Nicolas Sarkozy to “improve his internal political situation in France”; and then to “provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world”; and finally to “supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.” (How close these things came to fruition is not the subject of this essay, only that there were other intentions.) Qaddafi himself knew about the threat of radical Islamists, and Blumenthal stated that Sarkozy was concerned that these groups were infiltrating the rebel forces who were revolting against the Libyan leader:

“Senior European security officials caution that AQIM is watching developments in Libya, and elements of that organization have been in touch with tribes in the southeastern part of the country. These [European] officials are concerned that in a post-Qaddafi Libya, France and other western Europen countries must move quickly to ensure that the new government does not allow AQIM and others to set up small, semi-autonomous local entities, or 'Caliphates', in the oil and gas producing regions of southeastern Libya.”

(AQIM stands for Al Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb, one of the “radical/terrorist” groups that the French president was “concerned” with.) Exactly as happened! Mainstream press? The New York Times ran a story in July of last year on the Secretary’s correspondence with Blumenthal, who was barred by Obama from working in the State Department; the advice was “unsolicited.” “First, brava! This is a historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it,” Blumenthal told Hillary about the chaos, adding that those in the Department “thought it might make sense for you to do an op-ed to run right after he falls, making this point.” This was to be – yes, said of the serpent – the “Clinton Doctrine.”

That was August, 2011. Two months later, Qaddafi was dead. And from there, the country, said to be one of the most prosperous and Western-friendly in the region, descended into hell. Paul Joseph Watson recently reported that Killary had thwarted Libyan peace negotiations due to a “personal vendetta,” as Qaddafi had given his endorsement to Obama in 2008. He produces a letter from Dr. Kilari Anand Paul, an Indian peace negotiator, now naturalized US citizen, and a friend of Qaddafi, who was being accused of war crimes for repelling the Jihadi-minded rebels. So hopeful was the arrangement set forth that General Wesley Clark had arranged a telephone conference with Clinton, who apparently had no interest. “Had this deal gone through,” Watson writes, “it would have saved countless lives that were lost in the aftermath, prevented the collapse of Libya into a failed state fought over by rival jihadist gangs and significantly alleviated the international migrant crisis that worsened dreadfully in the years that followed. It could even have contained ISIS’ spread across the Middle East. The Benghazi attack would never have happened.” (As stated, this was not the full reason for Qaddafi’s ouster, but merely Hillary’s motivation.)

Benghazi. The subject of so many headlines and congressional hearings. A year following Qaddafi’s fall, in one of Libya’s largest cities, an American outpost was attacked, seeing the death of four diplomats. “Finding #1” of the Senate report states: “In the months before the attacks on September 11th, the IC provided ample strategic warning that the security situation in eastern Libya was deteriorating and that U.S. facilities and personnel were at risk in Benghazi.” As constantly reminded to us by Donald Trump, this should have been a concern for the woman who once put out a campaign ad asking: “Who is going to answer that call at 3 in the morning?” But Hillary could give a damn less about little things like “blowback” or mass human suffering or the law she swore to uphold. Speaking of the last, Hillary did delete some 30,000 emails, and after she received a congressional subpoena. FBI director Comey admitted this in his July decision, but, as surprising to no one, the deletion was not “intentionally” an “effort to conceal them.”

The WikiLeaks data-dumplings include “The Podesta Emails,” John being the chairman of Hillary’s campaign. One email was dated September 9th of 2014. Podesta stated that “we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia” – our great “allies” in the Middle East – “which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.” Small leap of faith to say that Obama and Co. knew more than this.

Keep history in mind. The cozy relationship between the United States government and Saudi Arabia goes back to 1945, at the end of World War II, when FDR met with King Ibn Saud onboard the USS Quincy. Here, it is widely believed that the two men formed a tacit agreement: American protection for Saudi petroleum. Every President since then – Democrip and ReBloodlican (always with odes to Mr. Ventura) – has obliged this continual doctrine, making the Kingdom well-funded and heavily armed. During Bill’s reign, the Department of Defense sold the Saudis some $40 billion worth of armaments, according Michael T. Klare. Presidentially, the Obama administration has also approved arms sales, with senators Rand Paul (R) and Chris Murphy (D) attempting to impede the freshest however-many-billion-dollar-package. Their fellow lawmakers rejected the effort, and off go more machines of death. By means of circuity, the US did and does fund ISIS. LibyaBodyCount.Org tallies almost 1,400 dead since the conflict. As ISIS spreads, the ocean fills!

Syria. It’s no secret that our dear leaders are obsessed with the removal of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. The civil war in that country has been waging for years. A quick search gives death estimates between 301,781 and 470,000. Talk of the “rebels,” those fighting Assad, usually fuel the reports. We are, with our tax-dollars, supporting these people. Who are they? Well, that’s the point made by Donald Trump and a number of others: We don’t know who they are. But again, WikiLeaks confirms that Hillary (and, naturally, the POTUS) were aware that Saudi Arabia was – is – funding ISIS. Russia and Iran, need be noted, are two of Assad’s most ardent supporters and defenders.

One of WikiLeaks’ most important released emails is titled “New Iran and Syria,” with no name on the header. There is an emphasis of protecting Israel: “The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.” It makes recommendations: “Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces.” Required is an international coalition, but laments that Russia will never go along with it; alas, “there is no point operating through the UN Security Council,” concluding that: “Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don't exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain. Russian officials have already acknowledged they won't stand in the way if intervention comes.”

I wouldn’t be so sure. Reports abound that Putin is readying for an all-out war. Supposedly, he’s asked all students studying abroad to return back to the “motherland.” He canceled a recent trip to France. He talks about how “major global conflicts have been avoided in the past few decades, due to the geostrategic balance of power, which used to exist,” and that, “We told them about the reactionary measures we were going to take. And this is what we did. And I assure you – that today, we have had every success in that area . . . I’m not going to list everything, all that matters is we have modernized our military-industrial complex and we continue to develop new generation warfare.”

So Killery has one new geopolitical enemy in her crosshairs: Mr. Putin, who she repeatedly blames for hacking into her email. In one of her speeches to Goldman Sachs, she stated that Syria was a different case than Libya, adding: “They’re getting more sophisticated thanks to Russian imports. To have a no-fly zone, you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk—you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians,” she said. “So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians.” Fill that ocean some more:

“Some of us thought, perhaps, we could, with a more robust, covert action trying to vet, identify, train and arm cadres of rebels that would at least have the firepower to be able to protect themselves against both Assad and the Al-Qaeda-related jihadist groups that have, unfortunately, been attracted to Syria . . . . That’s been complicated by the fact that the Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons—and pretty indiscriminately—not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future, but this is another one of those very tough analytical problems.”

Just call her Hillary the Hawk. At the third presidential debate, in defense of her stance, she said that no-fly zones would “save lives.” Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warns correctly that this is an act of war, in which nuclear Russia could quickly be embroiled. Somehow, I can picture Hillary laughing as a blackened sun sinks below a maroon-colored ocean, charred bodies and skeleton buildings that are decorated across a static landscape.

She’s dipped her claws into other pools of blood. One might have heard mentions about Hillary’s support for a political coup in Honduras, reports. In 2009, their Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for the democratically-elected president Manuel Zelaya, with the military raiding his house in the middle of the night, putting him on an airplane, and flying him out to Costa Rica. The international community condemned this action. Obama and the State Department, likewise, called the coup government “illegitimate,” and urged it to bring Zelaya back to finish his last few months. These talks fell apart. Obama then suspended all aid to the country.

Emails show that Hillary disobeyed her boss, using the Millennium Challenge Corporation – an institution that gives aid to countries, ran conveniently by the Secretary of State, and which should have also terminated financial support – to instead continue the funneling of funds, nearly $11 million in the first two months after the coup, and $100 million the following year. She then asked one of her cronies, lawyer Lanny Davis, who was working with the coup government to rework its image, if she could meet with their new president. The cited website quotes an email from a State Department legal advisor: “The action memo will require the Secretary to decide whether Honduras is a country without a ‘specified legal prohibition’ or whether such a prohibition has in fact attached.” No prohibition was ever determined by Hillary, who shunned those who had demanded that the coup be recognized as such, and the aid continued unabated. Experts say this left catastrophic results, with Honduras having the highest murder rate in the world by 2014.

Let’s not forget that, although today she says that the Iraq War was a “mistake,” she did indeed vote for it as a senator. But that, neither, was her foray into militancy. For she is married to someone who Edward S. Herman once called “The World’s Leading Active War Criminal.” His reasons include: Continuing support for the genocidal Indonesian dictator Suharto, a long-held client of the U.S. government, saying that he was “our kind of guy”; bombing Baghdad in June of 1993, killing eight and wounding 13, and this as retaliation for Saddam’s assassination plot that targeted Clinton’s political “opponent,” Bush Sr.; his support for Turkey’s declaration of war against the indigenous Kurdish population; his bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant, justified as a suspicion that it was a front for Osama bin Laden; weekly missile attacks upon Iraq; and then, of course, presiding over the “sanctions of mass destruction” imposed on that country, which left a reported one million civilian casualties. As remarked by Chip Gibbons at Jacobin, this was “war by other means,” reporting that, “It not only banned weapons of battle, but technologies that ostensibly had military and civilian uses — like pencils, which the sanctions regime said could be fashioned into bullets.” Bill, cheerfully surfing on the waves of a maroon-colored ocean, simply denied the figures.

The last one should be placed into a contemporary context. The sanctions began in August, 1990, four days after Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, lasting until he was removed from power, March 2003. Two respected international diplomats, Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, who administered the UN oil-for-food program in Iraq, resigned from their posts in protest, saying that the sanctions were strengthening the dictator while at the same time leaving so many dead. Campaigning for Hillary this election cycle is Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State and Ambassador to the UN. In 1996, appearing on 60 Minutes, Albright was asked about the embargo that left half a million children dead. Her infamous, obdurate, icy-cold response: “We think the price is worth it.” Albright has now said that “there’s a special place in hell” for women who don’t help Hillary. More laughter as they sail on the top of a body of blood, skulls and corpses sinking to the bottom. No big deal. Elect the first female president.

But then what do you expect from a family that is friends with Henry Kissinger, from a man who pardons international criminals, and from a woman that might very well have ordered the siege on a compound in Texas that left 82 dead? Nothing . . . except the proper designation: killers. No wonder Hillary has the support of neoconservatives.

Nailing the Coffins and Boarding the Closets

Evil, while not absolutely objective, cannot be entirely subjective. Those who live by separate sets of standards should be put on the list. If someone signs laws that criminalize drug users while once trafficking in drugs, that means something profound. If one proclaims themselves to be the champion of female and child victimhood, and yet laughs at the comments of somebody who approves of the death of children, while also neglecting to leave their psychotically-abusive partner, that too means something small. Because of this dual presentation of their true character, added with the inexhaustible evidence of their criminality, the Clintons would have to meet every single criteria for any hard definitions explored here. To quote the silly but solidly-antiwar conspiracy theorist David Icke: “I would call Hillary Clinton evil, except that I would expect to be sued for defamation of character . . . by Evil.” Corny, yet accurate.

I began this project reading Stone and Morrow’s book, then Hitchens’, chatted with Morrow, watched a couple documentaries, noting from several other titles in my library, and at the same time going through a stack of articles. I then found myself squirming through Hillary’s It Takes a Village. It’s difficult to contrast one’s newly found education about high crimes with that of the loving, tender warmth of “What about the children?” rhetoric. For instance, vomit nearly came out of my mouth when reading of Hillary’s experience in breastfeeding her daughter Chelsea, who was “taking in [her] milk.” It’s just not the kind of thing you’d envision these demons doing; instead, maybe feeding Chelsea a warm bottle of freshly extracted goat’s blood, or dropping the infant child into a vat of poisonous toxins. Certainly not an act as natural and healthy as breastfeeding. Quite macabre!

My other intention was to offer castigation for all those who endorse the Clintons. Despite their ensorcellment long having worn off the vast number of American citizens, they still have in their corner: the black vote, the Hispanic vote, “Big Brainwash,” Wall St., neoconservative hawks, the Libertarian Party ticket, and many Hollywood champagne liberals. Take Matt Damon, one of the worst actors in the business, who thinks that Hillary Clinton cares about clean water: “She understands it from a number of different angles—as a national security issue, as a human rights issue, and, obviously, its impact on women and girls. This is not a partisan issue, which is one really good thing about it.” She’s concerned with human rights, Matt. We’ve made that clear here.

Liberal – icon? – well, figure and filmmaker, Michael Moore, could also hardly wait to go shilling. The day after the second debate, Moore tweeted: “Trump’s comment that Hillary’s ‘heart is filled with hate’ was one of his biggest lies. Say what u will, I think her heart is full of love.” Did you get that warm, fuzzy feeling? On the other side is Glenn Beck, a handsome reploid, who has said everything from “Hillary would’ve been a better President than John McCain,” to writing that she should be “behind bars,” and today suggesting that electing her over Trump is a “moral, ethical choice.”

Unlike these buffoons, Hillary does have intelligent apologists. Montel Williams – that is, Shill’iams – comes to mind. He’s a “Never Trump” guy, also helping to sharpen the devil’s pitchfork. A man who has counseled so many abused women, has interviewed Gary Webb, apparently can’t become a “down with the Two-Party Dictatorship” guy. Too bad. Noam Chomsky is another, who says to “hold your nose” and vote for Hillary over Trump, if only because of her stance on Global Warming.

Of course, I was expecting the day when the liberals at Huffington Post and the talking-heads at MSNBC would, in reference to Clinton’s accusers, use adjectives like “unsubstantiated,” and quip that “Bill’s not running for President.” I did not expect those same grave robbers to offer the women a place on their shows. Chris Hayes, one of the whiniest reploids, had time to bring on Jill Harth, a woman who is suing Trump for sexual assault. But what about Clinton’s victims, who have been around for much longer? Those over at the major networks, proved by WikiLeaks to live in the back-pocket of Hillary, suggested that they were merely paid agents of The Donald. This is all happening, or not happening, in the final weeks of what is perhaps the most important presidential race of our lifetime. You’d have to be deaf and blind not to notice the slanted coverage. Now that does give me a warm, fuzzy feeling: all the phony “equality” activists, who are not just condemning Trump, nor advancing a Third Party nominee, nor discussing the recent comments by Putin ally Vladimir Zhirinovsky, but taking the lowest and most dangerous road in the world.

Maybe that’s a good reason to support Hillary: this idea of “institutional power” can finally come full circle. The Left – for all its talk about the rights of women and minorities – can at last have their radioactive cake and eat it too. Hypocrisy be damned! If she’s sitting in the Oval Office, the causality should never be allowed to reach oblivion, which it probably will. In the same interview, VP Joe Biden called Trump a “sexual predator”; he then eerily announced that the U.S. would “send a message” to Russia. The women coming out now, oddly in the very last month before the election, claiming that Trump assaulted them, can take comfort knowing that they are helping to elect a bloodthirsty warmonger. Justice will come when nuclear fire engulfs planet Earth, with Hillary and her elite friends sheltering deep underground, as prayers are uttered silently that a mushroom cloud reaches The Donald. During their final moments, at least they’ll be able to proudly retort: “We didn’t elect a sexist-racist-xenophobe-etc.”

Sure, it’s tragic that our political system really presents us with two choices. So, by mathematical deduction, the following question is given as a rebuttal: Do you really want Trump as President? The answer is: no, I don’t. I suppose I’d still prefer Gary Johnson or Jill Stein over the two of them. I truly dislike The Donald, and have even considered those commentators who suggest that he’s trying, with all his bombast and stupidity, to “throw” the election so as to give it to her (Actually, Morrow has taken this stance. But, lest I instigate a personal feud between the two authors, I’m not going to touch that here). Insulting people’s wives is not something I would have heard from Ron Paul, not to mention the comments about grabbing, kissing, and groping women at random. It should be said then that Trump, for all his lewdness and lawsuits and hyperbole, does not seem to have created a maroon-colored ocean with a tide that washes up to his ankles every single evening. Truly, aside from his belated criticism of the Clintons, the only thing I genuinely like about him is his suggestion that two nuclear superpowers should get along. As Stein said, “All of what Trump has said is not as bad as what Hillary has done.” I concur, and cannot in good conscience support those blood drinkers whose thirst is unquenchable. My “hashtag” has always been “Reluctantly Trump.” After all, there is more to this debate than sexual abuse claims. (Naturally, as a libertarian against representative democracy, I would never criticize someone who “voted their conscience” by voting a third party or sitting the election out completely. We aren’t responsible for what these people do.)

This was the same dilemma back in 1992. Hunter S. Thompson, the late, brilliantly mad journalist, had decided to endorse Bill over Bush: “We still have a problem explaining why I feel very strongly about voting for Bill Clinton on November 3 – except that four more years of the Reagan-Bush band will mean the death of hope and the loss of any sense of possibility in politics for a whole generation that desperately needs that fix and will wither on the vine without it.” Murray Rothbard, the late libertarian sage, went with Bush over Bill: “A vote for Bill Clinton is a vote to destroy the last vestige of parental control and responsibility in America. A victory for Bush will – at least partly – hold back the hordes for another four years.”

These very different writers might have missed the beat, for Bill and Bush are one in the same, and in fact great friends. Both are globalists, elitists, warmongers, drug traffickers – and each forego opportunities to entertain actual wrongdoings. Examples: Bush Sr. was told about Bill’s sexual misconduct way back when, and Stone and Morrow point out that he had personally declined to bring it up. Clinton, in turn, has thrashed people who question the attacks of September 11. And both are chummy with the Saudi Royal Family, who have a habit of violating the basic rights of women and those identifying as LGBTQ. (Though perhaps it’s odd that while “lil” Bush’s veep, Mr. Cheney, has endorsed Trump, the Bushes themselves have been conspicuously silent on their endorsement, which wouldn’t be surprising if one were to look at Trump’s constant berating of Jeb on the campaign trail.) This is why I still have respect for Governor Jesse Ventura, the fiercest voice for a viable third option: “I vote for somebody, not against somebody.” I think that, for minarchists and “small L” libertarians, it’s admirable in light of our constricted political system.

Can we get lucky? Is the door closing on the Clintons? Well, I’m sure I acted like most good Americans when viewing Hillary being dragged into an SUV – laughing hysterically and replaying the clip several dozen times, each play giving me more and more mirthful satisfaction. The reports have made her health an issue. While denials are obligatory, the DailyMail.UK reports that Dr. Drew was fired specifically for raising the same concerns. Personally, I say that it would be tragic if Hillary was stricken with Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s: she shouldn’t be so fortunate so as to forget the crimes she has committed in this life; all too convenient for her to pass away without always being reminded of them. Whatever her condition, the Elites would probably just prop her up on a pole and present her to the masses as good as new; the talking-heads gleefully pretending that nothing was the matter. They’ve already done this on every other front, including ignoring the subversion of Bernie Sanders’ campaign, which saw three DNC officials step down. As well, investigator James O'Keefe just presented video evidence that the Democratic Party was using the services of groups that initiated violence at Trump rallies, along with organizing voter fraud. One of these cretins is Bob Creamer, a convicted felon that set up Democracy Partners – a “consulting firm” – and who visits the White House regularly, meeting with the President on many occasions. “My fear is that someone would decide that this is a big voter fraud scheme,” Creamer admits in the clip. The extent of this, of course, won’t be dug into by the likes of MSNBC and CNN. The system is rigged, something that prominent Democrats have been saying for years, and the reaction now is either silence or shrieking, depending on where one is positioned.

I asked Mr. Morrow if he had ever been personally threatened. He said he had not. But there are enough dead bodies that surround the Clintons to warrant a legitimate fear. The mythologized “Clinton Body Count” has not yet been mentioned in this work. This is because it’s too big an investigation for my small operation, and also because I wanted to stick to the corpses that are best rotted.

And I should hope that my name won’t be getting on that list. Though there’s one final anecdote to end this report. On June 7th, 2013, Bill Clinton made a trip to Los Angeles to bid farewell to exiting mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. I went with activist intentions in mind. I’d mention Broaddrick, and Mena, and the Iraqi sanctions. As I remember, security wasn’t so tight. The elites were up on the steps; the rest of us – several hundred – standing out on Spring St. and sitting on the Grand Park lawn, directly across. I met up with some friends and fellow Occupiers. We sat and talked for a while before Bill got up on the microphone. The crowd cheered, but not so loudly. The swagger and the drawl were on full display. “Look, we’re friends, Hillary and I love him, he’s been good to us,” the ex-prez said about the outgoing official.

As he’s talking, I notice the appearance of another veteran activist of the Occupy LA scene, a lady named Mary, who likes to be referred to as “mama,” what with her age and regularity. Mary always has this cart that she rolls around. Equipped on it, a TV screen, used for watching educational material, and one particular nuisance-making toy: a loudspeaker. I am puzzled as to how she got this past the iron gates which we all had to go through. But there it is. And I am rather certain that she would have let me jump on it, and vociferate a few unfriendly things, if only so that Bill could know that there was at one person out here who knew.

Despite how easily this could have happened, the 20 or 30 seconds that I would’ve had before security took me to the ground, an overwhelming sense of fear overcame me. The rebellious feat did not happen. Ever since that day, whenever reading of the Clintons, seeing them on TV, I’ve wanted the opportunity to properly express this unvented vituperation. I’ve become envious of the many brave protesters across the land who’ve interrupted Clinton rallies. So yes, it is somewhat personal. They’ve done a lot of harm, and since they’re once again on that Grand Stage, the future must be taken into account. Yet I have no desire to die at the hands of this family. Like they no doubt wish of their many opponents, I just want them to go away, to take their fortune to some island far from here. The remotest possibility is that the Clintons gain some form of a conscience, to come clean, to disappear, and so there’s really no point in hoping for any of this. Therefore, the only reasonable option is to hope that Clinton and her cohorts are not elected on Nov. 8.

Your rating: None
Kevin M. Patten's picture
Columns on STR: 16


John deLaubenfels's picture

This column begins with an incomprehensible quote and goes on to spend a huge number of words talking about ... something Hillary-related.  Perhaps if I drank enough cups of coffee I'd have the energy to wade through all of it.

Jim Davies's picture

I must agree it's a bit too long for my taste (confession: I skipped some) but it's vital that Hillary loses next week, and this cannot hurt, and anyway the cartoons were great. The one of a smiling Bill captioned "It's not rape / if you're a Democrat" was on its own worth the price of admission.
The first one, too, was germane especially in view of Comey's latest move. Last week's ZGBlog listed 24 suspicious deaths close to the Clntons, and it's quite understandable that he doesn't wish his to be the next. We have here a woman in the Caligula class.

Kevin M. Patten's picture

The quote is from a profile that Vidal wrote of Ronald Reagan, and its inference is nuclear war, which is why, like Jim said, Hillary must lose next week.
I wasn't intending for this piece to be this long, but I kept adding and adding, and with the reasoning that I didn't want someone to come back and ask "What's your evidence?" If the Libertarian Gods ever bless me with a print publisher, I'd be happy to put some of this stuff into paper form. Alas, you cannot BEG publishers to tell you to fuck off.