Is Hillary Planning a Political Assassination?

In 2008, Hillary Clinton let slip a very serious line of thought with respect to the potential political assassination of then Senator Barack Obama:
political assassination
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivers remarks at the State Department in Washington on the deaths of U.S. embassy staff in Benghazi in this September 12, 2012 file photo. Clinton said December 19, 2012, she accepted the findings of an independent panel that faulted the State Department over the deadly September attack. REUTERS/Gary Cameron/Files (UNITED STATES – Tags: POLITICS CIVIL UNREST)

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?  We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it.” – Hillary R. Clinton.  (May 23, 2008).  Argus Leader editorial board interview.

Did Hillary really mention the possibility of Senator Obama being assassinated as was Senator Robert Kennedy in 1968?  It appears so.  Was she really hoping for Obama’s assassination as a means of accessing the top spot in the Democrat primaries?  Well, we know for a fact that Bobby Kennedy’s assassination ended his presidential candidacy:
 
“The assassination of Robert Francis “Bobby” Kennedy, a United States Senator and brother of assassinated President John F. Kennedy, took place shortly after midnight on June 5, 1968, in Los Angeles, California, during the campaign season for the United States Presidential election, 1968.” – Wikipedia. (February 29, 2016).  “The assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
 
If you think we’re making this up, think again.  Here’s the video:

Fast-forward to 2016, and ask yourself, “Who is on Hillery’s hit list now?”
 
As the 2008 article mentions:
“It’s all about her path to the nomination. A possible assassination of Senator Obama. Yep. This is what it’s come down to.” – Bob Cesca.  (May 31, 2008; updated May 25, 2011).  Worst Person in the World.  Huffington Post.
 
More recently, examination of the e-mails she illegally kept on her server appear to indicate she discussed murder for hire aka assassination hits against more than a half a dozen individuals who have historically proven to be the greatest thorn in her side with respect to her political career, including Stew Webb and his attorney, Thomas Heneghan, and Mary Schneider.
Is it Bernie Sanders? Is it Donald Trump?” Perhaps she’s thinking about taking them both out at once, “somehow,” and blaming it on Islamic political assassinationactivity. Better yet, figuring out a way to get some Muslim to push the button.  Perhaps she’s in league with Obama, but almost assuredly she remains fully in league with the Democrat Party.  Obama’s draconian and blatantly un-Constitutional “executive orders” that give him near totalitarian authority over every aspect of American business, economic, commerce, law enforcement, and military operations in times of “national crisis” appears to pave the way for a 2016 takeover of the entire federal government, thereby establishing a permanent situation of “national crisis” that amounts to a de-facto dictatorship with him at the top.  Could an assassination build the case for Obama seizing such control?
 
Hey, folks – this is NOT anywhere close to being out of the realm of possibility:
 
1. Political assassinations have been happening since Ug ran against Og for Oog and the biggest cave around, beating Og with his club to secure the election with Oog at his side.
 
2. Four U.S. Presidents have been assassinated in our nation’s history; two in the 19th Century, and two in the 20th Century.
 
3. A whopping fourteen members of Congress (both House and Senate) have been assassinated while in office, and nine others suffered serious injuries during assassination attempts.
 
4. As for the Clintons, just Google “Hillary Clinton death trail” or “Clinton body count” to see various lists, including one with more than 90 such political assassination“persons who have died in suspicious circumstances who
had connection to the Clintons or the Clinton’s dealings. The length and breadth of this list is disconcerting.  It is beyond credibility that very many of these cases are coincidences.”
 
So, the bottom line question of the day is: “Is Hillary Clinton and/or the Clinton regime and/or the Democrat Party and/or any other regimes that back any of the above planning to assassinate Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump this summer?”
Hmm…
 
Given some forty years of accumulated statistics surrounding the Clintons, along with her bizarre comments during her 2008 campaign, I think at least some of these events are entirely possible, particularly when you compare the Clinton’s very long list of unacceptable behavior to the minimal and even nonexistent lists of other members of Congress and even U.S. Presidents.

The Problem with U.S. Birthright Citizenship

The concept of birthright citizenship was applicable back in 1776, when travel between countries was measured in months. It’s not applicable today, except for children whose parents are themselves are U.S. citizens or here under legal provisions and enrolled in the process to become U.S. citizens.

The concept of “birthright citizenship” is it no longer used by any modern industrialized nation except the U.S., and for good reason.  Everyone born in country winds up winds up being an American citizen, regardless of the nationality or even the legality of their parents.  As practiced by the U.S., it is utter chaos, without controls, unsustainable, with severe negative repercussions on both our economy and crime.  For example, the average crime rates committed by illegals and their children are many times greater (like 50 or 60) than those committed by proper U.S. citizens.  By “proper U.S. citizens,” I mean legal immigrants and their children.

Donald Trump recognizes this and wants to end birthright citizenship as it exists today.  Is that wise?  I think so, and for the same reasons given by other modern industrialized nations who ended the wide-open practice decades, if not centuries ago.  These arguments are nicely summed up in the February 3, 2015 post by Charles Wood on NumbersUSA.  In summary, unbridled birthright citizenship harms a nation by forfeiting control over the nation’s future.  Do you really want outsiders who neither understand nor agree with American values casting votes in U.S. elections?  I don’t, as that would be absurd!  Dual citizenship has never helped countries that offer it.  Instead, it merely dilutes national loyalty and allegiance.  The very concept of birthright citizens leads to massive influxes of illegal foreigners, upwards of 50 million in the last 50 years alone.  Welfare costs go through the roof.  Those costs aren’t paid for by the illegal immigrants or their children.  They’re paid for by you, I, and all other honest, hardworking Americans.  Finally, the practice makes it far more difficult to deport illegal immigrants who are parents of kids born in the U.S.

Opponents argue that repealing birthright citizenship somehow “hurts national interests,” is “unfair,” or that doing so would be “difficult.”

Of course it would be difficult!  It will be far more difficult, however, to deal with the messes created by allowing it to continue.  As for what’s “fair,” this is our country, not theirs.  It’s not fair to We the People to suffer the current and growing burdens of unbridled citizenship.  As for “national interests,” increasing national security while decreasing crime far eclipse any wrongly claimed “national interests” of giving freeloaders unbridled access to scare American resources.  As Wood (2015) clearly notes, “…these problems exist with or without Birthright Citizenship and discontinuing Birthright Citizenship would immediately remove one of the magnets which draws people to the United States illegally in the first place.”

I’m with Trump on this issue.  Get rid of birthright citizenship, at least with respect to anyone born of parents who are not here legally and or who have no intent to stay, or worse, have sinister goals in mind contrary to our national interests.  Let’s end the rampant Asian practice of “vacation babies” that allows wealthy Asians to gobble up our businesses and our land.  While we’re at it, we need to do away with dual citizenship, as well, at least once the child reaches the age of majority (18 years old).  You’re either an American or you’re not.  Make up your mind and take your stand.  If someone in college, I’ll give them until 23.

Regardless, we must end the dangerous and highly problematic practice of unbridled birthright citizenship, now.

Obama on Classifying and Declassifying Information

Is Obama authorized to classify and declassify information at will?

According to my recollection, the answer to that question would be a very emphatic, “No.”  In fact, I distinctly recall there being some exceptionally good reasons why we would NEVER give such authority to one branch of the government, much less access to the information itself.

Just because someone possesses a current security clearance has never given them any right or authority to access all information restricted to that level.  This precept is called “need to know.”  By limiting access to only those individuals who have a valid and verified need to know the information, you limit the risk of inappropriate disclosure. Such disclosure can cause grave upsets in the balance of powers, and may very well place the sources of that information, along with their families, friends, and communities, in harm’s way of capture, torture, or death.

So why did Obama release the information regarding which SEAL Team conducted the raid on Bin Laden’s hideout?  Why did he release highly classified information regarding Israel’s defense capabilities?

I went to the Department of Justice’s web page on Declassification for answers, and came across their Declassification FAQs, discovering the following:

WHAT IS THE AUTHORITY FOR AUTOMATIC DECLASSIFICATION?

Executive Order 13526, “Classified National Security Information”

As it turns out, Executive Order 13526, “Classified National Security Information,” was issued on December 29, 2009 by United States President Barack Obama.  Oh, joy…  He’s been trying to rewrite the law since the beginning, hasn’t he?

Two key points, here:

1. Obama gave himself “Classification Authority” in Section 1.3, in direct violation of both federal and Constitutional law.

2. In Section 3.1, he game himself “Declassification Authority.”

Specifically: 3.1 – Authority for Declassification, it says, “Information shall be declassified or downgraded by:”

– the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority

– the originator’s current successor in function, if that individual has original classification authority

– a supervisory official of either the originator or his or her successor in function, if the supervisory official has original classification authority

– officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official of the originating agency

As it turns out, 18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information, already addresses this issue.  U.S. Code is the collection of federal law created by Congress, as authorized by our Constitution, to provide for the security of our nation, commensurate with the federal government’s mandate to “protect the people.”

Congress makes law, not the President.

When a President attempts to overwrite federal law by means of executive order, he is violating the limits on his authority imposed by the Constitution and endangering our Republic.

When Obama released information on Israel’s nuclear capability, he violated federal law in precisely the same manner as Thomas Drake, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, James Hitselberger, Shami K. Leibowitz, John Kiriakou, Bradley Manning, Jeffrey Sterling, and Edward Snowden, and deserves precisely the same charges, trial, sentencing, and imprisonment.

Most heinous, however, is that Obama tried giving himself the ability to classify information.  So, if you raise an objective and he doesn’t like it, he can classify it and have you tossed in prison?

I DON’T THINK SO, OBAMA!  Not lawfully, anyway.

The law is the law, and our Constitution remains “the supreme Law of the Land.”  Obama has, once again, violated the law.