[Fox] A forthcoming book from a former Secret Service officer assigned to the White House during Bill Clinton’s presidency alleges that presumptive 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton "lacks the integrity and temperament to serve in the office."
The book, "Crisis of Character," is due to be released June 28 ‐ a month before Hillary Clinton is likely to take the stage to accept the Democratic presidential nomination in Philadelphia. Written by ex-Secret Service Officer Gary J. Byrne, who was "posted directly outside President Clinton’s Oval Office," the 285-page book describes Hillary Clinton’s "appalling leadership style" as being "volcanic, impulsive, enabled by sycophants, and disdainful of the rules set for everyone else."
While most of the book’s contents have remained under wraps so far, the Amazon.com preview features large sections from the introduction, first two chapters and afterward. It also shows the title page, featuring a Chapter 11 titled "Wild Bill."
In the introduction, Byrne said he "personally observed" President Clinton’s infidelities and was complicit in covering them up.
"I even secretly disposed of sordid physical evidence that might later have been used to convict the president," Byrne wrote.
Byrne recalled an alleged fight between the first couple during the summer of 1995 in Chapter 1, "The Vase." Byrne said a vase was smashed during the loud argument and the next morning President Clinton sported "a shiner, a real, put-a-steak-on-it black eye." Clinton’s personal scheduler Nancy Hernreich allegedly told Byrne the eye condition was a result of Clinton’s allergy to coffee.
The book is not solely about the Clintons, however.
#1
....the 285-page book describes Hillary Clinton’s "appalling leadership style" as being "volcanic, impulsive, enabled by sycophants, and disdainful of the rules set for everyone else."
Hillary Clinton couldn't definitively say Sunday that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guaranteed the right to bear arms during an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos.
Republican rival Donald Trump has charged that Clinton wants to abolish the amendment. While Stephanopoulos said he knew that wasn't true, he pressed her on her gun views that have increasingly gone to the left.
"Do you believe that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right, that it's not linked to service in a militia?" he asked.
"I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia, and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulations," she said. "So I believe we can have common-sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment."
Short answer: no. She'll elaborate after she wins...
Clinton then went into her gun control platform, but Stephanopoulos hit her for dodging his question, noting the D.C. vs. Heller decision that protected an individual's right to have a firearm for lawful purposes.
"And the Heller decision also does say there can be some restrictions, but that's not what I asked," he said. "I said, do you believe that their conclusion that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right?"
"If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulations, and what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms," Clinton said.
Still #NeverTrump?
All those early laws, Hillary, and not one of them denied the rights of ordinary citizens to own firearms.
But let's say Hillary were to succeed: she becomes President. She nominates a rabid, anti-gun Supreme Court justice. The Senate provides consent. A case makes its way to the Court, and now the new Court, by 5-4 vote, reverses Heller, McDonald, etc., and takes away the right of common citizens to own ordinary firearms.
What happens next, oh liberals?
I'll tell you what happens next: 34 states pass a call for a constitutional convention with the purpose to restore the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, that's what happens. Pubs control the governorships and legislatures of 31 states today, so it's not unlikely that this would happen. Once that convention (not guided by the Congress, and not controlled by the progressives) passes the 29th Amendment which says, "The Second Amendment shall always be construed as to protect the right of citizens to own, possess and operate ordinary firearms, and the ammunition required for such", it will go back to the states.
Oh liberals: do you really think you can stop 38 states from ratifying that amendment? And if you try and come anywhere close to doing so, what do you think the country does NEXT?
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/05/2016 12:23 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[13 views]
Top|| File under: Commies
#1
There are two things Hillary ignores.
1. The Bill of Rights is a covenant with the citizens of the United States that the rights outlined are inalienable and if the Bill of Rights is tampered with the federal government loses its right to exist.
2. The Second Amendment has two clauses. The first is a prefatory clause to explain the reason for the operative clause.The second clause which is the operative clause states ", the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."The proper reading of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is the operative clause only. Further everytime the SCOTUS has ruled on the phrase "the right of the people"it has stated that this conveys and individual right.
#2
There is no single greater threat to the fundamental nature of both the Constitution and the safety of our nation that this parsed, lawyer response. Like al things Cintonian, she lies with apparent truth through the use of precise grammar and appeals to emotional loading. It cannot be more apparent that she would appoint a Justice that would find reasons to overturn Heller, and begin the tyrannical process of gun control through "reasonable" assertions about ammo stamping, "smart technology", and other canards that always curtail ownership, ccw and eventually some form of collection. More importantly, it her assertion that anything in the constitution is subject to "reasonable" control, since the way forward is always paved with more restrictions, never less. She is a con artist, a liar, a criminal and a grifter, but the most damning thing, is she will be an imperious tyrant.......
#3
If you want a Civil War, outlaw and try to confiscate Citizen's guns
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/05/2016 14:04 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The frightening thing actually isn't the patently obvious Clintonian evil. Evil has always existed. The Clintons are simply an Arkansonian offshoot. The problem is the denial and labeling of evil as 'GOOD' or acceptable by the apparently vast numbers of those who would support her.
I wonder what impact there would be on her support base if some sort of religious experience befell her and she became 'Pro-Life?'
#5
Still don't think she'll (probably should have said "it" ) snark/off .. will go the distance. Biden/Warren will come in at the last moment, Hildebeast gets a full pardon for her efforts. Maybe give Bernie a cabinet post for his support (HHS might work to achieve the goal of single-payer) a Donk dream and fits in with his Socialist meme.
#6
She will be charged if she does not get the nomination or if she gets the nomination and loses big on November. Then she will be charged, plead guilty and immediately pardoned by zero.
If she wins in November she will govern ad a woman scorned and will go after everyone who demanded she be prosecuted durong 4 years of rule.
Posted by: Unelet Protector of the Sith2424 ||
06/05/2016 21:26 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Clinton is running for the same reason Caesar demanded to be left in his office in Gaul -- it's the only way to avoid spending the next few years in court and/or prison.
Does anyone doubt Hillary is willing to cross the Rubicon?
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
06/05/2016 22:14 Comments ||
Top||
[Al Ahram] Calling immigration a key issue in the presidential race, Hillary Clinton ... sometimes described as For a good time at 3 a.m. call Hillary and at other times as Mrs. Bill, never as Another Daniel Webster ... is attacking Donald Trump for talking in "hateful, very prejudicial, really unacceptable ways."
At a campaign event focused on immigration, Clinton continued her criticism of the likely Republican nominee, saying that when he "talks about deporting 11 million immigrants colonists, he's talking about ripping apart families."
Clinton kicked off a long day of Caliphornia, an impregnable bastion of the Democratic Party, campaigning at Los Angeles Mission College in Sylmar, where she addressed a largely Asian and Latino crowd.
Clinton listened to the personal experiences of several immigrants colonists and stressed her commitment to immigration reform.
Clinton has upped her attacks on Trump in recent days, starting with a speech slamming his foreign policy Thursday. She is hoping to officially lock up the Democratic nomination in the coming days.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/05/2016 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Seems like incitement to violence to me, but what do I know?
#3
insert poster here - It's not Fascism when we do it.
Hate is the fluid that fuels the Left. BTW, ask Americans of Asian decent about prejudicial when it comes to apply for colleges. Why are assembly areas of the Left such cesspools of bigotry? /rhet question
#6
This woman worked for a man (and voted for him too) who told an audience of rich secular extremists that because I believe in limited government, God, and the family as a basic unit of the ideal human society, and because I enjoy shooting sports, that I was a bitterly clinging untermensch.
In doing so, she voided her right to accuse anyone else of being hateful.
Pot, kettle, etc.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
06/05/2016 10:06 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Here's a Clinton ad that appeared in California recently. It is an appeal to pure emotion while it throws the law and logic out of the window. The Beest ignores the fact that the girl's parents entered this country illegally and really should be deported. If the girl doesn't want to be separated from her parents she can leave with them. But no, Hillary panders. This kind of pandering is why these people think they can walk into our country and start telling us what to do. It appeals to emotion alright. It pisses me off real bad.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
06/05/2016 15:30 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Keep in mind this is the political movement that celebrates every time a "study" comes out announcing whites are going to be extinct by such-and-such date.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
06/05/2016 22:53 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Fox] A forthcoming book from a former Secret Service officer assigned to the White House during Bill Clinton’s presidency alleges that presumptive 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton "lacks the integrity and temperament to serve in the office."
"I even secretly disposed of sordid physical evidence that might later have been used to convict the president," Byrne wrote.
Hillary Clinton couldn't definitively say Sunday that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guaranteed the right to bear arms during an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos.
Hillary Clinton
