Skating In July

This will be a brief commentary as the longer one that I have been working on for the past four days or so was designed originally to address the institutionalization of injustice in a governmental system that has been unjust to Christ the King since its very inception two hundred forty years ago this past Tuesday, that is, on July 4. While I will still complete that article for publication on Friday, July 8, 2016, the Feast of Saint Elizabeth of Portugal, yesterday's entirely unsurprising events require just a bit of commentary before I run multiple errands for the family.

Having read the entirety of the transcript of the news conference held yesterday by James Comey, Jr., who is the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.), concerning the bureau’s investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton’s circumvention of existing Federal laws governing the handling of classified information and her deliberate efforts to keep herself as inaccessible to Freedom of Information Act requests as possible, no reasonable person can conclude that the United States Department of Justice should not seek an indictment of Mrs. Clinton from a Federal Grand Jury in the United States District for the District of Columbia.

Comey admitted, however, that it is possible any not named Clinton might have faced “security or administrative sanctions” over the mishandling of classified information regardless of intention:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.  (Comey Transcript.)

What Director Comey did decide to do, however, was to rewrite the laws governing the mishandling of classified information and the failure of a Federal official to keep copies of his records and communications as there is nothing in the governing statutes that require a prosecutor to prove an intention to violate the law. The fact that there is evidence at that laws have been violated is enough to warrant a prosecution, especially in such serious matters relating to the legitimate national security interests of the United States of America.

This is a point made very well by Andrew McCarthy, an attorney who writes for National Review Online, is a personal friend of FBI Director Comey, wrote the following analysis of his friend’s decision not to recommend that charges be filed against Hillary Rodham Diane Clinton:

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.

It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged.

It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information.

I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me.

Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case. Read more at: (FBI Rewites Federal Laaw to Let Hillary Off the Hook.)

James Comey and his investigators at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have done precisely what Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, a Catholic and a “cooperator” in Opus Dei, did not once but twice while judicially rewriting the Affordable Care and Patient Protection to meet his made up standards of constitutionality, first in the combined cases of National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. and Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al., June 28, 2012, the Feast of Saint Irenaeus and the Commemoration of the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, and in King v. Burwell, June 25, 2015, the Feast of Saint William the Abbot within the Octave of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist.

Roberts, who switched his vote from striking down to the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act to upholding its constitutionality during the course of the back-and-forth that takes place as the justics of the Supreme Court of the United States of America circulate their draft opinons, many of which are written by their law clerks, amongst each other, ruled that what the Act itself specifies as a penalty could be construed instead as a tax, Moreover, Roberts construed that the "tax" passed constitutional muster as it was passed in a reconciliation committee although it did not originate as a tax where Section 7 of Article I of the Constitution specifies bills raising revenue to originate, namely, the United States House of Representatives.

Writing for the four dissenting justices, Associate Anthony MacLeod Kennedy, who was the deciding vote in favor of the abominable case of Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, June 27, 2016 (commentary here on Friday), explained that Roberts had simply rewritten the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act as a matter of judicial fiat (which is precisely what he, Kennedy, did in the case of Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt!):

The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax. And it changes the intentionally coercive sanction of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to a supposedly noncoercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act makes available.

The Court regards its strained statutory interpretationas judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court’s new design will struggle to retain. And it leaves the public and the States to expend vast sums of money on requirements that may or may not survive the necessary congressional revision.

The Court’s disposition, invented and atextual as it is,does not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties. It creates them. The holding that the Individual Mandate is a tax raises a difficult constitutional question (what is a direct tax?) that the Court resolves with inadequate deliberation. And the judgment on the Medicaid Expansion issue ushers in new federalism concerns and places an unaccustomed strain upon the Union. Those States that decline the Medicaid Expansion must subsidize, by the federal tax dollars taken from their citizens, vast grants to the States that accept the Medicaid Expansion. If that destabilizing political dynamic, so antagonistic to a harmonious Union, is to be introduced at all, it should be by Congress, not by the Judiciary.

The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty.

The Constitution, though it dates from the founding oft he Republic, has powerful meaning and vital relevance to our own times. The constitutional protections that this case involves are protections of structure. Structural protections—notably, the restraints imposed by federalism and separation of powers—are less romantic and have less obvious a connection to personal freedom than the provisions of the Bill of Rights or the Civil War Amendments. Hence they tend to be undervalued or even forgotten by our citizens. It should be the responsibility of the Court tote a ch otherwise, to remind our people that the Framers considered structural protections of freedom the most important ones, for which reason they alone were embodied in the original Constitution and not left to later amendment. The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it. 

For the reasons here stated, we would find the Act invalid in its entirety. We respectfully dissent. (Minority Opinion, at pages 64-65 of opinion, page 190-191 of the full .pdf.)

Yes, the Constitution is held together by Slender Threads and it is as utterly defenseless against itself as are the words of Holy Writ in the hands of a Protestant or a Modernist.

It was in King v. Burwell that Roberts established a standard of reading a statute in “context” rather than by its plain language in case that deal with the state insurance exchanges meant to be created by the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act, a standard that earned the scorn of Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, since deceased, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas:

The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so. . 

The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress “[a]ll legislative Powers” enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them. This Court holds only the judicial power—the power to pronounce the law as Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct. We must always remember, therefore, that “[o]ur task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it.” Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. of Cadence Industries Corp., 493 U. S. 120, 126 (1989).

Trying to make its judge-empowering approach seem respectful of congressional authority, the Court asserts that its decision merely ensures that the Affordable Care Act operates the way Congress “meant [it] to operate.” Ante, at 17. First of all, what makes the Court so sure that Congress “meant” tax credits to be available everywhere? Our only evidence of what Congress meant comes from the terms of the law, and those terms show beyond all question that tax credits are available only on state Exchanges. More importantly, the Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers. “If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to conform to its intent.” Lamie, supra, at 542. In the meantime, this Court “has no roving license . . . to disregard clear language simply on the view that . . .  Congress ‘must have intended’ something broader.” Bay Mills, 572 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 11).

Even less defensible, if possible, is the Court’s claim that its interpretive approach is justified because this Act “does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.” Ante, at 14–15. It is not our place to judge the quality of the care and deliberation that went into this or any other law. A law enacted by voice vote with no deliberation whatever is fully as binding upon us as one enacted after years of study, months of committee hearings, and weeks of debate. Much less is it our place to make everything come out right when Congress does not do its job properly. It is up to Congress to design its laws with care, and it is up to the people to hold them to account if they fail to carry out that responsibility.

Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act’s limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges. If Congress values above everything else the Act’s applicability across the country, it could make tax credits available in every Exchange. If it prizes state involvement in the Act’s implementation, it could continue to limit tax credits to state Exchanges while taking other steps to mitigate the economic consequences predicted by the Court. If Congress wants to accommodate both goals, it could make tax credits available everywhere while offering new incentives for States to set up their own Exchanges. And if Congress thinks that the present design of the Act works well enough, it could do nothing. Congress could also do something else altogether, entirely abandoning the structure of the Affordable Care Act. The Court’s insistence on making a choice that should be made by Congress both aggrandizes judicial power and encourages congressional lassitude.

Just ponder the significance of the Court’s decision to take matters into its own hands. The Court’s revision of the law authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to spend tens of billions of dollars every year in tax credits on federal Exchanges. It affects the price of insurance for millions of Americans. It diminishes the participation of the States in the implementation of the Act. It vastly expands the reach of the Act’s individual mandate, whose scope depends in part on the availability of credits. What a parody today’s decision makes of Hamilton’s assurances to the people of New York: “The legislature not only commands the purse but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over . . . the purse; no direction . . . of the wealth of society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

* * *

Today’s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, this Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality. The Act that Congress passed provides that every individual “shall” maintain insurance or else pay a “penalty.” 26 U. S. C. §5000A. This Court, however, saw that the Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So it rewrote the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 15–45).  The Act that Congress passed also requires every State to ccept an expansion of its Medicaid program, or else risk losing all Medicaid funding. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. This Court, however, saw that the Spending Clause does not authorize this coercive condition. So it rewrote the law to withhold only the incremental funds associated with the Medicaid expansion. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 45–58). Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.

Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

I dissent. (Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, King v. Burwell, June 25, 2015, p. 1, pp.18-21.)

Then again, as noted just above and will be noted again in my longer commentary on all of this farce to be published on Friday, it is a relatively simple matter to rewrite and reinterpret constitutions and statutes written by mere men arbitrarily when men have grown accustomed to deconstructing the plain words of Sacred Scripture according to Martin Luther’s protestation that each “believer” is his own interpreter of Holy Writ, the very Divinely inspired Word of God.

James Comey and the agents under his supervision at the Federal Bureau of Investigation thus rewrote the statutes that were plainly violated by Hillary Rodham Diane Clinton and several of her aides while she was United States Secretary of State to read into those statutes a standard of willful intention that is not to be found therein. All of Comey’s litany of the ways in which Clinton “mishandled” information that was sent to her marked “classified” or “top secret” will mean nothing to those voters who want to make “history” again on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, by electing the first woman to the office of President of the United States of America, just as they had made “history” on Tuesday, November 4, 2008, by electing the first black man to the presidency.

I mean, ladies and gentleman, why should average voters care about deliberate efforts to circumvent laws designed to protect the legitimate national security interests of the United States of America when they do not care about the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn in their mothers’ wombs by chemical and surgical means.

Comey’s decision not to charges against Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, is completely illogical in light of the evidence he himself summarized yesterday, Tuesday, July 5, 2016, the Feast of Saint Anthony Mary Zaccaria within the Octave of Saints Peter and Paul. Laws were clearly broken. American national security was jeopardized. Foreign governments were able to access classified information on her homebrewed servers, which turned out to be multiple rather than singular in nature, some of which were conveniently “wiped” clean of information.

An article on the Investors’ Business Daily website that was linked on the Real Clear Politics commentary aggregation website on Monday, July 4, 2016, explained that it was impossible for Comey not to recommendation charges to be brought against Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton:

When FBI Director James Comey laid his hand on the Bible and recited his oath of office on September 4, 2013, swearing to "faithfully discharge the duties of the office ... without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion," he probably didn't expect he might have to move against the heir apparent leader of the party under which he would serve.

The facts known about actions taken by Hillary Clinton while secretary of state surrounding the use of an unsecure private email server for conducting government business show that she violated 10 federal statutes. Several are national-security-related felonies, just three of which include: 1. disclosure of classified information (22 documents were Top Secret), 2. unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents, and 3. destruction of evidence (erasure of the hard drive and deletion of some 30,000 emails by Secretary Clinton) after a government investigation had commenced (Benghazi hearings began Oct. 10, 2012).

Comey knows of a related but lesser law violation in handling classified material by General David Petraeus that was recently adjudicated. Petraeus was fined $100,000 and sentenced to two years' probation for providing his personal notebooks containing classified information to his biographer, although no classified information was ever exposed. Hillary Clinton's email server containing more voluminous classified and Top Secret information was reportedly breached and exposed by notorious Romanian hacker "Guccifer" and by the Russians (who have 20,000 Clinton server emails in their possession). So Comey can't easily give Secretary Clinton a pass and at the same time be true to his oath of office.

The fact that the administration under which Mr. Comey serves has conducted itself with unprecedented partisanship and lawlessness makes it even more important for him to uphold the law and recommend indictment. The American people need to see that both lawlessness and dereliction of duty are not given a pass and that no one is above the law.

The country is now at the edge of an abyss from years of obfuscation, unaccountability, subterfuge and law evasion by the Obama administration that have numbed much of its citizenry into an acceptance of government corruption and abuse of power. Resetting Americans' trust in government needs to start with holding people in high office, like Hillary Clinton, accountable.

But there is another reason this step is necessary. Hillary Clinton has been an integral part of the Clinton Foundation, which is unprecedented in size and global scope as an influence-peddling political slush fund. According to the foundation's own recent tax returns, just 10% of expenditures go to charitable grants, with the bulk of the balance spent on salaries and benefits, lavish travel and conference organizing. The record shows that the Clinton Foundation took large contributions from several business magnates who soon thereafter received clearance for controversial international business deals. Saudi Arabia contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation before Hillary became secretary of state. A few years later the Hillary Clinton State Department formally cleared the largest single sale of military aircraft to the Saudis.

The most plausible explanation for Hillary Clinton's circumventing longstanding federal rules on secure communication -- and for her insistence on implementing a private email server -- was simply to conceal a conflict of interest in continuing a role in the Clinton Foundation while also serving as secretary of state. It is instructive that Secretary Clinton's top aide, Huma Abedin, was simultaneously on payrolls of both the State Department and the Teneo Group, an influence-peddling consulting operation founded by a Clinton confidant. Additionally, a private email server would protect disclosure of fund-raising activities for Hillary Clinton's anticipated run for president.

As the FBI investigation nears its completion, Comey can find solace in the words of the 26th U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, who declared: "We cannot afford to differ on the question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to endure. Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest, we have no right to keep him in public life; it matters not how brilliant his capacity."

A central issue of the November election is to choose new leadership to disabuse the American citizenry of accepting dishonesty and abuse of power in government. If Comey can rise above political pressure and just do his job, he has a unique opportunity to press the reset button on government corruption and bring about an essential course correction in these troubled times. That would be a historic and truly heroic accomplishment. (Comey Can't Give Hillary A Free Pass.)

Instead, of course, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton did what she and her husband, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, have done throughout their lives: she skated. Hillary Rodham Diane Clinton is skating in July. The Clintons are above the laws of God and man. What else is new?

Obviously, this is not news. As I have tried to explain so many times in the past on this site, much of my writing time in the 1990s, which was shared with what I used to do to earn my daily bread and pay my rent on Long Island (teach courses in political science at the then named C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University), was spent writing endless numbers of articles for The Wanderer about the Clintons. It is always the same. Always. Clear cases of criminal misconduct wind up with no charges being brought against the Clintons.

Here is a far from exhaustive list, recited several times on this site over the years, of lies and cover-ups and misfeasance and corruption that have stood out over the years. No one, therefore, should be the least bit surprised about the latest whopper told by Hillary Clinton, who claims that she "misremembered" the Tuzla event:

1. Bill and Hillary Clinton lied in 1992 about Gennifer Flowers. Mrs. Clinton called Flowers's accusations against her husband to be nothing other than "trash for cash," although her husband admitted in their famous 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley that he had caused "pain" in their marriage. Hillary Clinton did this repeatedly throughout the White House years, thereby demonstrating that she, the "woman of change," would crush any woman who had been used and/or abused by her husband in order to have her own chance to serve as President of the United States of America.

2. Travelgate and Vince Foster.

3. Filegate.

4. Whitewatergate.

5. Billing records-gate. Does anyone not believe that Mrs. Clinton did not leave the billing records from the Rose Law Firm in the White House reading room?

6. Monicagate, which resulted ultimately in Bill Clinton's copping that plea agreement with Independent Counsel Robert Ray on January 19, 2001, just before he left office. It should also be noted that the Clintons were ruthless in attempting to destroy the reputation of anyone and everyone who sought to criticize them or to investigate them, making Richard Nixon's "Plumbers' Unit" seem like a band of amateurs. Take a look at a very partial list of some of the names of Clinton "enemies" who were "exposed" as having their own personal problems during the midst of Monicagate: United States Representatives Bob Barr, Henry Hyde, Dan Burton, and Bob Livingston. Ah, yes, the compassionate Clintons? Just don't get in their way. They take no prisoners.

7. Serbiagate: the bombardment of the Serbs to favor the Kosovo Mohammedans in the former Yugoslavia, a bombardment that Clinton directed despite the fact that he had no authorization from the Congress of the United States of America to do so. Thousands of innocent Serbians were killed as a result of the bombing, conducted under the auspices of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (N.A.T.O.)

8. Chinagate. How many nefarious arms merchants and drug dealers and other low life figures slept in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House and/or had "coffees" with the Clintons in the 1996 election cycle?

Perhaps it is good to revisit a few details of Chinagate as there have been so many Clinton and Obama scandals in the past nineteen years that most of them tend to blur one into the other.

Even though President Richard Nixon authorized all manner of criminality in the misguided effort to protect national security, Bill Clinton, aided by his wife, engaged in illegal campaign fund-raising in 1996 by inviting Red Chinese arms merchants, among others, to the White House for "sleep overs" and coffees" in order to help him get reelected while at the same time realizing his policy of "leveling" the playing field internationally in a "global" world. Translation: weakening the defense, sovereignty and legitimate national security of a sovereign nation, the United States of America.

Consider this May 27, 2003, Newsmax.com article on the matter:

China will likely replace the USA as world leader, said Bill Clinton in a recent Washington Post interview. It is just a matter of time. Clinton should know. He has personally done more to build China’s military strength than any man on earth.

Most Americans have heard of the so-called "Chinagate" scandal. Few understand its deadly import, however. Web sites such as "Chinagate for Dummies" and its companion "More Chinagate for Dummies" offer some assistance.

Unfortunately, with a combined total of nearly 8,000 words, these two sites – like so many others of the genre – offer more detail than most of us "dummies" can absorb.

For that reason, in the 600 words left in this column, I will try to craft my own "Idiot’s Guide to Chinagate," dedicated to all those busy folks like you and me whose attention span tends to peter out after about 750 words.

Here goes.

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, China presented no threat to the United States. Chinese missiles "couldn’t hit the side of a barn," notes Timothy W. Maier of Insight magazine. Few could reach North America and those that made it would likely miss their targets.

Thanks to Bill Clinton, China can now hit any city in the USA, using state-of-the-art solid-fueled missiles with dead-accurate, computerized guidance systems and multiple warheads.

China probably has suitcase nukes as well. These enable China to strike by proxy – equipping nuclear-armed terrorists to do its dirty work while the Chinese play innocent. Some intelligence sources claim that China maintains secret stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on U.S. soil, for just such contingencies.

In 1997, Clinton allowed China to take over the Panama Canal. The Chinese company Hutchison Whampoa leased the ports of Cristobal and Balboa, on the east and west openings of the canal, respectively, thus controlling access both ways.

A public outcry stopped Clinton in 1998 from leasing California's Long Beach Naval Yard to the Chinese firm COSCO. Even so, China can now strike U.S. targets easily from its bases in Panama, Vancouver and the Bahamas.

How did the Chinese catch up so fast? Easy. We sold them all the technology they needed – or handed it over for free. Neither neglect nor carelessness is to blame. Bill Clinton did it on purpose.

As a globalist, Clinton promotes "multipolarity" – the doctrine that no country (such as the USA) should be allowed to gain decisive advantage over others.

To this end, Clinton appointed anti-nuclear activist Hazel O'Leary to head the Department of Energy. O'Leary set to work "leveling the playing field," as she put it, by giving away our nuclear secrets. She declassified 11 million pages of data on U.S. nuclear weapons and loosened up security at weapons labs.

Federal investigators later concluded that China made off with the "crown jewels" of our nuclear weapons research under Clinton’s open-door policy – probably including design specifications for suitcase nukes.

Meanwhile, Clinton and his corporate cronies raked in millions.

In his book "The China Threat," Washington Times correspondent Bill Gertz describes how the system worked.

Defense contractors eager to sell technology to China poured millions of dollars into Clinton's campaign. In return, Clinton called off the dogs.

Janet Reno and other counterintelligence officials stood down while Lockheed Martin, Hughes Electronics, Loral Space & Communications and other U.S. companies helped China modernize its nuclear strike force.

"We like your president. We want to see him re-elected," former Chinese intelligence chief Gen. Ji Shengde told Chinagate bagman Johnny Chung.

Indeed, Chinese intelligence organized a massive covert operation aimed at tilting the 1996 election Clinton's way.

Clinton's top campaign contributors for 1992 were Chinese agents; his top donors in 1996 were U.S. defense contractors selling missile technology to China.

Clinton received funding directly from known or suspected Chinese intelligence agents, among them James and Mochtar Riady, who own the Indonesian Lippo Group; John Huang; Charlie Trie; Ted Sioeng; Maria Hsia; Wang Jun and others.

Commerce Secretary Ron Brown served as Clinton's front man in many Chinagate deals. When investigators began probing Brown's Lippo Group and Chinagate connections, Brown died suddenly in a suspicious April 1996 plane crash.

Needless to say, China does not share Clinton's enthusiasm for globalism or multipolarity. The Chinese look out for No. 1.

"War [with the United States] is inevitable; we cannot avoid it," said Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Chi Haotian in 2000. "The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war."

Bill Clinton has given them a good start. (Richard Poe, The Idiot's Guide to Chinagate.)

9. Bill Clinton claimed in 1995 that Congressional Republicans wanted to "cut spending" on various domestic entitlement programs, deliberately misrepresenting the truth that his hapless adversaries, whom he could not have conjured up more perfectly than if he had asked Barbara Eden of I Dream of Jeannie to have done so for him ("Jeannie, I want a group of opponents who will be so hapless and so spineless that they will surrender to me the moment I begin to lie about them:"), wanted to cut the projected rate of growth in Federal spending on such programs. Actual spending was going to increase no matter whose budget program, Clinton's or the Republicans', wound up being enacted. Clinton represented the Republican plan as a "cut" in actual spending when it was simply a slower rate of increase in spending that the one he was proposing. In other words, Bill Clinton just out-and-out lied.

10.Bill Clinton said in a radio address on June 8, 1996, that "I have vivid and painful memories of black churches being burned in my own state when I was a child." No such burnings took place during his childhood.

11. Hillary Clinton has claimed that her parents named her after the man who conquered Mount Everest on May 29, 1953, the late Edmund Hillary. Mrs. Clinton's parents were quite prophetic. She was born on October 26, 1947.

The story is always the same for the Clintons. Always. They are the 1990s show that never ends. Never. And ya know what? Despite all of the recent news stories about the former Secretary of State's private server and having retained classified intelligence on it, she is still the favorite to win the presidential nomination of the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist "left" next year. What a country.

The saddest part of all, of course, is that the Clintons are both adamant supporters of the unrestricted chemical assassination of the innocent preborn and have served as complete apologists for the baby-killing industry for a very long time now.

As explained briefly earlier in this commentary, it is my firm belief that many sappy voters in our republic awash in the sentimentality and irrationalism born of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry will care very little for the fact that Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton lied about not having seen the words "Classified" on any of the e-mails that were stored on her multiple servers or that she jeopardized American national security. There is no rational reason for the morons who march like lemmings as "undecideds" during an election year to care about violations of laws passed by Congress or national security when they do not care about their own violations of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. It is quite logical to indemnify others who do as one does if one has no terror of the dread moment that is the Particular Judgment and/or lives in total ignorance of the fact that he will face the Divine Judge, Christ the King, in person when he dies.

I, for one (and I do realize that my voice is rather singular in these matters), am not in the least bit agitated by the fact that Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton has skated yet again. She is likely to be the forty-fifth President of the United States of America, and she will use the White House as a conduit for Clinton Foundation cash just as she used it twenty years ago this year as a venue for illegal fund raising schemes with Chinese arms merchants. The Clintons may "skate" year round, no less in the heat of July, for the rest of their earthly lives. The truth is, though, that God is be mocked. The time will come for them to make an accounting of their lives:

[3] For if any man think himself to be some thing, whereas he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. [4] But let every one prove his own work, and so he shall have glory in himself only, and not in another. [5] For every one shall bear his own burden.

[6] And let him that is instructed in the word, communicate to him that instructeth him, in all good things. [7] Be not deceived, God is not mocked. [8] For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. For he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh also shall reap corruption. (Galatians 6: 3-7.)

Indeed, Pope Pius XI, who, quite unlike the charlatan from Argentina and his five predecessors as the universal faces of apostasy of the coutnerfeit church of conciliarism, explained very clearly the fate that awaits the Clintons and all other pro-abortion politicians and magistrates in public life, including, of course, President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.:

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 30, 1930.)

Total trust in the Mother of God and her Fatima Message as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits to console the good God and to make reparation for our own sins, each of which has worsened both the state of the world-at-large and the state of the Church Militant here on earth in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

This time of chastisement will pass. The Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will be made manifest.

True, we may not be alive to witness this triumph. We can, however, plant the seeds for it by our patient endurance of the crosses of the moment as we make whatever sacrifice necessary and endure whatever calumny, humiliation and hardship that is required in order to make no concessions to falsehoods, whether of Modernity or Modernism, of any kind at any time for any reason.

Let us lift high the Cross of Christ the King, He Who is the King of men and their nations even though most men do not realize this and even though most nations seek to suppress all mention of His Holy Name and mock any possibility that He is their King, the King Who will come in glory to judge the living and dead.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.