Gerald L. Atkinson
15 June 2008
There is a striking similarity in the means by which two of the six 'actors' that have been addressed on these pages -- Hillary Rodham Clinton and Ayman al-Zawahiri -- have defined and used the concept of takfir as a tactic on their road to gaining power, raw naked power in their respective domains. Whereas this tactic is defined in the rise of al-Qaeda and its origins, it is also apparent in the tactic used by Hillary Rodham Clinton during her rise to a position of power in American politics. The only difference in the two tactics is the domains in which they are used. With Zawahiri it was used as a means of eradicating Muslims who were considered to be blocking the rise to power of al-Jihad, an Egyptian precursor to al-Qaeda and its global Salafist Islamic jihad. With Hillary it was developed and used against anyone who would appear to be a threat to her lifelong dream to grasp the reins of power in American politics.
With this setting in mind, we must ask, what is meant by takfir? Where did it originate? How does it affect us? The modern activation of this concept was reintroduced by the Egyptian martyr, Sayyid Qutb, during his imprisonment by Nasser during the mid-1960s. The narrative history is provided by Lawrence Wright in his book, The Looming Tower.
Wright reveals Qutb’s part in this history . "Some of the imprisoned Muslim Brothers staged a strike and refused to leave their cells. They were gunned down. Twenty-three members were killed and forty-six injured. Qutb was in the prison hospital when the wounded men were brought in. Shaken and terrified, Qutb wondered how fellow Muslims could treat each other in such a way." In a telling and dark premonition of the future, Qutb came to a characteristically radical conclusion. According to Wright , "His jailers had denied God by serving Nasser and his secular state. Therefore, they were not Muslims. In Qutb's mind, he had excommunicated them from the Islamic community. The name for this in Arabic is takfir. Although it is not the language he used, the principle of excommunication, which had been used to justify so much bloodshed within Islam throughout its history, had been born again in that prison hospital room.
Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Takfir
In the aftermath of the war between the Soviet Union and the mujahideen, Afghan ‘freedom fighters’ – the warlords and their kinsmen – chaos ensued. When the Soviets exited on 15 February 1989 and left Afghanistan in the hands of the communist Afghan ‘puppet’ government, the Afghan warlords routed them and then descended into disorder and civil war over the spoils. The Arab contingent, in the hands of Abdullah Azzam and Osama bin Laden also found rivals for control of their jihadis, the Egyptians being the most prominent rivals along with the takfiris, led by Ayman al-Zawahiri. The story of this breakdown of unity is worth telling in order to understand how al-Qaeda rose from these ashes to become a global threat to the West. Lawrence Wright tells the story in a splendid historical narrative style .
“The heresy of takfir, or excommunication, has been a problem in Islam since its early days. In the mid seventh century, a group known as the Kharijites revolted against the rule of Ali, the fourth caliph. The particular issue that triggered their rebellion was Ali’s decision to compromise with a political opponent rather than to wage a fratricidal war. The Kharijites decreed that they were the only ones who followed the true tenets of the faith, and that anyone who did not agree with them was an apostate, and that included even Ali, the Prophet’s beloved son-in-law, who they eventually assassinated.”
“In the early 1970s a group surfaced in Egypt called Takfir wa Jijira (Excommunication and Withdrawal), a forerunner of al-Qaeda. Their leader, Shukri Mustafa, a graduate of the Egyptian concentration camps, attracted a couple of thousand followers. They read Qutb and plotted the day when they would gain sufficient strength in exile to return to annihilate the unbelievers and bring on the final days. Meanwhile, they wandered in Egypt’s Western Desert, sleeping in mountain grottoes.”
“The Cairo press called Mustafa’s followers ahl al-kahf, ‘people of the cave,’ a reference to the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus. This Christian folktale recounts the story of seven shepherds who refused to renounce their faith. In punishment, the Roman emperor Decius had them walled up inside a cave in present-day Turkey. Three centuries later, according to the legend, the cave was discovered and the sleepers awakened, thinking they had slept only one night. There is an entire sura, or chapter, in the Quran, ‘The Cave,’ that refers to this story. Like Shukri Mustafa, bin Laden would fasten onto the imagery that the cave evokes for Muslims. Moreover, the modus operandi of withdrawal, preparation, and dissimulation that would frame the culture of al-Qaeda’s sleeper cells was established by Takfir wa Hijira as early as 1975.” These sleeper cells existed in the U.S.A as a prelude to the 9/11 terrorist attack. They continue to exist in America today.
“Takfir is the mirror image of Islam, reversing its fundamental principles but maintaining the semblance of orthodoxy. The Quran explicitly states that Muslims shall not kill anyone, except as punishment for murder. The murderer of one innocent, the Quran warns, is judged ‘as if he had murdered all of mankind.’ The killing of Muslims is an even greater offense. He who commits such an act, says the Quran, will find that ‘his repayment is Hell, remaining in it timelessly, forever.’ How then, could groups such as al-Jihad and the Islamic Group justify using violence against fellow Muslims in order to come to power? Sayyid Qutb had pointed the way by declaring that a leader who does not impose Sharia on the country must be an apostate. There is a well-known saying of the Prophet that the blood of Muslims cannot be shed except in three instances: as punishment for murder, or for marital infidelity, or for turning away from Islam. The pious Anwar Sadat was the first modern victim of the reverse logic of takfir.”
“The new takfiris, such as Dr. Fadl and Dr. Ahmed [members of al-Qaeda], extended the death warrant to encompass, for instance, anyone who registered to vote. Democracy, in their view, was against Islam because it placed in the hands of people authority that properly belonged to God. Therefore, anyone who voted was an apostate, and his life was forfeit. So was anyone who disagreed with their joyless understanding of Islam – including the mujahideen leaders they had ostensibly come to help, and even the entire population of Afghanistan, whom they regarded as infidels because they were not Salafists. The new takfiris believed that they were entitled to kill practically anyone and everyone who stood in their way; indeed, they saw it as a divine duty.”
“Until he arrived in Peshawar, Zawahiri had never endorsed wholesale murder. He had always approached political change like a surgeon: A speedy and precise coup d’état was his lifelong ideal. But while he was working in the Red Crescent hospital with Dr. Fadl and Dr. Ahmed, the moral bonds that separated political resistance from terrorism became more elastic. His friends and former prison mates noticed a change in his personality. The modest, well-mannered doctor who had always been so exacting in his arguments was now strident, antagonistic, and strangely illogical. He would seize on innocent comments and interpret them in a weird and malicious manner. Perhaps for the first time in his adulthood, he faced a crisis of identity.”
“In a life as directed and purposeful as Zawahiri’s, there are few moments that can be said to be turning points. One was the execution of Sayyid Qutb when Zawahiri was fifteen; indeed, that was the point of origin for all that followed. Torture did not so much change Zawahiri as purify his resolve. Each step of his life was in the service of fulfilling his goal of installing an Islamic government in Egypt as bloodlessly as possible. But the takfiri doctrine had shaken him. The takfiris convinced themselves that salvation for all of humanity lay on the other side of moral territory that had always been the certain province of the damned. They would shoulder the risks to their eternal souls by assuming the divine authority of deciding who was a real Muslim and who was not, who should live and who should die.”
“Zawahiri stood at this great divide. On one side, there lay before him the incremental process of rebuilding his movement in exile, waiting for the opportunity, if it ever came, of returning to Egypt and taking control. This was his life’s goal. But it was only a small step toward the apocalypse, which seemed so much closer at hand when he viewed the other side of the divide. There, across what he must have known was an ocean of blood, was the promise of the universal restoration of true Islam.”
“For the next ten years, Zawahiri would be pulled in both directions. The Egyptian option was al-Jihad, which he had created and defined. The universal option had not yet been named, but it was already taking shape. It would be called al-Qaeda.”
Hugh Rodham, Hillary's father, was the kind of man whose withholding of affection may have inspired overachievement, but it also seems to have created a reservoir of resentment  "...for a young woman who would later write a whole book about the value of nurturing. Hillary fantasized early on with becoming an astronaut. Hillary and her brother spent many hours in the basement on pretend flights to the moon. She would always drive and he would always have to sit in the back."
Edward Klein describes Hillary's early motivations for this drive . "...[Hillary's] whole life had been built on grandiose dreams of acquiring fame and power. As a teenager in the early 1960s, Hillary had set her heart on becoming the first woman astronaut. Early space voyagers like Alan Shepard (who became the first American in space in 1961) and John Glenn (the first American to orbit Earth in 1962) were routinely offered the chance to serve in the president's cabinet or run for the Senate. A career as an astronaut greased the path to national power faster than any other possible approach, and Hillary was more than willing to risk life and limb for the prize."
According to Klein, "Hillary's celestial ambitions were thwarted by a catch-22. In order to qualify as an astronaut, you first had to be a fighter pilot, but women couldn't become fighter pilots because they were banned from combat. Then, of course, there was the minor problem of Hillary's famously poor eyesight, which ruled her out as a candidate for space travel regardless of her gender. Barred from applying to the space program, Hillary was despondent. To cheer her up, her mother encouraged her to set her sights on the Supreme Court: she could become the first female justice on the Court." Of course, now during the 2008 primary season in which she lost the nomination to Barack Obama, the late-night meeting between Hillary and Obama, during which her capitulation and promise of support by her '18 million primary voters' could have been purchased by the quid pro quo promise by Obama to nominate Hillary to the Supreme Court -- where radical feminist power has been so glaringly dominant during the early debates on the abortion issue -- may be the supreme seat for Hillary to exercise telling radical feminist power in the future.
But, according to Klein, "...Hillary became fixated on an even bigger prize. Whoever occupied the White House, she decided, had the power to affect vast numbers of people through legislation and executive action. 'From an early age, she dreamed of living in the White House,' said Hillary's first mentor, the Reverend Don Jones, her youth group minister."
Just who was this Don Jones? According to Barbara Olson , "At an early age, Hillary absorbed the lessons of the Methodist church, and was shaped by the power of its social gospel...Like all Christians, Methodists believe in salvation through grace. But John Wesley...distinguished Methodism from other Protestant denominations by injecting it with the doctrine of the 'second blessing' -- the dynamic interaction of human will and divine grace that could lead toward spiritual perfection.”
In the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Methodist theology, awakened by the powerful assertions of social science, began to stir a new awakening to the issues of class and race. The compelling power of this new social gospel had resonated with the Methodist commitment to the quest for human perfectibility. Also, of all the denominations, Methodism perhaps had gone the farthest in advocating the 'Social Creed' and its quasi-socialist concept of progress. Of all the denominations, Methodism had been the most militant opponent of the saloon and advocate of temperance and prohibition. It was this strain of Methodism, the deep eddies of the Christian left, that gave Hillary Rodham her moral and political bearings and perhaps her highly attuned sense of self-righteousness."
"[Methodism] became the root of her worldview, one in which it is never enough to attack an opponent's actions. One must also expose his motives, and use that perspective to destroy both the action and its proponents. For the natural companion of a doctrine of perfectibility is a conviction in the existence of evil -- and immorality -- of one's enemies. Hillary's America is a starkly Manichean universe, one in which she perceives the enemies of progress as numerous, powerful, and clever -- in fact, as the 'vast right-wing conspiracy.'" Out of such grist, Hillary developed her own takfir, one aimed at destroying her perceived enemies -- whomever and wherever they are in her quest for power, raw naked power, whether it be in her own presidency, or on the Supreme Court, or simply as the iconic figure in the radical feminist (actually cultural-Marxist) movement so much in evidence in America today. In fact, her 18 million voters in the Democrat presidential primary of 2008 has grown to that level from the 8 million or so counter-culture revolutionaries of the 1960s via two simple factors; one the rise of radical feminism; the other of America's colleges and universities becoming our nation's cultural 'Madrassas' preaching the gospel of hatred for men and even in some cases hatred for America.
In a section of her book, entitled The University of Life, Barbara Olson describes the influence of the cultural-Marxist preacher, Donald G. Jones . "Hillary was a fourteen-year-old ninth grader when the Reverend Donald G. Jones arrived as the new youth minister. He was an intense, energetic thirty-year-old, newly minted from divinity school in Manhattan. The students, not Jones, called the class 'The University of Life.' It was an apt name, for the Reverend Jones possessed an expansive mission to open his students to his view of the wider world and transform them."
According to Olson, "Don Jones was determined to break open the comfortable cocoon of Park Ridge [Hillary's home town] and expose his protégé to the disturbing realities of the contemporary world. He brought in an atheist to debate the existence of God. He upset the congregation with a discussion of teenage pregnancy. He conveyed his deep commitment to the theology of Paul Tillich, who redefined Christianity in terms of the German idealistic tradition and existentialism. Jones believed, as Tillich wrote, that the major flaw of contemporary Christianity was its deep roots in middle-class culture. Its revival, Tillich argued, could come only from a critique of society that took its inspiration from Marxist lines of thought."
This is, of course, the very essence of cultural-Marxism, a revolutionary movement brought to this country from the Frankfurt School emigrants from Germany in 1933 -- Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, Theodor Adorno, and Max Horkheimer, among others. The first two are (in)famous for the 1960s counter-culture revolution chants 'Make Love, not War,' and 'Escape from Freedom,' which coupled Marxist economics with Freudian psychology and became the essence of the counter-culture revolution, the New Left, and women’s liberation on our nation's campuses. And Adorno's critical theory blamed the Authoritarian Personality of Germany's middle-class for the rise of Hitler's national socialist movement in the 1930s and beyond. This concept was developed here for America’s middle class by the Frankfurt School revolutionaries.
Olson continues, "In this new spin on Christianity, sin and grace, death and redemption were no longer the key features of theology. The major problem facing American youth, the Reverend Jones informed his students, was a crisis of meaning and alienation. Hillary carried this forward to her 'politics of meaning.'"
“The Reverend Jones jolted his students with a bracing mixture of counterculture and high culture, the poems of e.e. Cummings, J.D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye and a discussion on Picasso's Guernica. He drew explicit parallels between the utopia of Karl Marx and the heavenly kingdom.”
"Two years after coming to Park Ridge, the Reverend Jones went on to teach in New Jersey, eventually becoming a professor of theology at Drew University. Many of his congregants were glad to see him go, regarding him as a radical leftist preacher of the 'social gospel.' But he had left a process of change within the girl who had once been crestfallen when Barry Goldwater had lost in his race for the presidency. She no longer trusted the 'conscience of a conservative,' but found herself thinking more and more in terms of mass social action, of a Christian socialism where the restraints of Christianity gradually gave way to the demands of politics and power."
Klein covers the same ground as Olson, but with a more focused and detailed description of what came to drive Hillary Clinton to the highest reaches of power by her own defined means of takfir. "From an early age, she dreamed of living in the White House’ , said Hillary's first mentor, the Reverend Don Jones, her youth group minister. At Wellesley College, Hillary's classmates frequently talked about her becoming the first woman president of the United States. At Yale Law School, Bill Clinton joined the chorus of those who believed that Hillary had the right stuff to make it all the way to the White House."
Klein reveals that, "[Clinton] said, 'If she comes to Arkansas, it's going to be my state, my future. She could be president someday. She could go to any state and be elected to the Senate. If she comes to Arkansas, she'll be on my turf.' Nonetheless, Hillary hitched her star to the charismatic Bill Clinton. She followed him back to Arkansas, as she told several friends, she believed that he was going to be president one day. According to the Reverend Don Jones, Hillary and Bill started plotting his run for the White House as early as 1982 -- almost ten years before he actually declared his candidacy."
"During those years, the country's attitude toward women shifted dramatically under the compelling force of the women's movement. And this revolutionary change in the status of women allowed Hillary to dream an even bigger dream: succeeding her husband in the White House. That audacious dream was never far from Hillary's mind. At times, she found it hard to accommodate her fantasies of power and glory with her carefully cultivated public image as a selfless, holier-than-thou person. But over time, she managed to convince herself that she wasn't a hypocrite, that her dream was pure and untainted, a virtuous obligation, not an exercise in selfishness. Indeed, she came to believe that the world would be a far better place with Hillary Rodham Clinton as president."
According to Klein, "'What Mrs. Clinton seems in all apparent sincerity to have in mind,' wrote Michael Kelly, 'is leading the way to something on the order of a reformation: the remaking of the American way of politics, government, indeed life. A lot of people, contemplating such a task, might fall prey to self-doubts. Mrs. Clinton does not.'"
Klein then starts to unravel the connection between Hillary and Bill Clinton. "Hillary read the Washington Post's story about her husband's reckless affair with Monica Lewinski. Although the butler could not tell what she was thinking, he noticed that her hands holding the newspaper visibly trembled. Hillary understood her husband well enough to know that this latest dalliance meant nothing to him; he never had any empathy or compassion for the women he slept with. Yet this affair was different from all the others, for it had the potential to derail the Clintons' co-presidency. She had to save Bill in order to save herself. Otherwise, everything she had dreamed about since childhood would come to naught." And there, in that instant was the explicit birth of Hillary's fully developed concept of takfir -- to save her quest for the presidency and keep alive her dream for ultimate power. She would use any means necessary to destroy everyone and everything that interfered with that quest.
Klein reveals that when Hillary was sixteen years old, she composed a bitter letter to her church's youth minister, the Reverend Don Jones. She had just been defeated for president of her senior class...Four decades later, in her memoir Living History, Hillary recalled the moment. Still bitter as ever, she accused one of her opponents of saying that "I was really stupid if I thought that a girl could be elected president."
Timothy Sheldon, the boy who defeated Hillary, and who was now an Illinois circuit court judge, had a far different memory of events. 'It's incredible that it still rankles her after all these years,' he said in an interview for this book. 'There was nothing to sling mud about, because there were no issues, no debate. The so-called race was just a popularity contest,' he went on. 'Normally, boys ran for president and girls for secretary. Rightly or wrongly, that was just the way it was done in those days. I remember it vividly: it was the first time a girl had run for student council president. The reason I won was I was the star running back on the football team. It was as simple as that.'"
"But it wasn't that simple for Hillary. 'The reason Hillary still makes excuses for her loss, suggesting dirty tricks were somehow played, is that she had then -- and apparently continues to have -- a sense of infallibility,' said a former member of her high school student council. 'It is not possible that she could have lost even a high school election simply because she was not the most popular candidate. She was bitter and furious at the loss back then, and even in her own mind probably has convinced herself there was chicanery.'"
Klein describes a detail that furthers our understanding of the influence that the Reverend Don Jones exerted over her -- during her early years and as she entered Wellesley College. "'When Hillary left Park Ridge for Wellesley College, she was still a conservative Park Ridge girl,' said Penny Pullen, a high school classmate. 'She chose an all-girls college that catered to the upper crust, but the seeds of a radical left-wing political philosophy had been planted by her Methodist youth group minister, Don Jones., And those seeds would be watered and fertilized at Wellesley College.' The next time I saw her,' Penny continued, 'was on television as a guest on The Irv Kupcinet Show. She looked like a hippy with big glasses, and hair that looked like it hadn't been washed in a month. Kupcinet patted her on the head in praise. My recollection is that she was yelling about a university strike over a rent increase in student housing.'"
“The transformation of Hillary Rodham  -- from a neatly groomed Goldwater Girl to a scruffy left-wing radical -- began in earnest in the backseat of her father's Cadillac. Throughout the long journey across America, Hillary rarely took her nose out of the books and magazines she had brought along. One of her favorite publications was motive, whose logo was spelled with a lowercase m. The magazine was destined to have a profound influence on her way of thinking."
"The Reverend Don Jones, Hillary's youth minister at the Park Ridge United Methodist church, had given her a subscription to motive as a high school graduation present. It was easy to see why Jones -- who would soon be fired by his congregation for advocating 'socialist' views -- thought so highly of motive. The Division of Higher Education of the United Methodist Church had published the magazine since 1941 [Note: Only eight years after the Frankfurt School revolutionaries had emigrated to America from Germany], and its original editorial mission was to help Methodist college students keep in touch with their church's principles of 'piety and service.' But by 1965, the year of Hillary's high school graduation, the magazine was trumpeting a very different tune."
"It would come to resemble such New Left underground publications as the East Village Other and the Berkeley Barb. Indeed, motive was gleefully vulgar; it editorialized that words like f---, b----, and s--- should be printed 'intact.' Photo features included a birthday card for Ho Chi Minh and a picture of a pretty coed with an LSD tablet in her tongue. Marxist writers were featured in the pages of motive. Renegade priest Daniel Berrigan contributed anti-Vietnam War poems. Nat Henthoff defended student militancy. Convicted cop killer Huey Newton was lauded as a victim and a visionary. Advice was dispensed on draft dodging, desertion, and flight to Canada and Sweden."
"According to the Methodist Church's archives, during the 1960s and 1970s motive espoused 'highly politicized, left-wing ideology, which favored Cuba, socialism, the Black Panthers, SDS [Students for a Democratic Society] ... obscene and vulgar language, and anti-American ideology.' As the archives pointed out, motive's stance 'did not win it popularity among the Methodist faithful.'"
"In 1972, the last year of its publication, motive devoted an entire issue to a radical lesbian/feminist theme, which emphasized the need to destroy 'our sexist, racist, capitalist, imperialist system.' Two of the editors of the issue were Rita Mae Brown, author of the lesbian novel Ruby Fruit Jungle, and Charlotte Bunch, a lesbian militant. 'At this time,' the editors wrote, 'we are separatists who do not work with men, straight or gay, because men are not working to end male supremacy. Only a complete destruction of the whole male supremacist system can free women.'"
"Brown and Bunch defined lesbianism as a political faith, and they made it clear that even a woman who did not choose to participate in sex with another woman could still live philosophically under the rubric of political lesbianism. 'Male society,' they wrote, 'defines lesbianism as a sexual act, which reflects men's limited view of women: they think of us only in terms of sex.' In a 1994 interview with Newsweek -- more than two decades after motive folded -- Hillary proudly stated: 'I still have every issue they sent me.'"
"Hillary had read her copies of MOTIVE cover to cover by the time Hugh Rodham got off at exit 14 of the Massachusetts Turnpike and headed toward the Wellesley College campus...It did not take Hillary long to decide that Wellesley was stuck in a Victorian time warp. [In addition to old fashioned behavioral norms for women and the paucity of minority students] much of the Wellesley curriculum was finishing-school material that was designed to educate a woman to be a skilled wife and homemaker...The few married students who lived on campus were officially put on notice that they were not to share the 'secrets of married life' with single girls."
"In the highly charged atmosphere of the 1960s, Wellesley was ripe for change. Toward the end of her freshman year, Hillary was elected sophomore senate representative on a platform that promised to reform Wellesley's course requirements. Her inflammatory rhetoric brought her some unexpected notoriety. The conservative Boston Herald wrote that Hillary and her Wellesley College allies resembled 'the Bolshevik women's auxiliary, in their fur caps and high boots...'"
Klein explains, "'Theirs was a generation that imagined it would reinvent the world,' wrote Miriam Horn in Rebels in White Gloves, an exhaustive study of Hillary's 1969 graduating class at Wellesley. 'Self-conscious iconoclasts and pioneers, the women of '69 would experiment boldly with sex and work and family and religion and politics ... The feminist insight that 'the personal is political' meant that ... all sorts of seemingly intimate choices -- what kind of underwear one wore, whether and how and with whom one had sex -- were political as well as personal, a way of confronting social rules as to how a lady behaved and of interrogating the complicated relationship between power and sexual consent...'"
"Hillary's years at Wellesley left an indelible imprint on her personality and character. Her role models were the strong-willed, ideologically passionate, sexually adventurous feminists who rejected dependence on men and despised the old-fashioned feminine wiles typically used by women to attract the opposite sex. Her feminist classmates refused to wear pretty dresses, style their hair, use coy remarks, or deploy any of the trappings that might make them appear subordinate to men. As a result, they sometimes appeared mannish."
"'The notion of a woman being a lesbian was fascinating to Hillary,' said one of her Wellesley classmates. 'But she was much more interested in lesbianism as a political statement than a sexual practice' ... 'A lesbian was suddenly not the eccentric old maid of Victorian literature, but a dynamic young woman who had thrown off the shackles of male dominance,' this person continued. 'Hillary talked about it a lot, read lesbian literature, and embraced it as a revolutionary concept.'"
"From her days in Wellesley onward, Hillary was often mistaken as asexual . 'People who claim that they were born asexual are operating under a false assumption,' said Dr. Claudia Six, a clinical sexologist. 'There is always a psychological reason for their behavior. Chief among these reasons is a fear of losing control, a vulnerability when one is sexually active with a partner, a deep underlying anxiety about having sex.' Unlike most college-age girls, Hillary did not come of age sexually in Wellesley. Nonetheless, she retained a feeling of solidarity with the members of the Wellesley College Class of 1969. In addition to appointing several of her classmates to high government posts during her husband's administration, Hillary invited many others for sleepovers at the White House."
Bill Clinton met Hillary Rodham while both attended Yale Law School. According to Klein , "Hillary's passion about [causes such as those of Marian Wright Edelman's Children's Defense Fund] fascinated Bill Clinton. He had never met a female firebrand quite like her. And that was saying a lot, since he had slept with dozens of women. In fact, women were never far from Bill's mind; he was addicted to them as surely as his alcoholic stepfather had been addicted to fermented spirits. Normally, Bill was able to juggle several women at the same time."
"'Bill's pattern,' said a fellow Yale Law student, 'was seduction and betrayal. The latter seemed to come as naturally to him as the former. He would do anything as long as he got what he wanted from people.' ... Between love bouts with women, he took long solitary walks on the beach. Dressed in his heavy army surplus jacket and a ski mask to protect his face from the stinging cold, he contemplated his future."
Klein reveals Bill Clinton's plan for his future, "After he graduated from law school, he planned to return to Arkansas and run for public office. He had already picked out what he thought was a safe congressional district...Since the age of seven, Bill's goal had been to become the president of the United States. His mother, his teachers, and his friends all told him he was going to make it. The only missing ingredient in his calculus was a wife."
"'Jeff Rogers was the ideal person to make the introduction. He and Kris Olson, Hillary's coeditor, lived together in a commune called Cozy Beach...Jeff Rogers and Kris Olson had [Bill and Hillary] over to their commune for dinner,' a friend recalled... the introduction was made and they hit if off right away. 'Hillary was soon a regular at Bill's group house in Milford, and the relationship took off,' this friend continued. 'Hillary was clearly smitten. She seemed to hang on him. But Bill was not nearly as enamored. In fact, he continued to see other women, even after they moved into an apartment just off campus.'"
"It was clear to friends that Bill and Hillary had a relationship in which the normal rules of courtship did not apply. Their romance (if it could be called that) was not based on mutual physical attraction. Bill frequently found sexual release elsewhere. And Hillary, who had never placed much store in sex, did not seem to mind. Bill treated Hillary as one of the boys, and never talked down to her because she was a woman. He reinforced the idea in Hillary's mind, which had been planted there by her parents, that she was a special person, and that there was nothing beyond her reach -- including becoming the first woman president of the United States."
"What's more, Hillary believed that Bill had the makings of a Great Man. He offered Hillary something that her father could never give her: the chance for Hillary to transcend her gender. As a woman coming of age in 1971 she could not achieve power on her own. She needed Bill Clinton to take her to the mountaintop."
During the time that Hillary worked in Washington, D.C. on the panel that worked to impeach President Nixon and later in Arkansas teaching at a university, and Bill was running for office in Arkansas, it became clear to everyone, including Hillary, that he had a problem with women . "She told her friends that she was considering leaving Bill because of his womanizing. 'I know he's ready to go after anything that walks by,' she confessed. 'I know what he's doing..' But Hillary did not care what Bill did with other women, as long as it did not hurt the Clintons' careers."
In the meantime, Hillary was delighted to hear that Bill was going to run again for public office. And when she returned to Arkansas, she accepted his proposal of marriage. Thus sealed the Faustian bargain that would shape the rest of her life: Hillary accepted Bill's womanizing as the price of political power."
Klein observes the clamor over Hillary's decision to keep her maiden name . "At the time, no one saw the irony in Hillary's decision. She insisted on keeping her maiden name -- and feminist credentials -- because she wanted to be 'a person in my own right' and not a 'sacrificial political spouse.' Yet, at the same time, she readily sacrificed her feminist principles and allowed herself to become a doormat to a man who was 'ready to go after anything that walks by. Hillary being Hillary, believed she was entitled to have it both ways." Just as she was entitled to the presidential nomination as dramatically described by Barack Obama’s supporter, Father Michael Pfleger, during the Democrat primary campaign in May 2008.
After Bill Clinton won and then lost elections as Governor of the state of Arkansas, Hillary made an about face and changed her persona to match her aspirations to power. According to Klein , "Bill's defeat was a tipping point in the Clinton marriage. 'It shook both of them right down to their toes,' said one friend. Bill felt guilty that he had failed Hillary. His greatest fear was that she might leave him, not because he had been unfaithful to her, but because he was a loser. Her greatest fear was that their mutual dream of living in the White House might now be unattainable. 'The experience of watching Bill screw up,' said a Clinton adviser, 'made Hillary realize she should jump into the breach ... She had to -- he was so shaken, and was not a particularly good strategist anyway. There was no way he was going to win again unless she came in."
"Hillary made a calculated decision to reorder her priorities. From now on, her career would take second place to Bill's. Her feminist principles would be scuttled. Even her politics, which were far too liberal for Arkansas, would be toned down. Hillary consciously and deliberately set out to remake herself in the image of a conventional political wife."
"Hillary's makeover went beyond mere window dressing. She telephoned Dick Morris, the political consultant who had helped Bill win the governorship, and begged him to work on her husband's next campaign. Morris was skeptical until Hillary convinced him that she was serious about using attack ads and attack campaigning -- techniques that had been devised by communications consultant Roger Ailes to reposition Richard Nixon, and had since been made into a virtual art form by Morris. 'Hillary was intrigued by the technique,' said Morris. 'Her reaction was not at all ideological, it was purely pragmatic: 'We need to learn how the bad boys do it.'"
"Hillary's next phone call was to Texas native Betsey Wright, a tough-as-nails political operative who had worked with Bill and Hill on the McGovern campaign and was now an activist in the women's movement. Hillary wanted Betsey to move to Little Rock, become Bill's campaign manager, and put together a whole new political machine -- one that would move Bill away from the liberal positions carved out for him by his young, bearded staff and bring him toward the center of the political spectrum."
"Hillary's third phone call was to Ivan Duda, a well-known Little Rock private investigator. 'She asked to see me,' Duda told the author of this book, 'and when we met, she said, 'I want you to do damage control over Bill's philandering.' I asked her, 'What do you mean?' and she said, 'Bill's going to be President of the United States,' I laughed at that, but she said, 'No, I'm serious.'"
"'So,' Duda continued, 'I said, 'What do you want me for?' And she said, 'I want you to get rid of all these bitches he's seeing.' I said, 'Okay, I can do that.' And she said, 'I want you to give me the names and addresses and phone numbers, and we can get them under control.' Hillary did not try to stop Bill from philandering; that would have been a fruitless exercise. All she asked of her husband was that he be more discriminating in his choice of women and not do anything to embarrass her in public. With Ivan Duda's reports in hand, Hillary was able to separate the 'safe' women from the 'trouble makers,' and know who could be intimidated to keep their mouths shut." And thus was Hillary's takfir, born, defined, 0and established for use in future political battles for the highest seat of power in the land -- the presidency of the United States of America.
Then, with a flood of affairs by Bill Clinton with sexual partners stored in various places in the White House, after winning the presidency in 1992, came the Monica Lewinsky saga. In this time of crisis Hillary returned to the same playbook  that she had followed from the beginning -- according to Klein "...the simple life lessons she had learned from her father and mother. Lesson No. 1: Never allow yourself to be a victim; Lesson No. 2: If somebody hits you, hit him or her back harder; Lesson No. 3: Stay in control of your own destiny.
“At some point…it seemed to have occurred to Hillary that she did not have to be a victim of the Lewinsky scandal. On the contrary, she could turn the scandal to her own advantage. After four years of living in the political wilderness, she had the opportunity to get out there and fight ‘the neighborhood bully’ – in this case, her political enemies on the right…She called Sidney Blumenthal, a former journalist who was an influential presidential policy advisor who understood the press better than anyone in the White House…Sid Blumenthal went back a long way with Hillary. They had worked together on Gary Hart’s doomed 1984 presidential campaign, where they discovered they had a lot in common. In college, Blumenthal had been a member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society; in law school, Hillary had worked on behalf of the violence-prone group known as the Black Panthers.”
“As members of the New Left, both Sid Blumenthal and Hillary Rodham manifested the qualities that historian Richard Hofstadter identified in his landmark study The Paranoid Style in American Politics – ‘heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy.’ In fact, Hofstadter might have had Sid Blumenthal and Hillary Rodham in mind when he wrote: ‘Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be eliminated … it is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is on many counts the projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him.” Of course, this is precisely the gist of the debased Islamic concept of takfir – carried out in a different domain – death to the apostates in the eyes of the al-Qaeda jihadist and personal destruction in the eyes of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Application of Takfir
“In May 1988 the Soviets began a staged withdrawal from Afghanistan, signaling the end of the war. Slowly, Peshawar shrank back into its shabby former self, and the Afghan mujahideen leaders started stockpiling weapons, preparing to confront their inevitable new enemies – each other .”
“Bin Laden and his Egyptian handlers were also surveying the future. Zawahiri and Dr. Fadl constantly fed him position papers outlining the ‘Islamic’ perspective, which reflected their takfiri tendencies…As he groomed bin Laden for the role that he envisioned for him, Zawahiri sought to undermine Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, the single great competitor for bin Laden’s attention. ‘I don’t know what some people are doing here in Peshawar,’ Azzam complained to his son-in-law Abdullah Anas. ‘They are talking against the mujahideen. They have only one point, to create fitna’ – discord – ‘between me and these volunteers.’ He singled out Zawahiri as one of the troublemakers.”
“Azzam recognized that the real danger was takfir. The heresy that had infected the Arab Afghan community was spreading and threatened to fatally corrupt the spiritual purity of jihad. The struggle was against nonbelievers, Azzam believed, not within the community of faith, however fractured it might be. He issued a fatwa opposing the training of terrorists with money raised for the Afghan resistance, and he preached that the intentional killing of civilians, especially women and children, was against Islam”
“And yet Azzam himself was in favor of forming a ‘pioneering vanguard’ along the lines called for by Sayyid Qutb. ‘This vanguard constitutes the solid base’ – qaeda ‘for the hoped-for society,’ Azzam wrote in April 1988. [Observe here that Azzam defines ‘base’ not as a camp or a training base, but as a Vanguard – Sayyid Qutb’s Vanguard – an Islamic people, a following]. Upon this base the ideal Islamic society would be built. Afghanistan was just the beginning, Azzam believed. ‘We shall continue the jihad no matter how long the way, until the last breath and the last beat of the pulse – or until we see the Islamic state established.’ The property he surveyed for the future of jihad included the southern Soviet republics, Bosnia, the Philippines, Kashmir, central Asia, Somalia, Eritrea, and Spain – the entire span of the once-great Islamic empire.” Indeed, the return of the caliphate.
“From the beginning, the Egyptians who were sponsoring bin Laden saw Azzam as a formidable obstacle . No one among the Arabs enjoyed equal prestige. Most of the young men who had gravitated to jihad were responding to his fatwa, and they regarded Azzam with awe. ‘He was an angel, worshipping all night, crying and fasting,’ recalled his former assistant, Abdullah Anas, who married Azzam’s daughter just to be close to his mentor. For most of the Arabs who passed through Peshawar, Azzam was the most famous man they had ever met. Many of them – including bin Laden – had spent their first nights in Peshawar sleeping on his floor. They spoke movingly of his wisdom, generosity, and courage. He had come to personify the noble spirit of the Arab Afghans, and his shadow reached around the world. Destroying such a celebrated icon would be a treacherous task.”
The Arab treachery in assassinating Azzam follows the classic history of that race. Wright provides the details . “The Egyptians were not the only ones interested in bringing down Azzam. The Saudis worried that the charismatic leader would convert their young jihadis to the Muslim Brothers. They wanted an ‘independent body’ – one that was run by a Saudi – that could be entrusted to manage the affairs of the mujahideen while keeping the Kingdom’s interests in mind. Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were seen as a proper Salafist alternative managed by a loyal son of the Saudi regime.”
“Abdullah Anas, the greatest exemplar of the Arab Afghan warriors, had just returned to Peshawar after fighting beside Ahmed Shah Massoud in northern Afghanistan. He was astounded to learn that there was to be a meeting among the Arab leaders to replace his father-in-law, Abdullah Azzam. When Anas talked to him about it, Azzam assured him that the election was strictly cosmetic. ‘The Saudi authorities are not pleased that I am leading the Arabs in Afghanistan,’ Azzam explained. ‘All the money that comes for orphans and widows and schools comes from Saudi Arabia. They are unhappy to see the young Saudis being organized under my leadership. They fear they will become a part of the Muslim Brotherhood.’ The Saudis wanted one of their own in charge. With Osama bin Laden as the new emir, Azzam continued, the Saudis would feel safe. ‘They will relax, because when they feel Osama is out of control, they can stop him. But I am a Palestinian. They have no way of stopping me.’”
“Azzam was more weakened than he realized. One of Zawahiri’s men, Abu Abdul Rahman, a Canadian citizen of Egyptian origin, lodged a complaint against Azzam. Abu Abdul Rahman headed a medical and educational project in Afghanistan. He alleged that Azzam’s men had snatched the project out of his hands by confiscating the funds that were earmarked for it. He further accused Azzam of spreading rumors that he was trying to sell the humanitarian project to the American embassy or a Christian organization…The charges created a sensation in Peshawar. Placards were handed out and posters pasted on the walls demanding that Azzam be brought to trial. Fights broke out in the mosques among the different camps of supporters. Behind the charges being thrown at Azzam were the takfiri doctors at the Kuwaiti Red Crescent hospital – Zawahiri and his colleagues. They had already managed to expel him from the leadership of the hospital’s mosque, and now they were gleefully predicting his downfall. ‘Soon we will see the hand of Abdullah Azzam cut off in Peshawar,’ Dr. Ahmed el-Wed, the Algerian, exclaimed in a meeting.”
“They formed a court to hear the charges, with Dr. Fadl acting as the prosecutor and the judge. This takfiri court had sat before to consider another mujahid whom they judged guilty of being an apostate. His body was found, chopped to pieces, inside a burlap bag on a street in Peshawar…On the second day of the trial, after midnight, bin Laden rushed out to fetch his closest Saudi friend, Wa’el Julaidan, who was in bed with chills and high fever, suffering from malaria. Bin Laden insisted that Julaidan come at once. ‘We cannot trust the Egyptians,’ he declared. ‘I swear by God those people, if they have the chance to make a resolution against Dr. Abdullah Azzam, they will kill him.’ Julaidan followed bin Laden back to the meeting, which lasted another couple of hours. The judges found against Azzam and ordered the charity returned to Abu Abdul Rahman’s control, but thanks to bin Laden’s intervention, they spared Azzam the disgrace of public mutilation. From the perspective of Azzam’s enemies, however, it was an inconclusive verdict, since it allowed Azzam to remain as a figurehead, and they were determined to finish him off.”
“On November 24, 1989, Azzam rode to the mosque with two of his sons, Ibrahim and Mohammed, who was the driver . As Mohammed was parking, a roadside bomb made from twenty kilograms of TNT exploded with such force that the car shattered. Body parts were strewn over the trees and power lines. A leg of one of his children flew through a shop window a hundred yards away. But Azzam’s body, it is said, was found peacefully resting against a wall, completely intact, not at all disfigured…Earlier that Friday, on the streets of Peshawar, Azzam’s main rival, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had been spreading rumors that Azzam was working for the Americans. The next day, he was at Azzam’s funeral, praising the martyred sheikh, as did his many other jubilant enemies.”
Meanwhile, Wright enlightens us on the ruthlessness of the Egyptian government in attempting to rein in Zawahiri's al-Jihad . "For years, Zawahiri had been battling elements inside al-Jihad who opposed his relationship with bin Laden. He spewed disdain on the Jihad members who found fault with him from comfortable perches in Europe...Increasingly, many of his former allies, exhausted and demoralized by years of setbacks, had become advocates of the initiative by Islamist leaders imprisoned in Egypt, who had declared a unilateral cease-fire. Others no longer wanted to endure the primitive living conditions in Afghanistan. Yet, even as the organization was disintegrating, Zawahiri rejected any thought of negotiating with the Egyptian regime or with the West.
"In an angry moment he actually resigned as the emir of al-Jihad, but without him the organization was totally adrift. Several months later, his successor relinquished the post, and Zawahiri was back in charge. According to testimony given at the trial of the Albanian cell members, however, there were only forty-four members left outside Egypt, and within the country the movement had been eradicated. Al-Jihad was dying, and with it the dream that had animated Zawahiri's imagination since he was a teenager. Egypt was lost to him."
"The end came in June 2001, when al-Qaeda absorbed al-Jihad, creating an entity formally called Qaeda al-Jihad. The name reflected the fact that the Egyptians still made up the inner circle; the nine-member leadership council included only three non-Egyptians. But it was bin Laden's organization, not Zawahiri's...Naturally, the domination by the Egyptians was a subject of contention, especially among the Saudi members of al-Qaeda. Bin Laden tried to mollify the malcontents by explaining that he could always count on the Egyptians because they were unable to go home without being arrested; like him, they were men without a country."
"Bin laden turned to Zawahiri and the Egyptians with a particular task. He wanted them to kill Ahmed Shah Massoud. The Northern Alliance commander represented the only credible force keeping the Taliban from completely consolidating their hold on Afghanistan...Massoud was a brilliant tactician, and he was willing to match the Taliban in ruthlessness...In a reflection of his increased international stature, Massoud addressed the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France in April 2001. He spoke about the danger that al-Qaeda posed to the world. He also told American officials that his own intelligence had learned of al-Qaeda's intention to perform a terrorist act against the United States that would be vastly greater than the bombings of the American embassies in East Africa."
“On September 9, 2001, Ahmed Shah Massoud agreed to see two Arab television journalists who had been waiting in his camp for nine days for an interview . Massoud was without doubt the greatest of the Afghan commanders, having endured twenty-five years of warfare against the Soviets, Afghan communists, rival mujahideen, and now the combined forces of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Massoud’s capacity for survival was a powerful feature of his legend. He was the best hope Afghanistan had of a moderate Islamist alternative to the Taliban.”
“Zawahiri’s forged letter had gotten the two phony journalists into Massoud’s office. The cameraman’s battery pack was filled with explosives. The bomb tore the assassins apart, killed a translator, and drove two pieces of metal into Massoud’s heart.” The Egyptian takfiri had carried out bin Laden’s wishes against their primary rival for power in Afghanistan in the aftermath of the coming 9/11 attack on America.
Hillary Clinton’s Application of Takfir
Describing the atmosphere at the prestigious universities, such as Wellesley during the 1960s, Barbara Olson writes , “The elites of American education, the best and the brightest, sought to create protégés by giving young leaders an unprecedented freedom to discover their own truths. And they did: They found truths no one before or since has quite recognized. This generation of leaders, chosen, taught, and celebrated by elite academics embraced an inexpressible ideal, whose core characteristic was a feeling of unending entitlement.”
“The world had to do more than improve. It was expected to reorder itself, to become a great pinwheel to spin around tender egos and emotional needs.” Indeed, in Hillary’s mind that sense of entitlement was guided by Saul Alinsky, her radical prophet. In this sense, Hillary had found her counterpart for Sayyid Qutb – Ayman al-Zawahiri’s prophet on the global Salafist Islamic jihad’s quest for power.
According to Olson , “It was Alinsky, legendary organizer and left-wing folk hero…whom Hillary first met under the auspices of the Reverend Jones and the University of Life. Born in Chicago in 1909, Alinsky did graduate work at the University of Chicago in criminology. He studied prison life at Joliet State Prison…He emerged as a radical leader when he joined forces with the impoverished families of the ‘Back of the Yards’ area in Chicago, near the old stockyards…Alinsky assembled a staff of followers that drew from the lessons learned in the 1930s. In time, they spread their organizing mission to the black ghetto of Rochester, New York, and the Mexican-American barrios of California…He took it as a matter of pride that he was arrested frequently and touted that he was under FBI surveillance.”
“In 1947 Alinsky wrote Reveille for Radicals, a best-seller in which he argued against the labor model of trying to reform capitalism, arguing instead for a more direct takeover of power. The sequel, Rules for Radicals, published in 1971, had a galvanizing effect on the young radicals wending their way through the elite universities of the East Coast. The generation of social protest had found its Socrates in this portly, balding man with the wizened face.”
“One of Alinsky’s adherents was Dick Morris, future Clinton political consultant, who incorporated Alinsky’s methods in running draft clinics and busing thousands of students to the peace marches in Washington. Another was Hillary Rodham, future first lady and ‘co-president’ of the United States. To understand Hillary and much of her subsequent life, it is important to learn the philosophy and tactics of the mentor who has had more apparent influence on her than any other.”
“For Alinsky, the goal of the political organizer is to help his followers accumulate power. He harbors the strong belief that the role of the organizer is to be a neutral agent, a kind of ideological agnostic seeking no particular outcome and advancing no philosophy other than the winning of power. The trick, Alinsky suggests, is taking on whatever protective coloration one needs to win the trust of one’s charges.
According to David Brock, an investigative reporter of the period , “Saul Alinsky was an energetic, charismatic figure, an ‘organizer-magician’ and a ‘great seducer,’ intellectually, of his young disciples. Alinsky’s philosophy and strategies were set forth in the 1947 best-seller Reveille for Radicals, which became a classic on the left, mirroring the reception on the right for Friedrich von Hayek’s best-seller, The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944. In his book Alinsky contrasted radicalism with liberalism: while liberals favor reform of the capitalist system, radicals ‘want to advance from the jungle of laissez faire capitalism to a world worthy of the name of human civilization. They hope for a future where the means of economic production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful.’ [Note: Of course, this view is right out of Karl Marx].
Brock continues, “Alinsky also believed that liberals ‘fail to recognize that only through the achievement and constructive use of power can people better themselves. They talk glibly of a people lifting themselves by their own bootstraps but fail to realize that nothing can be lifted or moved except through power…He advanced no-holds-barred tactics, encapsulated in the motto, ‘whatever works to get power to the people, use it.’ Such tactics included gross intimidation of opponents and civil disruption…[critics] were disturbed by Alinsky’s antinomian emphasis on attaining power through any and all means. A 1947 article in the liberal Protestant magazine Christian Century depicted Alinsky as ‘Machiavelli in Modern Dress.’”
Brock describes the affect Alinsky had on Hillary Rodham. “By the mid-1960s, when Hillary first became aware of him, Alinsky’s radical goals and rogue tactics had remained unchanged since the…1930s…[his] power-based political philosophy was very influential in New Left circles. In 1971, he published Rules for Radicals, which was addressed to the new generation of student activists. In this book, Alinsky set forth what he called a ‘science of revolution,’ a set of rules that laid out a philosophy of ends and means. ‘Power,’ he wrote, ‘is the very essence, the dynamo of life…It is a world not of angels but of angles, where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles; a world where we are always moral and our enemies are always immoral; a world where ‘reconciliation’ means that when one side gets the power and the other side gets reconciled to it, then we have reconciliation…‘In fighting for ‘revolution,’ Alinsky wrote, the man of action’ asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means only whether they will work.’ By the late 1960s, Alinsky was bringing this message to many college campuses, where he was popular with students who were ‘pro-civil rights,’ opposed to the war, and often involved in student power or campus reform movements…”
Why is this story so little known? Brock informs us that “Today [the late 1990s], Hillary’s thesis is under lock and key on the campus of Wellesley, whose administration unilaterally cut off public access to the senior theses of ‘all presidents and first ladies’ in early 1993, soon after Clinton was inaugurated…In a 1993 interview with the Washington Post, Hillary said, ‘I basically argued that [Alinsky] was right…You know, I’ve been on this kick for 25 years.”
Alinsky was not the only ‘dark’ guiding light shining on Hillary Rodham during her young adulthood. Brock informs us that “Alinsky wasn’t the only radical influence from which Hillary was taking her political cues. At Wellesley she avidly read motive, a now defunct radical magazine for young Methodists published by the church’s university Christian movement. Hillary’s attraction to motive and specifically to the Marxist theoretician Carl Oglesby, who became the head of Students for a Democratic Society, underscored the political tone of her Methodism. In a November 1994 article in Newsweek, Hillary cited a 1966 piece in motive, ‘World Revolution and American Containment,’ by Oglesby, as having made an indelible mark on her. ‘I still have every issue sent me,’ she said.”
According to Brock, “In the motive article cited by Hillary, Carl Oglesby…[stated] ‘The United States…is an imperialist power’…Oglesby also defended political violence…[On the Vietnam War] Oglesby commented, ‘Nothing that could possibly result from our departure could exceed our continued stay’…Like Alinsky, Oglesby was an avid student of power. ‘Carl Oglesby was only one of the well-known Maoist or Marxist theoreticians who was interested in and had a theory about splitting and manipulating the ruling class,’ explained a leading historian of the American Communist Party and himself a former Communist…”
“1n 1966, for a sensitive, intellectual, gawky woman seeing the world begin to take fire with the sixties, at the moment, to read an essay like Carl Oglesby’s on world revolution, would have the effect of an atomic bomb on her…A person like this could simply not walk away from it.” And of course Hillary did not walk away. Instead, she put Alinsky’s and Oglesby’s tactic of grabbing power, raw naked power to use in her version of takfir, the politics of personal destruction as described below.
Alinsky articulated a set of rules for attaining such power. But, as Olson reveals , “There was another rule that has been so thoroughly absorbed and implemented by Hillary, the Clinton [coverup] operation, and their team of private investigators, dirt diggers, and apologists, that it now defines her and her husband. Alinsky was an advocate of ‘mass jujitsu.’ In many of his forms of attack, he advocated letting the enemy move first, and then use his own momentum against him. But Alinsky also had a rule for pure attack. ‘Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.’” And thus, out of this mill was born the grist for application of Hillary’s takfir against her enemies – real and perceived.
“In the fall of 1968, Hillary informed her thesis advisor…that she would write a paper questioning how much control poor people should have over programs designed for their benefit. She interviewed Alinsky, and concluded that Johnson-era programs did not go far enough. The problems of poverty made it necessary for a fundamental shift in the structure of power. Hillary would later look back warmly at her philosophical mentor in a 1993 Washington Post interview. Nowhere does she recognize the classical liberal critique that the relentless pursuit of power is antithetical to democracy.”
After graduation from Wellesley, Hillary entertained an offer of an internship with Saul Alinsky, but opted instead for law school. She chose Yale. Olson describes the educational climate there. “Yale Law school was a better fit [than Harvard] for Hillary, as much an endless social science seminar and finishing school for radicals at the time than anything else…For all the protest at Wellesley, the level of activism was tame at the women’s university in comparison to the strident protests at Yale in the 1970s…[Judge, Robert Bork, Sr., a token professor at Yale during this time, later] said , ‘America is being governed by Yale law graduates with 1960s attitudes…Law schools…have become politicized…The legal system has started to judge by ideology, not law.’ The judge spoke of his former students Bill and Hillary Clinton: ‘I used to say they were both my students. Now I say they were just in the room.’”
Olson recounts Hillary’s relationship with the Black Panther Party . “Hillary was gaining prominence in the Yale protest movement…One of her professors at Yale was Thomas Emerson, known as ‘Tommy the Commie.’ It was through [him] that Hillary had been introduced to defense attorney Charles Garry, who guided her involvement in the support of the defense of the Black Panther Party…Yale was a natural forum, perhaps battleground, for the privileged white students who wanted to show their solidarity with the Black Panthers and the forces of revolution against the presumed racism of American law.”
Olson continues, “Hillary’s friendship with radicals like Gary and [student writer, Robert] Borosage led Hillary to all the fashionable ‘chic,’ as writer Tom Wolfe put it, reaches of the left including Robert Treuhaft and Jessica Mitford. Treuhaft was a former lawyer for the Communist Party. His wife, the late Jessica Mitford, was famous in muckraking circles for savaging the American funeral home industry…They were both committed Communists. Stalinists, in fact…Treuhaft had formally left the Communist party in 1958, but only because it had lost so many members that it was no longer a viable organization.”
“In 1972 Treuhaft offered Hillary a summer internship working on behalf of indigent criminal defendants in Berkeley. Hillary accepted and worked for Treuhaft for a summer …Hillary has never repudiated her connection with the Communist movement in America or explained her relationship with two of its leading adherents. She has shown that she will not answer hard questions about her past, and she has learned that she does not need to – remarkable in an age when political figures are allowed such little privacy.”
Olson observes that  “While some 1960s radicals on the wilder fringes might have been merely self-indulgent fantasists, or spoiled college kids seeking to avoid the responsibilities of their parents, Hillary was a budding Leninist. Menshevik, Bolshevik, Trotskyite – they were all debating societies. What really mattered to Lenin – and what Saul Alinsky taught Hillary to value – was power.” It was Saul Alinsky and Lenin to the core.
David Brock observes that  “In the spring of 1969, Hillary had to decide what she would do after graduation. One option she considered…was to go to India to do volunteer social work. Another was to enroll in law school. A third possibility was to take a job as an organizer with Saul Alinsky, who had opened a new training institute in Chicago…‘The reason for the training institute is because of the appalling dearth of persons who know how to organize in and for a free society,’ Alinsky wrote. Potential recruits were interviewed and asked, ‘Why do you want to organize?’ They were to answer with one word: ‘Power’”
Brock continues, “Alinsky offered Hillary a paid position as a trainee, a sign that he recognized in her a valuable combination of true believer and tough pragmatist – the ‘dialectic’ that Don Jones had seen in her as well…When Alinsky offered her the post in his organization, Hillary told him that she had decided to go to law school instead. In Reveille for Radicals, Alinsky had taken liberal lawyers to task specifically for what he saw as a hopeless effort to change the system from within. ‘I remember him saying, ‘Well, that’s no way to change anything.’ And I said, ‘Well, I see a different way than you. And I think there is a real opportunity,’ Hillary told the Chicago Daily News in an interview in the summer of 1969 about her Wellesley commencement address.”
Brock further delves into Hillary’s mindset at the time. “It was a testament to Hillary’s self-confidence and strength of character that at age twenty-one she voiced her open disagreement with a powerful male mentor whom she deeply admired. Her thesis showed that she agreed with Alinsky’s emphasis on attaining political power to push through more radical change than the Great Society envisioned. But in the Chicago Daily News interview, Hillary suggested that she did not think Alinsky’s strategy of fighting for power from outside the system as a professional revolutionary would work. She believed that power could be seized by working within the system, rather than being independent of it, as Alinsky argued. Alinsky’s radicalism, Hillary said, would not go over well with ‘the kind of people I grew up with in Park Ridge.’”
Brock continues, “Hillary was not alone in reaching these same conclusions. Other members of her generation also felt that the best way to advance their radical ends was not to destroy ‘the system’ but to co-opt and reform government from within. [Note: Could this also be the view of the 2008 Democrat nominee, Barack Obama, in his bid for the presidency?]. ‘She rejected that [community organizing] in favor of going to law school because she felt that what she could get out of [law school] she could use more effectively’… ‘The decision to go to law school was based on her assessment that, given her talents, her skills, she could be most effective in improving society in that fashion as an advocate. That’s a very classical middle-class, primarily liberal reformist approach, of a pragmatic sort, not a radical sort…If you think of what Hillary has done with her life, she was a forerunner in that group of women [Note: the future leaders of what I have labeled, in the first decade of the 21st century – the Looming American Matriarchy] who basically had the same sorts of values of helping the underprivileged, but who now wanted to do it through having a career. And so the legal career was her method of accomplishing an old American social uplift purpose.” Of course, what Brock completely overlooks, after having provided the direct evidence, Hillary’s strategy of law school simply served as the background from which to impose her cultural-Marxist views on an America that was naïve enough, lacking the intellectual power to understand, and without the facts to judge what was in store for us in her quest for power, raw naked power. And that power would be impose on an unsuspecting America by Hillary’s version of takfir – the politics of person destruction.
Olson begins chapter six through eleven of her book  with a quote from Saul Alinsky – applied to the subject matter within. Each chapter is an example of how Hillary applies what I have called ‘Hillary’s takfir to the events and people whom she labels as ‘enemies.’ Chapter Six begins with the Alinsky quote, ‘Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times. – Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals. The chapter covers the period from 1988 to 1991 during which Hillary progresses from her role in the Watergate investigation to her involvement in the Whitewater scandal.”
“In this chapter Olson describes how  “Hillary…[had] her own growing national reputation not as a lawyer, but as a leading female activist lawyer. [She] had established herself as a national figure in liberal circles at Wellesley and Yale, then as a bright up-and-comer who had secured one of the coveted spots on the House Judiciary Committee’s investigation of Watergate…As the head of the Legal Services Corporation – appointed by President Jimmy Carter – Hillary wielded power on a national basis, ultimately seeking to undermine the policies of the incoming Reagan administration…Hillary Rodham had seen what was needed to win, to gain power, and if that meant enriching herself and doing whatever it took to enrich the Democratic campaign, so be it.”
“On the House Judiciary Committee, Hillary had shown a master of the Crit philosophy [Critical Theory from the Frankfurt School], interpreting law as she wished in order to advance a political goal…There is no doubt that she had [as a member of the board of the Legal Services Corporation] spearheaded a deliberate, national plot to undermine the political process with millions of dollars worth of staff work and the diversion of taxpayer money into political campaigns…[During the 1980s and early 1990s] Hillary had gone from Watergate to the Whitewater scandals in the span of twenty years, accomplishing feats of financial and political aggrandizement Richard Nixon would never have dared. And unlike Nixon, her opening to China was not the diplomatic coup of a world-class statesman, but the beginning of a Communist Chinese penetration of the Clinton White House with campaign cash.”
In a chapter entitled  ‘The Campaign Manager,’ Olson prefaces the text with another of Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals. “‘Let nothing get you off your target.’ The fourteen years between 1978 and 1992 witnessed an array of challenges and setbacks for Bill Clinton. His political career and personal life took on the qualities of a Perils of Pauline movie. Bill and Hillary have always moved swiftly from success to disaster, from heights of power to the edge of ruin and back again. He won the governorship in 1978 at age thirty-two, only to be soundly rejected by the voters two years later.” The chapter deals with Hillary’s Machiavellian maneuvers to regain the governorship in the next election cycle.
“Dick Morris, Betsey Wright, and the Clintons coalesced into a team to keep the governor’s mansion until the time was right to run for the president of the United States. Of the four, Hillary was the team leader.” Then came the Gennifer Flowers scandal and the revelations of Bill Clinton’s numerous and sordid sexual exploits while Governor of Arkansas. During the campaign for the presidency in 1992, according to Olson , “[Hillary] also played offense, throwing the war room [James Carville, Paul Begala, Harry Thomason and his wife, Linda Bloodworth Thomason, George Stephanopoulos, John Podesta, and Rahm Emanuel] into full gear…The people Hillary chose were hungry and obsessive. They had fire in their bellies. It was war and they were going to win, come hell or high water.” Out of this witches brew came the application of Hillary Clinton’s version of takfir.
“In 1988 both Clintons expressed exasperation with Michael Dukakis’s inability to respond to [H. G. W.] Bush’s attacks. Now the Clintons were responding to the Bush campaign themselves. Hillary set out to level the playing field by slipping into her interviews mentions of the unsubstantiated rumor that George Bush had had an affair with a former aide…The war room kept up the assault on the Bush White House from every angle. Bill Clinton, the man of many shady deals, denounced the straightlaced George Bush as a trafficker of sleaze while promising to deliver the most ethical administration in history. Clinton attacked Bush’s China policy while teaching the Democratic Party how to us John Huang and Charlie Trie and their Communist Chinese handlers as ATM money machines.”
“‘The enemy,’ Alinsky wrote, ‘properly goaded and guided in his response will be your major strength.’ The Bush campaign was goaded into overreacting where it should have ignored attacks, underreacting when its vital interests were at stake…In this way, Bill Clinton became the forty-second president of the United States. It was a presidency won and operated in large part by Hillary Rodham Clinton, one of America’s shrewdest campaign bosses since mark Hanna.” And, of course, while utilizing the power of personal destruction – Hillary’s takfir.
“Hillary Clinton never shied away from putting herself on the line…In her 60 Minutes interview, Hillary explored new levels of public humiliation and victimhood. In short, Hillary has enabled Bill Clinton to escape his fate, Houdini like, again and again. She has come through. Now it was time to collect. [She] wanted to become the co-president of the United States. It was only the beginning for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
In the chapter, entitled ‘The Blue Light Special,’ Olson quotes from Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals,’ ‘Effective organization is thwarted by the desire for instant and dramatic change, or as I have phrased it elsewhere, the demand for revelation rather than revolution.’ In a section labeled, ‘Paranoia Strikes Deep,’ Olson describes the dramatic and ruthless changes Hillary Clinton invoked immediately upon reaching the White House . “Hillary arrived at the White House after years of humiliation at the hands of state troopers who acted as procurers and protectors for her husband. This was undoubtedly painful for her, the constant presence of the troopers a visible reminder of Bill’s other life. Yet she forced herself to live with the enablers of her husband’s infidelity. What she could not live with was the presence of subordinates with political disloyalties, real or imagined.”
“Now she was in the White House, the second most powerful person in the United States, perhaps the world. She would remake the White House and its staff in her own image…She started with the official staff, a blunt exercise in power based on astonishing ignorance of the folkways of the White House. Her paranoia would become a self-fulfilling prophecy, fed by her own mistakes and mistreatment of subordinates…Reporters roaming around, the press was scum…the Secret Service protectors… the White House telephone system…the ladies in the White House correspondence office…and finally the disgraceful firing of Billy Dale, the White House Travel Office director and his entire staff – replaced by one of Hillary’s friends from the governorship days…” Barbara Olson also observes that “The Clinton’s have immense compassion for humanity at an abstract level, and tear up at the story of a Kosovar family’s plight. But they are callous, even coldly cruel, to subordinates.” Hence Hillary’s application of takfir in her quest for national level power, raw naked power.
In the chapter entitled, ‘White House Plumber,’ Olson prefaces from Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’ ‘He knows that all values are relative, in a world of political relativity.’ This chapter covers the first two years of Hillary’s tenure in the White House . “[Those two years] were a litany of disasters. Her health care initiative was not only a bipartisan disaster, it was exposed as a colossal piece of political knavery…the press corps exposed her early refusal to put her investments in a blind trust…Numerous White House staff still had temporary passes after nine or more months on the job. Many could not receive necessary clearances due to reports of recent drug use and tax problems. Ultimately, the White House had to operate a random drug testing program in order to obtain FBI clearances.”
The aftermath of Vincent Foster’s apparent suicide led Hillary’s team to go into what Barbara Olson labels ‘Trench Warfare .’ “Artful and heavy-handed White House damage control began immediately. Foster possessed many of Hillary’s personal records…Nussbaum was imposing strict restrictions on how Foster’s office would be searched by official investigators…It was soon revealed that the night of the suicide, Maggie Williams and Patsy Thomasson went into Vince Foster’s White House office…Throughout the crisis, Hillary kept a firm hand on the investigation. She had seen Richard Nixon destroy himself by erecting a stone wall, then giving ground with investigators, then trying to build another stone wall. Hillary did not give ground…The stone wall remained secure, even after her chief of staff and other White House aides watched as their reputations were sacrificed during investigations of the special prosecutor.”
“Hillary’s people seemed more than willing to suffer embarrassment to protect her from embarrassment…Throughout the investigation, facts surrounding Hillary seemed to be erased from memory or ‘deleted.’” Then came the ‘Filegate’ scandal. “The next big challenge was the revelation that the White House had been illegally collecting secret, sensitive, and personal FBI files of nine hundred-plus Reagan and Bush officials, including the files of the fired Travel Office staff.” Then came the belated materializing of the dreaded Rose Law Firm billing records in the White House residence. Then came the Huang, Chung, and Trie Chinese influence revelations. Olson observes that “But perhaps even more remarkable is that the Clintons thought they needed financial support from the mob and the Communist Chinese in order to beat the hapless campaign of Bob Dole and Jack Kemp that started on empty and never bother bothered to stop for gas.”
Olson prefaces the chapter on ‘Hillary and the Devil in the Blue Dress,’ with a Saul Alinsky quote from his book, ‘Rules for Radicals’ ‘One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s profound interest in the issue.’ “Having bought, spun, and triangulated her husband’s reelection…Hillary found that her popularity had also been solidly restored. On the other hand, she was constantly absorbed with damage control. The Clintons and their administration careened like a drunken sailor from one scandal to another sometimes producing two or more at a time.” The names of Ken Starr, the special prosecutor who led the impeachment investigation, and the protagonists Susan McDougal, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky came to the fore.
Olson observes that  “When all else failed, the Clinton’s went to straight denial and attacking their enemies. It had, after all, worked before. The line ‘I did not have sexual relations with that women,’ the rehearsed finger wag, likely even Hillary’s sun-yellow made-for-television dress, had all been stage-managed by Harry Thomason. Hillary’s signal moment came early, when she appeared on the Today show to denounce her husband’s detractors as agents of ‘a vast right-wing conspiracy.’ … For those anxious to see no further than what Hillary had to tell them, it was the most effective damage control appearance since Nixon’s ‘Checkers’ speech.”
“The staff Hillary had assembled to defend a president who had obviously lied to the American people were unshakable…By all the rules of the past, the War Room-style counteroffensive should have been a disaster. But Hillary and Bill have a way of making the world play by their rules. Many of the advisors to the president argued against the attack on Starr in the national apologia speech. But the president’s astute advisors were ultimately proven to be wrong. A direct frontal attack was, perhaps, Clinton’s only hope of staving off a forced resignation or removal from office. Here a good offense was not only a good defense, it was essentially the only defense…As she had done before to try to rescue her health care agenda, Hillary went to the Hill. She addressed House Democrats, whipping up a fury against Starr and the House impeachment managers.”
“If Hillary was angry, hurt, humiliated by her husband, she was positively seething with hatred at Starr for exploding the myth of the happy family that lived above the store. It was Starr, not Bill, she blamed for splashing the revelation that her husband had admitted to Lewinsky that he had had ‘hundreds of affairs’ earlier in his marriage…”
“Below the surface, Hillary unleashed the secret police. The director of White House records later admitted in a deposition that he ordered a search for ‘anything and everything we might have in our files on Linda Tripp,’ the former White House and Pentagon employee whose taped conversations with Monica Lewinsky helped prove that Clinton was lying…The Clintons had a long history of using private detectives to sniff out vulnerabilities of enemies and keep track of each other’s private lives…In 1992 Betsey Wright hired Jack Palladino…[whose] job was to ransack the lives of women who could have turned on Clinton during the campaign…If the worst thing that could happen to Clinton was also the worst thing that could happen to America, it simply was not going to happen. By slinging dirt and wrapping himself in a ‘zone of privacy’ against Starr and the apparent Puritans of the radical right, Clinton no doubt felt he could beat the rap.” In that crucible of fire, Hillary’s takfir was used with a vengeance against her ‘enemies’ – those who would deny her the power to which she was entitled.
In a chapter entitled, ‘The Philosopher Queen,’ Olson prefaces with the quote from Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, ‘Power is the very essence, the dynamo of life. It is the power of the heart pumping blood and sustaining life in the body.’ In this chapter Olson describes Hillary’s inner self.  “Hillary gave the commencement address at the University of Texas, where she made a famous speech on America’s ‘crisis of meaning and spiritual vacuum,’ and our national ‘sleeping sickness of the soul.’”
Hillary said, “We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the greatest challenges facing all of us in the West. If one looks around the Western world, one can see the rumblings of discontent, almost regardless of the political systems, as we come face to face with problems that the modern age has dealt us.” Olson continues “The problems, she suggested, were the result of a ‘lack of meaning’ in individual lives and society…‘We need a new politics of meaning. We need a new ethos of individual responsibility and caring.’ This could be attained, she suggested as millions of individuals ‘reject cynicism, as they are willing to be hopeful once again, as they are willing to take risks to meet the challenges they see around them…”
“It was a stylistic and conceptual return to her Wellesley commencement address of 1969. As Michael Kelly pointed out in his astute ‘Saint Hillary’ piece in the New York Times Magazine, the speeches share ‘all the same traits: vaulting ambition, didactic moralizing, intellectual incoherence and the adolescent assumption that the past does not exist and the present need only your guiding hand to create the glorious future.’…Perhaps more worrying was Hillary’s belief that something was so wrong in Western society that it required not reform, but a thorough ‘remolding.’ Re-creation, of course, from the top – by planners, reformers, experts, and the intelligentsia. Reconstruction of society by those smart enough and altruistic enough to make our decisions for us. People like Bill and Hillary Clinton. Hillary, throughout her intellectual life, has been taken by this idea, which is the totalitarian temptation that throughout history has led to the guillotine, the gulag, and the terror and reeducation camps of the Red Guard.”
“The phrase ‘politics of meaning’ was coined by Michael Lerner, who launched the magazine Tikkun as a Jewish, liberal, intellectual counterweight to Norman Podhoretz’s Jewish, neo-conservative Commentary, one of the most respected and influential magazines in the country. But it doesn’t stack up…After Kelly’s lacerating ‘Saint Hillary’ piece appeared in the New York Times Magazine – and after another devastating review of Hillary’s ‘politics of meaning’ came from columnist Charles Krauthammer – Hillary withdrew from Lerner…Lerner, unlike most people who are used as Clinton fodder, turned on her.”
“One would expect a president and first lady to arrive at the White House psychologically and spiritually mature. But Hillary and Bill dealt with national criticism of their first term by turning to, among others, fringe spiritualists…[One] used hypnosis to guide Hillary into a séance/conversation with Eleanor Roosevelt…The Clinton years might seem like a long national nightmare of scandal, sleaze, and ruthless acquisition of power. Hillary herself is the link from the excesses of the Watergage staff, to the Whitewater fiasco, to abuses of executive power, to the defense of her husband’s perjury and obstruction of justice. But now it is Hillary’s turn. The Clinton era is far from over and Hillary’s ambitions far from satisfied.” Well said in the1999 time frame of Barbara Olson’s book. But even more important to recognize in the aftermath of the 2008 Democratic primary election in which she conceded the nomination to Barack Obama – but with a price. Indeed, we have not seen the last of Hillary Clinton in power politics. And we have not seen the last of her application of takfir, the politics of personal destruction to reach her goal of power, raw naked power.
What did Hillary Clinton’s quest for the ruthless acquisition of power do for us, the American people? Peggy Noonan, the gifted speechwriter in the Reagan White House, summarized the legacy of the Clintons’ co-presidency for both the Clinton lovers and the Clinton haters . “What do the Clintons do? Do they inspire us? Or are they rather a cautionary tale about what you can become when you cannot sacrifice your needs, or quell your hungers, and never quite manage to summon the grace to put principle or country before self?”
“The stars were aligned for them as they walked into the White House; they had every opportunity to make enduring progress for their country. With the support of the establishments, of big media and Hollywood and more than half of Wall Street; of the big cities, the academe, and a political party hungry for success; with the bell-ringing excitement of the country – a young man, finally, awake and current and bright; with all that and, perhaps most important, a rising economy coming on so strong, in such a great wave that it was beginning to wash the whole country from one end to the other – with all that behind them, around them, going for them, think of the good they could do.”
“He knew the position he was in, and so did she…What a presidency this could have been. What a legacy they would have left…Instead they became what they became. Instead they became what they were, and are. And they produced a presidency regarded by critics across the political spectrum as one long missed opportunity…They missed so many of their opportunities because they acted in a way that was amazingly small time, small bore; they were selfish and cynical and thought small. Their supporters say the headline on the Clinton era is ‘Dow Jones Hits 11,000.’ But perhaps the real headline on the Clinton era came in the first week of January 2000, and befittingly, it came in a poll. From the respected pollster John Zogby. Who found that as the millennium began a majority of those questioned said they were ashamed to have Bill Clinton as their president. It was close -- 42 percent ashamed, 39 percent not – but perhaps even more significant was the fact that when asked to pick the most successful of the past eleven presidents, the respondents gave Bill Clinton the lowest ‘below average/failure’ rating of all but one, Richard Nixon.”
“What did the Clintons do with their two administrations? They left behind a country more damaged, more removed from its old, rough idealism; a country whose children live in a coarser and more dangerous place; a country whose political life has been distorted and lowered. This is their legacy. This is the great work of Clintonism…And she, as always, backed him, and was with him, and supported him. The Clintons have damaged our country. They have done it in unison, and with no apparent care or anxiety about what they have done.” Of course, now we see that it was Hillary Clinton’s application of takfir in her quest for power, raw naked power a la Saul Alinsky and Carl Oglesby who paved the way.
1 Wright, Lawrence, “The Looming Tower: al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11,” Alfred A. Knopf, 2006.
2 Ibid, Wright, pp. 29.
3 Ibid, Wright, pp. 122-125.
4 Olson, Barbara, "Hell to Pay: The unfolding story of Hillary Rodham Clinton," pp. 29, Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1999.
5 Klein, Edward, "The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President," pp. 40, SENTINEL, The Penguin Group, 2005.
6 Ibid, Olson, Barbara, pp. 29-33.
7 Ibid, Olson, Barbara, pp. 31.
8 Ibid, Klein, Edward, pp. 41-43.
9 Ibid, Klein, Edward, pp. 57.
10 Ibid, Klein, Edward, pp. 64.
11 Ibid, Klein, Edward, pp. 70.
12 Ibid, Klein, Edward, pp. 87.
13 Ibid, Klein, Edward, pp. 88.
14 Ibid, Klein, Edward, pp. 96.
15 Ibid, Klein, Edward, pp. 125.
16 Ibid, Wright, Lawrence, pp. 129-130.
17 Ibid, Wright, Lawrence, pp. 134-137.
18 Ibid, pp. 135-144.
19 Ibid, Wright, Lawrence, pp.143-144.
20 Ibid, pp. 336.
21 Ibid, Wright, Lawrence, pp. 354-355.
22 Ibid, Olson, Barbara, pp. 44.
23 Ibid, Olson, Barbara, pp. 46.
24 Brock, David, “The Seduction of Hillary Rodham,” The Free Press, pp. 15-20, 1996.
25 Ibid, Olson, Barbara, pp. 50.
26 Ibid, Olson, Barbara, pp. 52.
27 Ibid, Olson, Barbara, pp. 54.
28 Ibid, Olson, Barbara, pp. 57.
29 Ibid, Olson, Barbara, pp. 62.
30 Ibid, Brock, David.
31 Ibid, Olson Barbara, pp. 117.
32 Ibid, Olson, Barbara, pp. 118-176.
33 Ibid, Olson, Barbara, pp. 177-217.
34 Ibid, Olson, Barbara, pp. 215.
35 Ibid, Olson, Barbara, pp. 235.
36 Ibid, Olson, Barbara, pp. 263-291.
37 Ibid, Olson, Barbara, pp. 267.
38 Ibid, Olson, Barbara, pp. 299.
39 Ibid, Olson, Barbara, pp. 308-317.
40 Noonan, Peggy, “The Case Against Hillary Clinton,” pp. –177, ReganBooks, HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 2000.