republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
BY: NWV Senior Political News Writer, Jim Kouri
Despite the FBI and Justice Departments refusal to pursue criminal charges against presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, a number of military leaders who specialize in intelligence gathering and analysis believe Mrs. Clinton is unfit to command the nation's entire military and public safety services.“Clinton is a malignant narcissist who believes she knows best and therefore whatever she does is legal and correct including misconduct if it furthers her globalist agenda,” said political strategist Michael Baker. “The best generals – those opposed to the New World Order philosophy – fear that Hillary Clinton acting as the U.S. Commander in Chief will be another step down towards Third-World status,” said Baker.Appearing on a decidedly progressive television news program, formerDirector of Central Intelligence Michael Hayden told the show’s audience that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of an unsecured email server while conducting highly sensitive government business shows a leader who is dangerous to the republic and state secrets.Hayden served in the United States Air Force for 41 years attaining the rank of four-star general. He was appointed as the Director of the National Security Agency and then as the Director for the CIA. Although widely respected by political leaders in both parties — he worked for both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush — he has openly battled with those who opposed the tactics used by the CIA and NSA in the war on Islamic terrorism.During his appearance on MSNBC, a news organization thought to be unfriendly to conservatives especially those working in the military, law enforcement and the intelligence community, the discussion about the alleged security breaches turned to Hillary Clinton’s now famous email and her personal email server that she used instead of the one given to her by the U.S. State Department.While as a rule MSNBC is biased in favor of Democrats, especially leaders such as President Barack Obama, former President Bill Clinton and now Hillary Clinton, Hayden did not mince words in discussing the latest Clinton scandal. Hayden said, “Number one, put legality aside for a second, [what Clinton did] was stupid and dangerous.“Dangerous to whom?” asked host Joe Scarborough. “Dangerous to her. And [dangerous] to the republic and to American secrets. But I don’t even think it was legal. That has to be against policy. I’m stunned that her staff allowed her to do that in 2009 given the unhappy outcome that this [server snafu] guaranteed once [she] started doing that,” Hayden said.Another top intelligence expert, who served under President Barack Obama, has similar beliefs as Gen. Hayden. Former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn told Fox News Channel that the probability that Hillary Clinton’s emails were hacked is very high. Flynn, who ran the Defense Intelligence Agency after serving at the Pentagon and recently retired, said it was likely Clinton’s emails — and those sent to her by her staff such as Huma Abedin and Cheryl Miller — were hacked, he told Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly. [YouTube Link]Although Clinton and her minions are calling any allegations against her a "right-wing conspiracy," Rep. Trey Gowdy, the Republican chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, was correct in saying he and the other Republicans have nothing to do with the FBI’s investigation. The case was referred to the FBI by two Obama administration inspectors general: one from the intelligence community and the other from the Department of State. Both men are Democratic appointees.Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, who serves as a contributor to several news organizations, also chimed in about Mrs. Clinton: “We have witnessed this same behavior before, even Hillary Clinton in Bosnia, sensationalizing [her] experience to look and appear like a hero in a dangerous environment.”During a speech she gave before a crowd of African American voters, Democratic Party presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton likened American police officers with Muslim terrorists, causing one of the nation's most popular and articulate lawmen to blast her as being a racist and a liar. It was no surprise that Mrs. Clinton's admirers in the news media chose to overlook her words and few Americans actually saw the video footage of her anti-cop vitriol.“Yes, I believe there are all kinds of underground movements and efforts in our country that try to use violence or assert beliefs that I find often lead to violence,” Clinton said before she outright accused police officers of being terrorists. “I think that when you have police violence that terrorized communities, that doesn’t show the respect that you’re supposed to have from respecting people in your authority, that can feel, also, terrorizing,” said Mrs. Clinton, who fared well in her criminal investigation thanks to corrupt a FBI director, a bought-and-paid-for attorney general and a President as guilty as Clinton.According to African American Sheriff David Clarke of Milwaukee County in Wisconsin, for years the Left has smeared law enforcement officers as racists by claiming that black and other minority crime suspects are more likely to be shot by police. To hear many liberals tell it, police cruise around looking for minority kids to gun down for sport, according to the well-known sheriff who has been angry with the treatment of law enforcement by the likes of politicians and leftists.Ironically, reports have surfaced that allege Clinton and her former boss, Barack Hussein Obama, are credited with the creation of ISIS and that they trained and armed that Islamist army in the hope that they would help push Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad out of power.But now science has shown this leftist narrative to be a lie. A study was conducted at Washington State University using active duty police and highly realistic simulators that mimic dangerous scenarios officers encounter in the line of duty. The result? Police are significantly less likely to mistakenly shoot minority suspects, and took significantly longer to fire at armed black suspects than armed white suspects, according to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, County Sheriff David Clarke.‘While I’m happy to see my fellow law enforcement officers vindicated against this persistent liberal smear, there’s also something very troubling about the results of this study. There are only two factors an officer should take into account when deciding whether to use their weapon against an armed suspect: his or her own safety and the safety of nearby civilians,” Clarke explained.