“Nightlife Calendar,” TheresienZeitung, 28 July 1951. (My translation.)
Graf Guy de Marcheret d’Eu has arrived from Paris on his first concert tour outside Europe. Graf Guy mixes classical standards with current pop favorites (“Ne pas s’asseoir sous le pommier”) and adds in his own compositions inspired by the verse of Alexander Pushkin. The highly-regarded pianist will be appearing four nights a week at Rick’s Club Besame.
TO: J. Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
FROM: FBI Criminal Branch.
DATE: 25 December 1952.
RE: Query from the Police Department of Cleveland, Ohio.
The Investigations Division of the Police Department of Cleveland, Ohio has contacted the Bureau regarding one of its current operations. They have requested any information on “Alexander Berg.”
The Cleveland police have been surveilling a local organized crime figure, Alexander “Shondor” Birns.[1]
On 7 November 1952, the Cleveland police surveilled Birns when he made a telephone call from a phone booth in a neighborhood drugstore. Subsequently, the telephone company provided information on that call. It was made to another phone booth located in the lobby of “The Desert Inn,” a casino and hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada. While one Wilbur Clark is the original owner and public face of “The Desert Inn,” Las Vegas police believe that the real owner now is Morris “Moe” Dalitz.[2]
On 14 November 1952, the Cleveland police surveilled Birns at one of his restaurants, where he uses a back office for business. Here he met two other men. One was easily identified as “Moe” Dalitz. Subsequently, police identified the other man as Alexander Berg, an accountant living in Cleveland.
The Bureau assesses that “Berg” is an alias used by Lev Lazarevich Feldbin, b. 1895 in Babryusk, Russian Empire. Feldbin served as an intelligence officer of the Soviet Union from 1918 to 1938. He had many foreign postings (including in the United States, where he has relatives). His career peaked in the Spanish Civil War when he served as chief of NKVD operations in the Spanish Republic. Most of his work involved organizing the murders of non-Communist leftists. In addition, he managed the transportation of the Spanish Republic’s gold reserve to the Soviet Union “for safe-keeping.” Feldbin also has experience in “guerrilla” warfare, both in the Russian Civil War and in Spain.
In 1938, as the “Great Purge” spread into the Soviet special services, he abandoned the Soviet Union and fled abroad. Eventually, we believe, he went underground in this country.
Feldbin is an expert at the clandestine movement of things and people across national borders. Also, he is an experienced and remorseless killer.
The purposes of the meeting between the three men is not known.
EVALUATION.
The obvious explanation for the meeting is that two American organized crime figures have–by some means–identified a renegade Russian intelligence officer living in their area of operations. They may be recruiting him to their service. If this is the case, then any rivals to Birns and Dalitz in the Cleveland area can be expected to meet an unhappy fate.
Feldbin’s expertise in the clandestine movement of people and goods might also be useful to Birns and Dalitz. Thus, Feldbin’s expertise could facilitate the movement of drugs from Mexico to the United States. The market for such drugs remains limited to marginal populations (Mexican laborers, jazz musicians, and third-tier Hollywood actors like Robert Mitchum). It does provide a profit stream.
[1] Birns was born in 1907 as Alexander Birnstein in Lemes, the Austro-Hungarian Empire. His parent immigrated to the United States that same year and settled in Cleveland. By 1925 Birns had become a professional criminal involved in bootlegging and vice, while also working as a much-feared “enforcer.” Now, he also owns several celebrated restaurants.
[2] Dalitz was born 1899 in Boston, MA, to parents who had immigrated from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but lived his early life in Michigan. He became involved in bootlegging during Prohibition, and developed extensive contacts with suppliers in Canada and Mexico. He also entered illegal gambling, running several important “protected” games in the Mid-West. For the last half-dozen years he has been a powerful behind-the-scenes figure in Las Vegas, NV. However, he retains an extensive range of contacts among organized crime figures throughout the country.
“Who’s Who at the Upcoming United Nations Meeting?”, New York Times, 21 November 1953, 7a.
The meeting of the United Nations later this month will be unusually well-attended by world leaders. What follows is a brief guide to the main foreign participants.
It is symbolic of these troubled times that so many current Continental European leaders emerged from the police services.
Lavrentiy Beria: b. 1899, Georgia, Russian Empire. Beria began his career as a “Chekisti” (as Russians still call members of their oft-renamed security police) at age nineteen. He rose through the ranks at a fast clip, especially after he hitched his wagon to Josef Stalin. At the same time, and curiously, he surrounded himself with rootless cosmopolitans. He became the Curator of the “Organs of State Security” under the Khan Josef of Great Russia (as Josef Stalin called himself after the defeat of the Soviet Union in 1941). He became Khan in his own right upon the death of Khan Josef in the “Doctors’ Plot” of 1953.
Joseph Darnand: b. 1897. War hero in the First World War; involved in national revival movement between the two wars; war hero again in the Second World War; strong supporter of Marshall Philippe Petain; leader of the paramilitary “Milice” domestic security force; Secretary of State for the Maintenance of Order in French Indochina, 1946-1949; Minister of the Interior, 1949-1951, during the Algerian “troubles”; Prime Minister of the French State since the death of Marshall Petain in 1951. Many people suspected, on the basis of his fighting against the Germans in two wars, that Darnand was anti-German in his own beliefs. Nothing in his post-war political career has supported this belief.
Reinhard Heydrich: b. 1904. A member of the Nazi Party and of the SS from 1931, he entered the Party’s security service. From here, he made a meteoric ascent by combining a combination to great intelligence with a tremendous work ethic. From 1939 he headed the national police. He became Reichschancellor of Germany upon the deaths of Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels, and Hermann Goering during the failed “putsch” of 20 July 1944. (Many rumors surround this event and we shall probably never know the truth.) Since 1944, Heydrich has been a principle architect of a “United Europe.” Very much the dispassionate technocrat, Heydrich has pushed forward a series of initiatives for the standardization of European regulations on the German model.
Still, not everyone in power these days once wore a badge.
R. A. Butler (called “Rab”): b. 1902. Butler is what the British call a “Tory reformer.” Commonly this means a person of inherited wealth and position who has a powerful sense of the common welfare and the need to use government to promote it. Before the late war, he stood in the front ranks of those who desired a peaceful accommodation with Germany. In 1941 he became Foreign Secretary in the cabinet of Lord Halifax and government leader in the House of Commons. As Foreign Secretary, he negotiated the peace settlement. Butler then turned his attention to his other policy concerns. He negotiated the independence of Britain’s Indian Empire (1945). He succeeded Lord Halifax as prime minister in 1947. As prime minister, Butler launched important reforms of the British education system.
Subas Chandra Bose: b. 1897. Bose led the younger-generation within the Indian National Congress before the war, then went to Germany in 1940. Germany’s victory made him the chief interlocutor with R.A. Butler. The two men worked easily together in arranging the separation. Subsequently, Bose became the “Netaji” (Respected Leader) of the Indian State. Although India is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, Bose’s personal affinity for both Germany and Japan has challenged Anglo-Indian relations.
Shigeru Yoshida: b. 1878. Yoshida came from a background of political activism and wealth. He spent two decades in the Diplomatic Service, splitting his time between postings in China and in the West. In 1938, the military clique that dominated the government blocked Yoshida from becoming foreign minister. After a decade “in the wilderness,” Yoshida became prime minister in 1948. At this point Japan wished to legitimize its territorial gains and to reform its economy in light of new conditions. Yoshida is rumored to be a secret Catholic.
I believe that life begins at conception. (If it didn’t, then women wouldn’t want abortions.) Let me state plainly: I would never have an abortion. OK, I’m a 64 year-old guy, so that’s an easy position to take. At the same time, I’m not willing to shove my personal opinion down the throat of a fifteen year-old black girl in West Philadelphia, living with her mom and grand-mom in some tumbledown row house, and attending what the City of Brotherly Love is pleased to call the public “schools.” Moreover, with Prohibition and the War on Drugs having been such great successes, I don’t see how a War on Abortion is any more likely to succeed. Unless, you know, heart-break and misery across multiple generations is what you really want to produce. Then go ahead, knock yourself out.
The same goes for a War on Guns. Yes, there are things we can do. We could strictly regulate the sale and possession of all firearms through the Defense Department. This is what our friends in Mexico do. Virtually no one in Mexico is allowed to own a firearm of any sort. This step would could reduce our gun-death rates to Mexican levels. Furthermore, many deaths are linked to the drug trade. We should forbid the use of or trade in drugs.
OK, sounding like the mayor on “The Simpsons.” More realistically, we could end the War on Drugs and we could try to revise the National Firearms Owners Protection Act. The former promotes a “war for the corners.” It also promotes a macho “step to him” code of behavior that leads to violence not directly related to the drug trade. The National Firearm Owners Protection Act restricts the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to closely regulate federally-licensed gun-dealers. While the vast majority of such dealers are responsible and honest people dealing in a Constitutionally-protected commodity, a tiny minority facilitate straw purchases and suffer “robbery.” So, let’s knock-off the stuff about the “gun-show loop-hole” and not allowing father-to-son gun transfers without a background check.
We should RICO the Catholic Church. Pennsylvania’s attorney general recently released a report on the sexual abuse of minors by members of the clergy. Here’s the thing, the AG got the information for the report by gaining access to Church records and then interviewing a lot of parishoners who had been abused. Well, this scandal has been running for a while now. Long ago, the Church could have done what the AG later did without breaking a sweat. If they wanted to know. Apparently, they didn’t. Why not?
I suspect that, at some point back in the day there, the American priesthood became a place for gay Irish men to go and hide. Fine by me. They were doing God’s work. If they go sylphing-off to have sex with other gay men, I don’t care. However, given the anti-gay stance of both the Church and larger society, it exposed them to a terrible vulnerability. They could be black-mailed by pedophile colleagues. Pedophiles appear to be a very small segment of any sexual orientation.[1] But they may have been just as ruthless and predatory toward their fellow-priests as they were toward their child-victims.
So, treat the Church as a criminal conspiracy.
[1] You ever noticed how few girls from Catholic schools have come forward to say “Sr. Mary Elephant copped a feel on my then-almost-non-existent tit”?
The United States began limiting immigration in 1924. The United States currently has an estimated 11-12 million illegal immigrants living in the country. The United States admits 950,000-1 million legal immigrants each year. Both of those realities have become the centers of political contention. Pro-foreign-life people argue that immigration is vital for America’s society and economy, that the illegals should be granted some kind of legal status (often phrased as a “path to citizenship”), and that the United States has some kind of humanitarian duty to welcome everyone who has been the victim of one of life’s hard knocks. Pro-it’s-our-choice people argue either that the immigrants are a bunch of undesirables from failed societies who will wreak havoc, or that immigration is good, but we need to pick and choose while recognizing that massive immigration will disrupt American society. Various combinations of the two views either make the most sense or are a recipe for disaster.[1]
There are about 7.7 billion people in the world. They live in 195 countries. Gallup polled people in 152 of those countries. They report that 15 percent of adults in those countries, an estimated 750 million people, would migrate to another country if they could. Of that estimated 750 million people, about 158 million people want to move to the United States.[2] Obviously, the real numbers could be much higher. For one thing, many adults have children. For another thing, there are the 43 countries where Gallup did not poll. One can imagine virtually every single person in North Korea or Syria wanting to bolt.
One distortion in the contemporary debate arises from geography. The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans bar most foreigners from getting to the United States except by sea (rare) or air travel. You can’t get on an international flight from most places in the world headed for the United States unless you already have a visa. That’s not the case for Central America. People willing to run the risks of traveling the Lawless Roads can end up at the southern border of the United States. Where political stunts by all sides provide something for cameramen to do.
The 2017 population of the United States has been estimated at 325 million people. Can we take in 158 million people from foreign cultures—many of them very different in values from that of the United States—without any impact on American society? If so, at what pace? A million a year? Five million a year? Ten million a year? All of them at once? No? Then the pro-foreign life people accept the idea of immigration restriction. They just want to set the threshold at some undefined higher level. And they don’t want to talk about the social, political, and financial costs.
As for the pro-it’s-our-choice people, there are 158 million people who want to come here, but you think there aren’t any among them who would make a vital contribution to America? Red China wants to take over Taiwan, just like it did Hong Kong. So, many people from a leading Far East industrial nation are going to want to migrate. Russia and Iran are going to add Lebanon to the bag, just like Syria. Lots of Lebanese Christians will want an out.
It’s an important debate. It would be nice if we had it.
[1] I don’t have a ‘source” for this statement. It’s just my sense of all the stuff I’ve been reading for years. While there may NOT have been “good people on both side” in Charlottesville, there are idiots on both side of this debate. Just hoping that I’m not one of them. No need to tell me if you think I’m an idiot. That’s what my sons are for.
[2] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 21/28 December 2018, p. 17.
What we think of as the British Empire of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries did not yet exist in 1763. It was aborning, however. Britain had defeated France in the Seven Years War (1756-1763). Britain then took possession of French North America between the Mississippi and Ohio rivers. British North Americans saw their long-standing hopes of expanding beyond the Appalachian Mountains fulfilled. These hopes failed at first. The British Empire’s managers in London saw themselves juggling a diverse American community. British “America” contained largely Protestants, mostly of Anglo-descent; Canada contained Catholic former French subjects; and in the Wilderness, the Native Americans offered access to the riches of the fur trade. Containing the British North Americans offered the best path to peace and prosperity, especially after Pontiac’s Rebellion (1763) showed how difficult it might be to conquer the Native Americans.
The conflict crystalized in two remarkable figures.[1] George Croghan (1718-1782), an Irish immigrant fur trader and land speculator, had become the vastly influential deputy to Sir William Johnson, the Superintendent of Indian Affairs. James Smith (1737-1813), a Pennsylvania farmer, had been an Indian fighter and then became a charismatic figure. Both had lived among the Indians, and knew their languages and culture. Their fundamental dispute gave human faces to the essential difference between the Anglo-American colonists and the British government. Croghan saw the path to prosperity for himself and for the Empire running through peaceful trade with the Indians. Smith saw the path running through driving away the Indians and expanding farming settlements.
To seal the deal with the Native Americans, in February 1765 the British dispatched a huge column of gifts to a peace treaty ceremony with Pontiac in the Ohio country. Croghan added in many of his own trade goods from a desire to revive trade after the war and Pontiac’s Rebellion. The Pennsylvania settlers[2] saw the presents—including rum and gunpowder–as the basest form of appeasement and as likely to provoke another Indian war as to forestall one.
Smith formed many of the settlers into an impromptu militia called “The Black Boys” after their use of bunt cork to disguise their faces. The “Black Boys” tried to stop the caravans. The 42nd Highlanders provided the hard core of the British escort, so the rebel settlers tended to steer around them.[3] For a time, the rebels even blockaded Fort Loudon. The British, short of supplies, abandoned the fort in November 1765. Then peace with the Indians came and the “Black Boys Rebellion” died down.
In “Patriot,” Mel Gibson’s character announces that “the [coming] war [with England] will be fought not on the frontier or on some distant battle-field, but here among us…” In truth, it was fought everywhere. The wars on the frontier played a vital role in determining the American victory. However, the frontier fights began well ahead of the formal “Revolution.”
[1] What follows is a part of the story told by Patrick Spero, Frontier Rebels: The Fight for Independence in the American West, 1765-1776 (2018).
[2] Now in central Pennsylvania near Gettysburg, but then the far West.
[3] The 42nd had seen a good deal of service in North America, having fought at the first—disastrous—and second battles of Fort Ticonderoga, in the siege of Montreal, and in the bloody Indian fight at Bushy Run during Pontiac’s Rebellion.
Today New England is a great place to go to college: stone walls, church graveyards full of famous men (and the occasional famous woman—repressive gender roles having been what they were), the leaves turning, “Whitey” and “Billy” Bulger of lore, the smart-mouth waitresses at “Legal Seafood,” Boston and Cambridge, with the Red-Line trains crossing from one to the other on a snowy night. Then, in the 18th Century, New England was a hard place to make a living; the stone walls came from rocks dug out of fields with poor soil, churches reined-in human pleasure, people often died in the first few years after birth, the leaves turned because Fall came early and brutal winters followed close behind, Boston merchants would trade in anything (slaves, lumber, cod, rum) to make money and Boston fish-wives had famously sharp tongues, thugs had their uses for the better sort, and Cambridge’s college—Harvard–trained sour-puss Calvinist ministers.
No wonder then that many New Englanders were hard-bitten, judgmental, fond of pulling a cork, and avid for a better chance. In a chiefly agricultural society, a better chance meant farmland, especially if they got to log-off and sell the timber first. New England’s settlements spread along the coast and inland in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. Then westward toward New York, “down east” into Maine, and northwest from New Hampshire into the “New Hampshire Grants” (which would become Vermont).
Pioneers advancing into ground until recently commanded by the Native American allies of the hated French, the settlers of Vermont despised all authority that was not earned. Before the Revolution, they resisted the colonial governments of both New Hampshire and New York. The “Green Mountain Boys” began as the “militia” of those settlers who held land titles from Connecticut or New Hampshire rather than from New York. They chose leaders like the ruffians Seth Warner and Ethan Allen.[1]
Came the Revolution. Britain remained in control of Canada and might attack southward along a line that ran from Montreal as far as New York City. Fort Ticonderoga—built by the French–commanded the invasion route along Lake Champlain. Connecticut’s governor commissioned Ethan Allen to seize the fort from its British garrison. Allen recruited 140 men after his own liking and headed toward “Fort Ti.” He soon encountered Benedict Arnold and 70 men sent by Massachusetts on the same purpose. Suppressing their mutual dislike in the interest of the common cause, the two men led their troops in storming the fort on 10 May 1775.[2]
Americans both despised the Catholic French Canadians and imagined that they wished to become “Americans.”[3] Allen proposed an invasion, but the command went to another. He free-lanced a coup to seize Montreal and spent three years in a British prison. As a result of his imprisonment, Allen missed the Saratoga campaign (1777) in which Seth Warner played a notable role at the head of the “Boys” originally led by Allen. Surrounded and cut off, British General John Burgoyne surrendered his army. Saratoga was one of many decisive moments in the struggle for American independence.
In 1789, Allen died; in 1791, the “Grants” became the state of Vermont.
[1] Christopher S. Wren, Those Turbulent Sons of Freedom (2018).
[2] Later, the artillery captured at the fort provided the siege guns that drove the British out of Boston.
[3] It didn’t end there. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMEViYvojtY
A curious article appeared in the New York Times today.[1] It seems a little disorganized as would be the case with important, but late-breaking news. Still, it contains interesting points that whet the appetite for more information.
Robert Mueller has been investigating Russian interference in the American presidential election of November 2016. Mueller’s team of prosecutors charged Paul Manafort, President Trump’s transient campaign manager, with various forms of fraud related to his work as a consultant to pro-Russian candidates in Ukraine through 2014. Manafort worked out a plea deal with Mueller. That deal required his full co-operation with the prosecutors. Now, prosecutors want to break the deal. They argue that Manafort has lied on multiple occasions. They want to dump a ton of bricks on him.
To justify throwing the book at Manafort, the prosecutors could have to provide some evidence of exactly how and in what regard he did lie to them. Failing that, the defense could claim that Manafort did provide truthful information. Normally, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution. Hence, the sentencing memorandum may reveal important information from Mueller’s investigation. This might run beyond Paul Manafort’s actions as far as the president.
First, although he had a plea deal with the prosecutors, Manafort’s lawyers secretly consulted with President Trump’s lawyers about the lines of investigation being pursued by Mueller. Although such discussions “violated no laws,” Mueller and his team are exercised nonetheless. Did they have an agreement with Mr. Manafort that he would not consult with the President’s lawyers? If they did, and if Manafort repeatedly stated that he had held no such talks even as his lawyers met with White House lawyers, then this would be grounds for breaking the plea deal.
Second, Mr. Mueller’s team “accused Mr. Manafort of holding out on them” despite his pledge to assist them in any matter they deemed relevant. “Holding out” usually means withholding facts. So far, the statements in the NYT are ambiguous. According to Rudolph Giuliani, himself a former Federal prosecutor and now a special counsel to President Trump, “He [Robert Mueller] wants Manafort to incriminate Trump.” Did Manafort deny any collusion?
Third, in one paragraph, the NYT states that President Trump’s “tweets” tried to imply that “he had some inside information.” As evidence, the NYT story quotes Trump as saying that “the Mueller investigation are a total mess. They have found no collusion and have gone absolutely nuts. They are screaming and shouting at people, horribly threatening them to come up with the answers they want.” Does the president have evidence to this effect? If he does, then what does that say about the state of the Mueller investigation?
Finally, dumping Manafort back in the glue suggests that the federal prosecutors have no use for the testimony he has provided so far with regard to President Trump. That is, Manafort may have denied any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russkies. If this is the area in which he lied, then Mueller must have a bunch of solid evidence from other sources with which to prove that Manafort lied. What is that source? What is that evidence?
In any event, when will Robert Mueller report?
[1] Michael S. Schmidt, Sharon Lafraniere, and Maggie Haberman, “Manafort Lawyer Briefs Trump Team on Inquiry,” NYT, 28 November 2018.
Some of this is now out-dated, owing to continuing counts of ballots and recounts.
“Analyzing 417 House races that featured at least two candidates on the ballot, the AP determined that Democrats earned more than 51.4 million votes in competitive House races nationwide, or 52 percent, compared to 47.2 million votes cast, or 48 percent, for Republicans.”[1]
NB: Of 98.6 million votes cast, Republicans won about 47.8 percent of the 2016 vote. Democrats won about 52 percent of the vote.
NB: The Democrats margin of victory was 4.2 million votes. In the “American presidential election held on November 8, 2016,… Republican Donald Trump lost the popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton by more than 2.8 million votes.[2] NB: So two years of Trump government energized Democrats more than did Hillary Clinton’s campaign. No surprise.
NB: Will this be enough to win the White House in 2020? Basically (back of the envelope), it looks like Republicans pulled 74.6 percent of their 2016 turnout, while Democrats pulled 78 percent of their 2016 turnout. Motivated by the Kavanaugh shenanigans, Republicans turned out much more than one might have expected. Motivated by Trump-vulsion, Democrats turned out as one might have expected.
“According to the latest data, Democrats won the House popular vote by about seven percentage points in Tuesday night’s midterms.” [NB: that works out to be something like 53 percent to 46 percent.] Furthermore, “They picked up 29 Republican-held seats in the House, while losing two of their own incumbents, resulting in a net gain of 27 seats.”[3]
“From 1918 to 2016, the president’s party lost an average of 29 seats in midterm elections. In the 20 percent of elections where the president lost the most seats—which Ballotpedia defined as wave elections—his party lost at least 48 seats.”[4] “In the 2010 midterms, by contrast, Republicans stormed into control of the House with a haul of 63 seats.”
“Each of America’s 50 states elects two senators, regardless of population, and only a third of the country’s Senate seats are voted on each election cycle.” According to David Golove, a professor at the New York University School of Law, “That’s a radically undemocratic principle, and it gives rise to what we see, which is that the minority populations are going to have a disproportionate impact in the United States. That tends to mean conservatives have a disproportionate influence over the Senate.”
NB: OK, but his argument is with James Madison, not me. Wear a cup.
The country is divided 52-48 percent. A purely normal (see above) “blue wave” should not disguise this reality.
Still, if the Democrats have a good candidate[5] and can sustain their “get out the vote” effort, they have a fair chance of re-capturing the White House in 2020.
Of course, we’ll have to take what comes with getting Trump out of the White House.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/09/heres-how-your-state-turned-out-to-vote-in-the-midterm-election.html
[2] Donald Trump: 62,984,828; Hillary Clinton: 65,853,514.
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/08/democrats-republicans-senate-majority-minority-rule
[4] https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Congress_elections,_2018
[5] Aye, there’s the rub. Could Corey Booker or Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden mount a credible candidacy? More likely, JMO, Hillary Clinton will “offer to serve” when the midgets flame out.
Much attention now focuses on the fate of the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Many people fear that the acting Attorney General will seek to close down or hamstring the current investigation. However, there is another possibility. Rather than restricting the current investigation, the acting AG could instruct Mueller to expand his investigation to include the so-called “Steele dossier” and any links to the campaign of Hillary Clinton.
waroftheworldblog 