Monday, September 22, 2014

Obama giving military aid to Hezbollah...some friend of Israel


US Reportedly Providing Indirect Military Aid to Hezbollah

Hezbollah PR chief gives rare interview about group's quest for legitimacy, as Lebanese experts reveal US cooperating covertly against ISIS.
By Ari Yashar

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah
Reuters

Mohammed Afif, the new head of public relations for the Lebanese-based Iranian-backed terror organization Hezbollah, gave a rare New York Times interview as Lebanese experts reveal his group is indirectly receiving American intelligence aid in its fight against Islamic State (ISIS).
Following ISIS's temporary conquest of Arsal last month on the Lebanese side of the Syrian border, the US sent new weapons to the Lebanese army, which coordinates with Hezbollah. Likewise, US intelligence has found its way to Hezbollah according to Lebanese experts.
That leaked intelligence may explain some recent impressive achievements against ISIS, including the first known Hezbollah drone strike.
It is worth noting by contrast to the blasé indirect provision of intelligence and weapons to a terror group in Lebanon, during Operation Protective Edge US President Barack Obama blocked a routine Hellfire missile shipment to Israel and ordered strict supervision on future transfers.
Afif told the American newspaper "we need to open up a new page with the world media, with the Arabs and internationally," hinting at the international legitimacy he hopes to achieve for the terror group under his role as media adviser to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.
Nasrallah recently expressed his fears of the ISIS "monster," calling the fight with the group "a battle of life and death no less important than fighting the Israeli enemy, as (ISIS) actions and objectives only serve Israel." Indeed Hezbollah has called to wipe out Israel numerous times, and fought terror wars against the Jewish state.
Ali Rizk, a Lebanese analyst at the pro-Hezbollah Al-Mayadeen news channel, told the New York Times that while the US cannot publicly ally with the terrorist organization Hezbollah, "what happens underneath is something totally different."
Justifying the aid, Rizk said "Hezbollah is not representing an imminent threat against the world. It represents a threat against Israel, as Israel represents a threat against Lebanon. But Hezbollah is not going to threaten the US and Europe. Nobody said Hezbollah is cutting off heads."
While Hezbollah may be benefiting indirectly from the US, it remains antagonistic to America over Syria, where it has joined Iran in supporting Syrian President Bashar Assad against the very rebels the US is arming. However, the ISIS threat has indeed raised talk that the US may even join forces with Hezbollah's sponsor Iran.
Afif blamed Americans for causing ISIS by supporting Syrian rebels, saying "this beast which you raised up, as in past cases, you find it’s dangerous for you."

IRS: an agency that would make a Kafka novel proud


More Abject Failure from Koskinen’s IRS

1
| (1) Comments | Subscribe | Back to full Article | Contact Us
 By Alan Joel  Monday, September 22, 2014 
More Abject Failure from Koskinen's IRS

John Koskinen has failed the IRS and the American people.
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen testified last week about the missing emails lost forever due to computer failures. When questioned about any more crashes or computer issues recently, Koskinen told the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee that “Hard drive crashes continue as we speak.”
Can someone please buy the IRS reliable computers and a backup system?
Don’t forget, the IRS canceled the back-up contract service that they had for six years, shortly after Lois Lerner’s original hard drive went missing. Koskinen was forthcoming during the hearing that no backup system currently exists: “There is no system outside the IRS, government or otherwise, that the IRS uses to back up or store emails,”.
On the other hand, there was also no mention if the IRS is complying with the law that states it must keep copies of all data; it apparently hadn’t been routine practice during the time of the IRS scandal actions, so there are no assurances that it is being followed now.
Koskinen also admitted that “if the agency destroyed records then ‘that was an act not consistent with the law’ but said, ‘There’s no evidence that there were records destroyed.’”.
Notice he didn’t state that “The IRS didn’t destroy records” because then it would logically follow by his own admission that the IRS would have engaged in an act “not consistent with the law”. However, Koskinen chose his words carefully when he stated “there’s no evidence that there were records destroyed” — of course there is no evidence, because it is all missing. He further reiterated this position of “non-destruction”, when he stated, “I never said they disappeared, I said they were recycled.” Because “recycling” equipment and information that is irretrievable isn’t “destruction”.
Lastly, “Koskinen also admitted that IRS employees routinely use personal email accounts to conduct agency business but maintained that ‘they do it inadvertently.’” But how can someone do something “routinely” but also “inadvertently”? Of course, it makes no sense. Don’t forget, the email game is the same practice seen with the former EPA chief Lisa Jackson last year; the IG report found that the personal email use for agency business was indeed rampant among EPA employees. Since the IRS clearly engages in the practice as well, one can only conclude that this probably not “inadvertent” from an agency of the “most transparent administration ever.”
John Koskinen was confirmed by the Senate to head the IRS on December 20, 2013. In the nine months that have followed, he has done virtually nothing to restore the trust of the agency to the American people. As the testimony above freely evidences, Koskinen is aware of many issues and irregularities — such as no backup system and use of personal emails — and yet he has yet to crack down on practices or implement stringent rules among his employees. His leadership has been derelict; his attitude abysmal. America deserves better.

Obamacare: the media props up a grossly unpopular program

Voter Intensity Strongly Against Obamacare




Why is Obama allowing ISIS to export oil? Since you can't hide oil transport, it seems odd.

So Why Are We Allowing ISIS to Export Oil?

I just fought down my natural revulsion to anything that comes from the major networks to watch "Sixty Minutes." Teased into it by the promise that former SecDef, Leon Panetta, was going to blow the whistle on his former boss, Obama, I allowed myself to be sucked in. Panetta did say that it was a mistake to remove all American troops from Iraq, but to characterize that as a denouncement of Obama’s foreign policy was a bit lame. What became more readily apparent was that Leon was speaking up and speaking out for that oldest and most venal of reasons, to sell his new book.
From the entire interview what came across to me as completely unbelievable – no, unacceptable -- was the revelation that ISIS is a self-funding movement due to its control of producing oil fields in Northern Iraq. King Abdullah of Jordan estimated the ISIS revenues from energy production were approximately $6,000,000 per day, a helluva lot of income for a ragtag terrorist organization. He then went on to say that they are, in fact, bootlegging their product at well below the market price, as low as $30.00 per barrel at a time when legitimate product is moving through major markets at triple that figure.
When I heard that my immediate response was to look at my spouse in astonishment and yell, “What the hell? Why are we allowing them to do that?” That question should be one that every tuned-in citizen asks of his elected representatives in Washington. To gather production from an oilfield into a central, marketable product requires a well-engineered network of collection processes that are quite visible to aerial observation and equally vulnerable to aerial attack and destruction. If all that black gold is moving through underground pipelines, there still must be major gathering points and transshipment terminals.
So why are these key targets not being bombed into oblivion by our military, thus cutting off ISIS’ cash flow? An age-old tenet of war is to strangle your enemy’s economy. Why then are we allowing these murderous thugs to extract, transport and sell on the international market a product that feeds their murderous atrocities? I’ve spent a large portion of my life around west Texas oilfields and you can believe me when I tell you that while all the geological exploration takes place mostly underground, the actual drilling and the subsequent collection processes take place right out there in the open, totally vulnerable to attack from the air. Even underground pipelines have periodic, above surface pumping stations just sitting there waiting for a smart bomb. 
So, Barack, why are you sitting on your butt and allowing ISIS to fill its coffers by exporting oil?
I just fought down my natural revulsion to anything that comes from the major networks to watch "Sixty Minutes." Teased into it by the promise that former SecDef, Leon Panetta, was going to blow the whistle on his former boss, Obama, I allowed myself to be sucked in. Panetta did say that it was a mistake to remove all American troops from Iraq, but to characterize that as a denouncement of Obama’s foreign policy was a bit lame. What became more readily apparent was that Leon was speaking up and speaking out for that oldest and most venal of reasons, to sell his new book.
From the entire interview what came across to me as completely unbelievable – no, unacceptable -- was the revelation that ISIS is a self-funding movement due to its control of producing oil fields in Northern Iraq. King Abdullah of Jordan estimated the ISIS revenues from energy production were approximately $6,000,000 per day, a helluva lot of income for a ragtag terrorist organization. He then went on to say that they are, in fact, bootlegging their product at well below the market price, as low as $30.00 per barrel at a time when legitimate product is moving through major markets at triple that figure.
When I heard that my immediate response was to look at my spouse in astonishment and yell, “What the hell? Why are we allowing them to do that?” That question should be one that every tuned-in citizen asks of his elected representatives in Washington. To gather production from an oilfield into a central, marketable product requires a well-engineered network of collection processes that are quite visible to aerial observation and equally vulnerable to aerial attack and destruction. If all that black gold is moving through underground pipelines, there still must be major gathering points and transshipment terminals.
So why are these key targets not being bombed into oblivion by our military, thus cutting off ISIS’ cash flow? An age-old tenet of war is to strangle your enemy’s economy. Why then are we allowing these murderous thugs to extract, transport and sell on the international market a product that feeds their murderous atrocities? I’ve spent a large portion of my life around west Texas oilfields and you can believe me when I tell you that while all the geological exploration takes place mostly underground, the actual drilling and the subsequent collection processes take place right out there in the open, totally vulnerable to attack from the air. Even underground pipelines have periodic, above surface pumping stations just sitting there waiting for a smart bomb. 
So, Barack, why are you sitting on your butt and allowing ISIS to fill its coffers by exporting oil?

Democrats are ethically challenged

Ransom: Dems sold top House positions for $100,000; $200,000 for legislation

BY  
House Democrats, panicked after Newt Gingrich and the GOP shocked Washington by winning the House in 1994, became so obsessed with raising money to take back the chamber they even sold off top leadership jobs, according to a longtime Democratic fundraiser.
In an explosive book out next month, Lindsay Mark Lewis said that former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt’s team set a price of $100,000 to be the top Democrat on every House committee, $100,000 on a trade deal and $200,000 for a tax proposal to be considered by the House Ways and Means Committee.
They also demanded that members raise money 12 hours a week and collect $1.5 million per election cycle or be put on a “deadbeat list.”
“For the first time in history, House Democrats had made money the central measuring stick of success,” wrote Lewis in Political Mercenaries. An advance copy, co-written by journalist Jim Arkedis, was provided to the Washington Examiner.
Now the executive director of the Clinton-aligned Progressive Policy Institute, Lewis said Democrats tapped House members because Bill Clinton, readying for re-election in 1996, was sucking up available donations, leaving little for House races.
It worked. By 1996, the average House Democrat — including challengers — raised $620,000, but the price was so high, he added, that only fat cats would jump in to run. “It was a new type of Democrat,” wrote Lewis, a former Gephardt fundraiser and finance director for the Democratic National Committee.
The main sermon of the book is that politicians spend way too much time raising money and not governing. Here's how they present the conclusion on Amazon:
Contrary to conventional wisdom, Lewis and co-author Jim Arkedis conclude that the real damage isn’t the raw amount of money spent on elections, but rather the amount of time politicians spend raising it. It’s time they should spend governing. And Lewis lays much of that blame at the feet of the Democratic Party, who sold out—not to corporate or lobbying interests, but to a very few liberal wealthy elites.
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.

See the 10 Dumbest Idiots from the People’s Climate March

See the 10 Dumbest Idiots from the People’s Climate March

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.

If you believe the media, today’s People’s Climate March was a gathering of grandmothers, adorable kiddies and smiling college students in polar bear costumes to urge us all to live in miserable poverty in order to save the planet from a threat that doesn’t exist.
Except for the Green Energy tycoons behind this thing who will get very, very rich. (Just ask Al Gore, who was there.)
But when most people hear the word “People” and “March” in one sentence, they think commies. And indeed there were plenty of Commies there. Also terrorist supporters and random lunatics from the great asylum that is New York City.
Here, with thanks to JunkScience.com, are some of the more notable idiots at the People’s Climate March.
idiot7
I didn’t think I could get behind the extinction of the human race until I saw this hipster. After seeing this hipster, I actually hope that Global Warming can somehow be made real because a species that produced this specimen doesn’t deserve to exist.
idiots1
No, but we can start burning idiots. It’s bound to give us a few years in which we can watch them marching around with stupid signs that demonstrate that they know as much about science and the environment as they do about anything else.
idiot2
No. Clearly not.
idiots3
This is why the average dolphin is smarter than the average Climate Marcher. Stupid dolphins get caught in nets and die. Stupid people do this.
idiots3
Speaking of idiots, Code Pink took a break off from urging the genocide of Yazidis in Iraq to protest the war on ISIS at the People’s Climate March.
But they weren’t the only Commies there.
idiot4
Socialism really fixes the environment. Just ask the USSR and China.
idiots5
A representative of the really old Young Communist Party.
idiots6
Give reading history a chance.
The USSR’s idea of environmentalism was useless dams, wiping out an entire whale subspecies to meet a 5 year plan and Chernobyl.
idiots22
Not sure that a hammer, sickle and gear are really the best symbols for the anti-industrialism of the People’s Climate March.
idiot120
It’s time for the tender compassionate mercies of Stalin II.
But you can see why they call them Warmunists.
idiot100
You could feed a poor family for a week for the cost of that puppet.
idiots8
Spay and neuter People’s Climate Marchers.

Another weekend in Chicago: 3 dead, 30 wounded.

Little Village shooting closes violent weekend: 3 killed, 30 wounded


How the issue of rape is used for political purposes.

The Rape Epidemic Is a Fiction
Sexual assaults today are a third of what they were twenty years ago.
By Kevin D. Williamson 

Battery technology advance

Molten metal batteries aimed at the grid


Engineers in the US have invented a battery, made of three molten metals, which could help smooth the power supply from renewable energy sources.
Previous battery designs have largely been too expensive to help store energy on the scale of a national power grid.
The new liquid battery has a negative electrode made of lead, which is cheap and melts easily, mixed with a dash of antimony to boost performance.
This lowers its cost, as well as the heat required to liquefy the metals.
Published in the journal Nature, this latest attempt at a scalable solution for storing electricity is set for commercial demonstrations within a year and has been greeted with enthusiasm by engineers in the UK.
"Sometimes, when the wind is blowing strongly, we have spare capacity available - if only we could store it, so that we could use it when the wind isn't blowing," explained Prof Ian Fells, a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering and former chair of the New and Renewable Energy Centre.
"Using these molten metal electrodes is, it seems to me, a very good idea," he told BBC News.
Hot source
The overall concept for the battery is relatively simple: inside a can there are three layers of very hot liquid, which separate of their own accord - "like oil and vinegar", according to the project's senior researcher Prof Donald Sadoway, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
On the bottom is the very dense mixture of lead and antimony; next comes a "molten salt electrolyte" - effectively table salt, which is liquid at these temperatures; and finally a layer of lithium floats on top.
When the cell is discharged, all the lithium is actually transferred to the bottom layer. But when electricity is directed into the cell, the lithium is pulled out of the alloy layer and returns to the top.
"It's this back and forth, of the top layer disappearing into the bottom layer to generate electricity, and then reconstituting the top layer by consuming electricity, that gives you the rechargeability of the battery," Prof Sadoway told the BBC. 
The whole set-up has to be kept at some 450C, which is no small feat, but a vast improvement on the 700C required by an earlier design, whose electrodes were magnesium and pure antimony. 
When Prof Sadoway's team tested out the cheaper lead-antimony mixture, they expected to be faced with a trade-off.
"We wanted to decrease the operating temperature," he explained, to improve efficiency. "We were thinking, we'll take a bit of a compromise on the voltage, if it's offset by an even better compromise on the melting point."
In fact, they saw almost no decrease in voltage, even with 82% lead in the mix. They knew they were onto a winner.
"That was the surprise," Prof Sadoway said. 
His team later figured out that the reason behind their pleasant surprise was that the lithium, when it travels to the bottom layer as the battery gets used, seeks out antimony atoms to bond with. So the dilution with lead doesn't interfere with the electricity storage - it just makes the whole set-up much cooler and cheaper.
Field trials
Prof Sadoway said that key finding was "really, really exciting" because the commercial implications were obvious. Price is the main sticking point, for all the various battery systems that have been proposed (see box).
Prof Fells made the same point: "All of these strategies are scientifically possible - it comes down to the cost. If people can make the case that this one is economic, then it'll do well."
Dr Frank Marken, a physical chemist at the University of Bath, was also impressed by the design. "It's not revolutionary in the idea - but it may be revolutionary in terms of the application," he said.
The durability of the system was particularly of note, Dr Marken suggested. 
"One tricky aspect of this is how much do you lose in each cycle? And what they've done here is very clever. It needs a higher temperature, but they don't lose much energy."
In fact, the team at MIT put their prototype through 450 full charge cycles - meaning the lithium layer entirely disappeared and then was reinstated, every time - and the battery lost just 15% of its capacity.
Several years ago, Prof Sadoway founded a company called Ambri to commercialise his team's research. That company now hopes to be deploying demonstration units "within a year", he said. 
The first test sites will be at Cape Cod in Massachussetts and in Hawaii, which is a particularly promising market.
"They've got sun, they've got wind, but both of those are intermittent," Prof Sadoway said. "We'd like to get some field data from a place like that."

Calling out the race card defense

Civil rights leaders demand ‘Django Unchained’ actress apologize to LAPD

 - The Washington Times - Sunday, September 21, 2014
Civil rights leaders are calling on Daniele Watts to apologize to the Los Angeles Police Department after the black actress claimed she was racially profiled for kissing her white boyfriend in public.
Project Islamic Hope President Najee Ali, Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson and other civil rights leaders held a meeting Friday morning, denouncing the "Django Unchained" actress and demanding she apologize to the community, a local CBS affiliate reported.
Ms. Watts, 28, was detained by officers responding to an indecent exposure call on Sept. 11 in Studio City.
Police said they had received several calls about a couple engaging in lewd behavior in a parked vehicle. Ms. Watts said they were only kissing and claimed officers accused her of being a prostitute because she is black and her boyfriend is white.
The story made national headlines, with civil rights leaders calling it a blatant act of racial profiling.
But audio recorded by a sergeant captured Ms. Watts refusing to give her identification and arguing with the officers. TMZ also released photos that appeared to show the actress straddling her boyfriend in the passenger seat of a car with the door open. An eyewitness told TMZ that Ms. Watts' bare breasts were exposed.
"We have nothing to be embarrassed about," activist Najee Ali told the CBS affiliate. "She should be embarrassed. She's the one that told the lie. She came and stated she's a victim of racial profiling. We found out later on based on new information that she wasn't."
Mr. Hutchinson said this has been a teaching moment for him.
"I was one that was very outspoken about it," he told a local NBC affiliate. "We take racial profiling very seriously. It's not a play thing. It's not trivial."
"We began to see pictures that actually show that perhaps there was probable cause for the stop. There was probable cause for the detention," he said. "You must have your facts. You can't rush to judgment. If you do that, you have no credibility."
"It's like crying wolf," he added. "After a while, it has no meaning."

The Hillary letters: Alinsky friend and tutor.

The Hillary Letters

Hillary Clinton, Saul Alinsky correspondence revealed
Lee Balterman / The LIFE Picture Collection / Getty Images
Lee Balterman / The LIFE Picture Collection / Getty Images
BY:  
NOTE: READ THE HILLARY CLINTON-SAUL ALINSKY LETTERS HERE.
Previously unpublished correspondence between Hillary Clinton and the late left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky reveals new details about her relationship with the controversial Chicago activist and shed light on her early ideological development.
Clinton met with Alinsky several times in 1968 while writing a Wellesley college thesis about his theory of community organizing.
Clinton’s relationship with Alinsky, and her support for his philosophy, continued for several years after she entered Yale law school in 1969, two letters obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show.
The letters obtained by the Free Beacon are part of the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation, a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky, which are housed at the University of Texas at Austin.
The letters also suggest that Alinsky, who died in 1972, had a deeper influence on Clinton’s early political views than previously known.
A 23-year-old Hillary Clinton was living in Berkeley, California, in the summer of 1971. She was interning at the left-wing law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, known for its radical politics and a client roster that included Black Panthers and other militants.
On July 8, 1971, Clinton reached out to Alinsky, then 62, in a letter sent via airmail, paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and marked “Personal.”
“Dear Saul,” she began. “When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?”
“I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people,” she added, a reference to Alinsky’s 1946 book on his theories of community organizing.
Clinton devoted just one paragraph in her memoir Living History to Alinsky, writing that she rejected a job offer from him in 1969 in favor of going to law school. She wrote that she wanted to follow a more conventional path.
However, in the 1971 letter, Clinton assured Alinsky that she had “survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.”
“The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead—if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration,” wrote Clinton.
According to the letter, Clinton and Alinsky had kept in touch since she entered Yale. The 62-year-old radical had reached out to give her advice on campus activism.
“If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring in the midst of the Yale-Cambodia madness, I do so now,” wrote Clinton, who had moderated a campus election to join an anti-war student strike.
She added that she missed their regular conversations, and asked if Alinsky would be able to meet her the next time he was in California.
“I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and would love to see you,” Clinton wrote. “Let me know if there is any chance of our getting together.”
Clinton’s letter reached Alinsky’s office while he was on an extended trip to Southeast Asia, where he was helping train community organizers in the Philippines.
But a response letter from Alinsky’s secretary suggests that the radical organizer had a deep fondness for Clinton as well.
“Since I know [Alinsky’s] feelings about you I took the liberty of opening your letter because I didn’t want something urgent to wait for two weeks,” Alinsky’s long-time secretary, Georgia Harper, wrote to Clinton in a July 13, 1971 letter. “And I’m glad I did.”
Harper told Clinton that Alinksy’s book Rules for Radicals had been released. She enclosed several reviews of the book.
“Mr. Alinsky will be in San Francisco, staying at the Hilton Inn at the airport on Monday and Tuesday, July 26 and 27,” Harper added. “I know he would like to have you call him so that if there is a chance in his schedule maybe you can get together.”
It is unclear whether the meeting occurred.
A self-proclaimed radical, Alinsky advocated guerilla tactics and civil disobedience to correct what he saw as an institutionalized power gap in poor communities. His philosophy divided the world into “haves”—middle class and wealthy people —and “have nots”—the poor. He took an ends-justify-the-means approach to power and wealth redistribution, and developed the theoretical basis of “community organizing.”
The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power,” wrote Alinsky in his 1971 book. “Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”
Clinton’s connection to Alinsky has been the subject of speculation for decades. It became controversial when Wellsley College, by request of the Clinton White House, sealed her 1968 thesis from the public for years. Conservative lawyer Barbara Olson said Clinton had asked for the thesis to be sealed because it showed “the extent to which she internalized and assimilated the beliefs and methods of Saul Alinsky.” Clinton opponent turned Clinton defender David Brock referred to her as “Alinsky’s daughter” in 1996′s The Seduction of Hillary Rodham.
The paper was opened to the public in 2001. While the thesis is largely sympathetic to Alinsky, it is also critical of some of his tactics.
Clinton described the organizer as “a man of exceptional charm,” but also objected to some of the conflicts he provoked as “unrealistic,” noting that his model could be difficult for others to replicate.
“Many of the Alinsky-inspired poverty warriors could not (discounting political reasons) move beyond the cathartic first step of organizing groups ‘to oppose, complain, demonstrate, and boycott’ to developing and running a program,” she wrote.
The letters obtained by the Free Beacon suggest that Clinton experimented more with radical politics during her law school years than she has publicly acknowledged.
In Living History, she describes her views during that time as far more pragmatic than leftwing.
She “agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas,” Clinton wrote in her first memoir, but the two had a “fundamental disagreement” over his anti-establishment tactics.
She described how this disagreement led to her parting ways with Alinsky in the summer before law school in 1969.
“He offered me the chance to work with him when I graduated from college, and he was disappointed that I decided instead to go to law school,” she wrote.
“Alinsky said I would be wasting my time, but my decision was an expression of my belief that the system could be changed from within.”
A request for comment from the Clinton team was not returned.

The letters between Clinton and Alinsky can be read here:

The Hillary Letters by Washington Free Beacon