“No compact among men … can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and … no wall of words, no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other.” —George Washington (1789)

There is a memorable line in the 1979 epic war film “Apocalypse Now,” spoken by Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore (played by an acting favorite, Robert Duvall). He pauses next to some green recruits digging in, and exclaims, “I love the smell of napalm in the morning. … Smells like victory.”

For those who aren’t familiar with napalm, it is an incendiary mixture of a gelling agent and combustible or flammable fuel, developed by researchers at Harvard in 1942 and utilized in combat operations during World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Napalm was dispensed by flamethrowers at ground level, or from above in bomb form. It is a viscous liquid that is ignited when dispensed and adheres to anything it contacts. It not only burns for a long duration, but it rapidly deoxygenates the surrounding area.

In short, it sticks to and destroys anything with which it comes into contact — much like the crime and corruption dispensed by Hillary Clinton and her principal prevaricating backer, Bill.

They spew their destructive effluent on everyone with whom they come into contact, including vast swaths of political constituencies, particularly women voters. Of course, it never sticks to Bill or Hillary, which is why their stench “smells like victory.”

Despite some last-minute erosion of Clinton’s polling lead, largely due to an 11th-hour revisiting by the FBI of her illegal communications file, the Clintons are moving forward with plans for a massive victory party in New York City. But there may be something in the renewed FBI investigation that follows her right through Election Day and proves to be a “December surprise.”

Though Director James Comey announced what he thought in July was the conclusion of their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s illegal communications — based on very limited case criteria, some of his New York agents continued their quest for the truth.

According to Wall Street Journal reporter Devlin Barrett, writing about the internal FBI dispute over Comey’s conclusions, “On Aug. 12, a senior Justice Department official [complained to the FBI] that New York FBI agents were still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe during the election season.”

This complaint was the first indication that FBI line agents were not standing down. But, as I have noted previously, according to my sources there is a near-mutiny protest underway by hundreds of agents who believe that one or both Clintons should have been indicted – but Barack Obama’s Justice Department has established a political gauntlet to those charges by limiting the scope of the FBI’s investigation. In fact, those sources indicate there are ongoing Clinton investigations in four other FBI offices as well – in defiance of DoJ efforts to protect the Clintons.

There is a civil war brewing between Obama’s political bureaucrats in the Justice Department and field offices within the FBI – and it is beginning to take on shades of the Nixon administration’s Watergate coverup.

However, despite considerable new evidence about the Clinton’s corrupt pay-to-play political graft and influence schemes associated with their foundation fundraising, it was an unrelated investigation into a computer that Hillary Clinton’s senior adviser (and key confidant for the last 20 years), Huma Abedin, shared with her husband, former New York Rep. and current sexual predator, Anthony Weiner, that led Comey to re-open the investigation.

The fact that Comey announced — just 11 days before the general election — that there was new evidence that may be relevant to the original investigation, has led some analysts to conclude the evidence must be substantive and significant – either in the Abedin cache, or in the ongoing Clinton Foundation investigations. And, the previously undisclosed Clinton Foundation investigations could be the reason for Bill Clinton’s secret meeting with AG Loretta Lynch last June – appealing to DoJ to stop those investigations.

Clinton, the consummate “congenital liar,” is attacking the messenger, suggesting Comey, whom she praised in July, has political motivations for re-opening the investigation: “It’s pretty strange to put something like that out … right before an election.” Naturally she insists, “I am sure they will reach the same conclusion they did when they looked at my emails for the past year. There is no case here.” (Nothing to see here — move along.)

Clinton can’t blame this latest development on “Trump’s Russian hackers,” so is opting to hack a line from Donald Trump and claim the FBI is trying to “rig the election.” However, as she might recall, Comey’s appointment by Obama in September of 2013 is for 10 years, so he will be around long after this election cycle.

Obama’s spokesman, Josh Earnest, said on behalf of Comey, “The president doesn’t believe that Director Comey is intentionally trying to influence the outcome of the election. The president doesn’t believe he is secretly strategizing to benefit one candidate or one political party.” Of course, Obama’s affirmation of Comey could mean he anticipates the FBI will announce, by the end of the week, that it has completed a preliminary review of the new emails and again will clear Clinton of any wrongdoing.

That notwithstanding, whatever the outcome of the current FBI review, there are still 33,000 emails Clinton ordered be wiped from her servers in the days after those communications had been subpoenaed by Congress, and we are likely never to know what incriminating information was contained in those communications.

Two days after Comey’s announcement, a letter castigating Comey, ostensibly from former DoJ officials — with Eric Holder, Obama’s criminal co-conspirator topping the list — was widely circulated. It noted: “Justice Department officials are instructed to refrain from commenting publicly on the existence, let alone the substance, of pending investigative matters, except in exceptional circumstances and with explicit approval from the Department of Justice officials responsible for ultimate supervision of the matter. … Director Comey’s letter is inconsistent with the prevailing Department policy, and it breaks with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections.”

The DoJ officials must have meant “Republican longstanding practices,” because Democrats announced the indictment of a former Reagan-Bush official four days ahead of the election between Clinton and G.H.W. Bush in 1992 — charges that were later dropped.

(I know you’ll be shocked to learn that the Holder letter was actually drafted by Clinton campaign hacks…)

But some hard-left Democrats are jumping ship.

Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass has boldly departed from the rest of the leftist Democrat media clan, arguing the new investigation may create “a potential constitutional crisis” for the country.

Insisting that “Democrats should ask Clinton to step aside, Kass writes, "As secretary of state she kept classified documents on the home-brew server in her basement, which is against the law. She lied about it to the American people. She couldn’t remember details dozens of times when questioned by the FBI. Her aides destroyed evidence by BleachBit and hammers. Her husband, Bill, met secretly on an airport tarmac with Attorney General Loretta Lynch for about a half-hour, and all they said they talked about was golf and the grandkids. And there was no prosecution of Hillary. That isn’t merely wrong and unethical. It is poisonous. And during this presidential campaign, Americans were confronted with a two-tiered system of federal justice: one for standards for the Clintons and one for the peasants.”

If elected, Kass warns, “Think of a nation suffering a bad economy and continuing chaos in the Middle East, and now also facing a criminal investigation of a president. Add to that congressional investigations and a public vision of Clinton as a Nixonian figure wandering the halls, wringing her hands.”

John Fund writes in “History Repeats” that indeed there are strong parallels with Richard Nixon and the Watergate cover-up. “‘The early part of the Watergate cover-up was actually successful,’ noted a report from the National Constitution Center. … But the cover-up unraveled and the country went through two years of turmoil. If Hillary wins, will her cover-up unravel and leave her a weakened president hounded by critics?”

James Freeman, assistant editor at The Wall Street Journal, asks, “Doesn’t Clinton Embarrass Democrats?” He notes, “Conflict of interest is the Clinton business model. And political influence is the product. That’s how Hillary and Bill managed to gross more than a Rolling Stones tour by delivering speeches. Looking at how successful Mrs. Clinton and her husband were in monetizing her position as secretary of state, why would any voter, of any party, want to see how much revenue she can squeeze from the Oval Office?”

Of course, the Clintons do not embarrass most of their Democrat constituents — who are prototypical low-information voters and have no grasp of the issues, much less the implications.

So here’s where things stand:

Barack Obama seeded the fundamental transformation of America, and Hillary Clinton represents perhaps the final transition of the once-noble Democrat Party, originally the party “of, by and for the people,” into the Socialist Democrat Party. It has metamorphosed into an unrecognizable collective of activists drawn to the populist appeal propagated by elitists like the Clintons, who despise the “deplorable.” Despite Clinton’s campaign theme, “Stronger Together,” she will continue to foment dissent with her “divide and conquer” strategy until that “fundamental transformation” is complete.

Of course, the Democratic Socialism advocated by Clinton and company, as was the case with National Socialism in 1930s Germany, is nothing more than Marxist Socialism repackaged. The new Democrats seek a centrally-planned economy directed by a dominant-party state that controls economic production by way of taxation, regulation and income redistribution. Their success depends upon replacing Rule of Law with rule of men and refuting the foundational principle that Liberty and the fundamental rights of man are “endowed by our Creator.”

Clinton and her entire political and government machine, is not about to let Comey derail her election – and all the progress she and Obama have made toward cementing their socialist state. Over the next few days, if there is not a follow-up announcement from the FBI exonerating Clinton, expect her to carpet bomb Trump with all manner of last-minute “revelations.”

Stumping with Hillary Clinton this week (filling the seat normally occupied by Huma Abedin), Michelle Obama is repeating this mantra: “This election is about who will shape our children and the country we leave for them, not just for the next four or eight years but for the rest of their lives.”

Indeed it is.

To that end, James Freeman concludes, “Voters who wish to reject the Clintonization of America’s governing institutions have a choice on Nov. 8. They can feel good about themselves by [voting for] a third-party candidate. Or they can do right by the country by selecting the only person who can stop the Clintons: a very flawed candidate named Donald Trump.”

Indeed they can, and I plan to do just that, and here is why: If Clinton is elected and Republicans don’t retain a Senate majority, then Clinton’s Supreme Court nominees will be appointed. And as goes SCOTUS, so goes the “palladium of the Liberties of the Republic,” the Second Amendment.

P.S. I think early voting more than seven days prior to an election open’s the door for a lot of voter fraud. It also means that many votes are cast before all the candidate information is disclosed. Based on the latest revelations, voters in seven states – Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – can void or change their ballots. Clinton voters may want to reconsider…

Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis