SO HERE AND NOW

Conservative Political Views

FRONTPAGE MAG by TOM THURLOW


The Clinton Scandal Playbook and Benghazi

 

0123-benghazi-hearings-hillary-clinton_full_600The punditocracy is pulling out its collective hair, wanting to know why there have apparently been multiple layers of cover-ups in the evolving Benghazi story.  An early scandal from the Clinton administration, the so-called “Travelgate” scandal, may be instructive.

Recall that in the 1993 firings of employees at the White House Travel Office, a determination was made early on by the new president Bill Clinton and then-First Lady Hillary Clinton that the Travel Office workers, who served at the pleasure of the president, could be fired and that the Travel Office business, and the commissions that came with it, given to a cousin of President Clinton’s, Catherine Cornelius, who had a travel agency of her own.

But simply handing over government business to a relative would have been politically embarrassing, so the Clintons concocted a story whereby the Travel Office was rife with corruption and the workers there needed to be fired.  An audit was conducted on Travel Office finances, and while the record-keeping at the office was found to have been pretty inadequate, there was no smoking gun of corruption or embezzlement.  No matter.  The FBI was pressured to make arrests, and the local US Attorney was charged with prosecuting the employees for corruption.

White House denials of any scheme, and leaks by those involved, led to a firestorm of media criticism.  Most of the Travel Office employees were eventually given other government jobs or retired.  A prosecution for corruption of the head of the Travel Office, Billy Dale, ended in an acquittal.  Clinton’s cousin was removed as new head of the Travel Office.  A later report written by Independent Counsel Robert Ray concluded that, while she did not make any knowingly-false statements under oath, First Lady Hillary Clinton had made a number of inaccurate statements concerning the firings and her role in them.

In retrospect, it is kind of funny that the Clintons would ever complain about corruption from anyone.  Pot, meet Kettle.  That kind of thing.

But the point is that the initial decision to replace government employees with the president’s cousin, so that she could make commissions from arranging White House travel, was a bad decision.  Everything following that decision — the firings, the made-up charges of corruption, the federal prosecution, and the denials from the Clintons that later proven to be untrue — were an effort to distract people from the initial bad decision.

Fast forward to the fall of 2012, when the State Department repeatedly denied requests by officials at the American consulate in Benghazi for more security.  This was the initial bad decision from which flowed all other obfuscations.

Who would make such a bad decision?  In his recent congressional testimony, consulate security officer Eric Nordstrom blamed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, pointing to a memo signed by Secretary Clinton, denying additional security.

What would lead Clinton to make such a bad decision?  Remember that in the summer of 2008, when her presidential campaign had ended and the Russians invaded South Ossetia, Hillary Clinton was formulating what would later be her “reset” policy towards Russia.  Such a policy assumed that whatever frostiness existed between the United States and Russia had been caused by American belligerence.  If only the American side would initiate a fresh “reset,” then the Russians would be more accommodative to United States interests, like our policies concerning Iran’s nukes.

It may be difficult to grasp, but liberals, Hillary Clinton included, actually believe that bullies like Russia can be appeased by weakness of others, hence the “reset” policy towards Russia, and the later denial of more security for the consulate at Benghazi.  Clinton probably thought that a strong American military presence at the Benghazi consulate would be provocative.

Obviously this was a bad decision.  On September 11, 2012, the American consulate was attacked and overrun by terrorists in a planned, coordinated attack.  While under attack, officials at the consulate called for help, which could have made it from Italy in time.  But if provided, this military help would have highlighted the earlier, bad decision to keep security there weak, so the request for military help during the attack was denied.

When the smoke had cleared, an American ambassador and three other Americans were dead.  Anything besides a narrative that this attack was a spontaneous uprising because of an anti-Muslim You Tube video would have led people to question the initial, bad decision by the State Department to keep consulate security weak to begin with.  The following week, UN Representative Susan Rice appeared on five television news shows to reiterate the story that the deaths were caused by a spontaneous uprising related to the video. A few days later, President Obama stated at a forum hosted by Univision, and again later at the United Nations, that the Benghazi attacks were provoked by the video.

President Obama and Secretary Clinton even filmed their own public service announcement, played in Pakistan, apologizing for a private American production of the anti-Muslim video and calling for calm.  This PSA later became a self-fulfilling prophecy, when its reference to an anti-Muslim video caused riots in Pakistan that led to the deaths of 18, and scores of injured Pakistanis.

All these actions were taken to distract people from the initial, bad decision made by Secretary Clinton to keep consulate security in Benghazi weak.  Apparently, when defending a bad decision by Hillary Clinton, anything goes.  The standard operating procedure was apparent as far back as 1993.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

May 17, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

FOX NEWS by CAL THOMAS


Barack Obama — our imperial emperor in chief

By

Published January 17, 2013

FoxNews.com

  • Obama_ceiling.jpg

    January 14, 2013: President Obama at a news conference at the White House in Washington, D.C. (REUTERS)

One definition of “imperial” on dictionary.com is, “of the nature or rank of an emperor or supreme ruler.”

At his news conference Monday, a petulant, threatening and confrontational President Obama spoke like an emperor or supreme ruler. All that was missing was a scepter, a crown and a robe trimmed in ermine.

This president exceeds even Bill Clinton in his ability to evade, prevaricate and dissemble. I didn’t think that possible.

Not only did he supply long answers to relatively easy questions, but much of what he said bore no relation to reality.

A petulant, threatening and confrontational President Obama spoke Monday like an emperor or supreme ruler. All that was missing was a scepter, a crown and a robe trimmed in ermine.

He spoke of having had the debate over the economy during the 2012 campaign and boasted, “…the American people agreed with me.”

By the way, can we now retire the phrase “the American people”? Too many politicians overuse it, including Speaker John Boehner. Forty-seven percent of voters supported Mitt Romney and other Republicans in the last election. Ninety-four million people eligible to vote didn’t vote. Can Obama really claim “the American people” agreed with him?

The president won the election, but he has yet to win the debate over smaller vs. larger government, and more vs. less spending.

The question Major Garrett of CBS News posed to the president on raising the debt ceiling in tandem with spending cuts exposed his hypocrisy and that of many congressional Democrats: “You yourself, as a member of the Senate, voted against a debt ceiling increase. And in previous aspects of American history, President Reagan in 1985, President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990, President Clinton in 1997, all signed deficit-reduction deals that were contingent upon or in the context of raising the debt ceiling. You yourself, four times have done that. Three times, those were related to deficit reduction or budget maneuvers. What Chuck (NBC’s Chuck Todd) and I and, I think, many people are curious about is this new adamant desire on your part not to negotiate when that seems to conflict with the entire history of the modern era of American presidents on the debt ceiling and your own history on the debt ceiling. And doesn’t that suggest that we are going to go into a default situation, because no one is talking to each other about how to resolve this?”

The president dissembled, talking again (he repeated this at least three times by my count) about how Congress had authorized all the spending and how we must now “pay our bills.” But as Garrett noted, the president had a different view of the debt ceiling when he was an Illinois senator and voted against raising it. In 2006, he said, “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.” Except when he’s the leader, then it’s someone else’s failure.

In 2003, during another debate over raising the debt ceiling, Sen. Max Baucus, (D-Mont.), said, “The federal debt is like the family credit card. Sooner or later you have to pay down the debts that you have already incurred. If you don’t, your credit rating will suffer. The way the government raises the debt limit is also like a family who just keeps calling the bank every time they hit the credit limit and asks the bank over and over again for an increase in their credit limit without regard to anything else. Rather than pay down their debt, they just keep on asking for a higher debt limit.”

Many other Senate Democrats, including Senators Harry Reid, (D-Nev.), and John Kerry, (D-Mass.), shared Baucus’ concerns, but that was during the George W. Bush administration.

The president says he will reduce debt with a “balanced approach,” by which he means offsetting higher taxes on the wealthy with spending cuts, which will never materialize. It won’t work. Whatever tax revenue government manages to save, Congress will always find a way to spend it.

The president has submitted a budget proposal to Congress for each fiscal year he’s been in office, but Congress has failed to pass a single one. That’s a staggering repudiation of his leadership.

President Obama will not negotiate about raising the debt ceiling? Not surprising. Imperial leaders don’t negotiate.

Cal Thomas is America’s most widely syndicated newspaper columnist and a Fox News contributor. Follow him on Twitter@CalThomas. Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.

 

January 18, 2013 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

THE BLAZE by JASON HOWERTON


Hillary Clinton 1

OBAMA LIES ARE THIS MUCH BIGGER THAN MINE!            Hillary Clinton 1 (Photo credit: Angela Radulescu)

Government

Ed Klein: Bill Clinton ‘Urging’ Hillary to Release Benghazi Documents That Would ‘Exonerate’ Her, Destroy Obama’s Re-Election Hopes

Ed Klein: Bill Clinton Urging Hillary to Release Benghazi Documents That Would Exonerate Her

<iframe src=”http://mlb.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?width=400&height=254&content_id=25445923&property=theblaze&#8221; width=”400″ height=”254″ frameborder=”0″>Your browser does not support iframes.

(TheBlazeTV)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered additional security for the U.S. mission in Benghazi ahead of the terrorist attack but the orders were never carried out, according to “legal counsel” to Clinton who spoke to best-selling author Ed Klein. Those same sources also say former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.

Appearing on TheBlazeTV’s “Wilkow!” on Wednesday night, Klein told host Andrew Wilkow that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been having “big fights” for “two or three weeks” about the issue, according to his two sources on Clinton’s legal counsel. While Bill Clinton wishes his wife would “exonerate” herself by releasing the documents that show she wasn’t at fault for the tragic security failure in Libya, the secretary of state refuses to do so because she doesn’t want to be viewed as a traitor to the Democratic party.

On Glenn Beck’s radio show earlier on Wednesday, Klein said his information comes from two “very good” sources.

Wilkow pointed out the obvious, that the Obamas and the Clintons have a “very behind the scenes, tense relationship” — to put it lightly.

“I said to you last night, and I think I stand corrected, that it seemed like Obama out-Clintoned the Clintons,” Wilkow said. “But Clinton seems to have gone along with all of this because he knew that Hillary would be exonerated in the end.”

He then asked Klein whether he thought Clinton would resign over the Libya scandal and expose the truth.

“No,” the author said immediately. “I can’t imagine that she would resign. It would bring down the entire administration. [Obama] would lose the election and she would be essentially blamed by the left-wing base of the party.”

“She will not be tarred with the blame for bringing down this administration,” Klein added.

Watch the segment via TheBlazeTV below:

In an exclusive interview with TheBlaze, Klein confirmed that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been engaging in “heated discussions” where the former president has urged his wife to “release the documents that would exonerate her.” He reiterated that Clinton has refused to do so because she fears she would look like a “Judas,” or a traitor, in the administration and it might hurt her chances for a presidential nomination in 2016.

If the claims turn out to be true and Clinton did suggest more security be sent to Benghazi, it is appropriate to ask: why didn’t it happen?

Klein said Clinton’s request for beefed up security would have to go through CIA special ops and or the Pentagon.

“But none of that would happen with the National Security advisor to the president of the United States Tom Donnellan going to the president and saying, ‘We want to send reinforcements to Libya because our ambassador is in jeopardy,’” Klein explained.

Ultimately, he indicated the ultimate authority would have been President Obama.

Wilkow and Klein also discussed what role Obama’s closest advisor, Valerie Jarrett, played in the Benghazi cover-up.

By Obama’s own admission, Klein said, the president never makes a big decision without first consulting with Jarrett.

“We have to assume that Valerie Jarrett, who is also by the way hooked into the Chicago campaign…that she was part of this cover-up in the White House.”

He continued: “The CIA got cables, the Department of Defense got cables, the NSA got cables during the attack on Benghazi, in addition to the emails that have since been made public. We know that there are cables that we haven’t seen yet, confirming the State Department cables that this was an al-Qaeda linked attack.”

These new revelations, following Tuesday night’s explosive report that 300 to 400 national security officials received emails detailing the Benghazi terrorist attack as it was happening, raise fresh questions about the truth behind the Benghazi attack.

The emails revealed that the Libyan radical Islamic group Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attack just two hours after it began. White House officials told CBS News that an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Libya, providing Washington with a live feed to the chaos that unfolded.

October 25, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now, Home, Must See, Political Corruption, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

THE WEEKLY STANDEARD, THE BLOG by JOHN MCCORMACK


(What’s this!?  Is the Liberal media jumping ship?  JM)

ABC: Obama Falsely Claims He Has a Plan to Cut $4 Trillion from the Deficit

12:43 AM, Oct 4, 2012 • By JOHN MCCORMACK

“I’ve put forward a specific $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan,” President Obama said during his debate with Mitt Romney on Wednesday night. “It’s on a website. You can look at all the numbers, what cuts we make and what revenue we raise.”

ABC’s Jon Karl correctly calls Obama’s claim “mostly fiction.”

Does President Obama have a plan to cut the deficit by $4 trillion?

No.  The “$4 trillion plan” he is referring to includes about $1 trillion Congress has already agreed to and $1 trillion in savings from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are already ending.

This would be Mostly Fiction.

The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler has also noted Obama’s claim is “simply not accurate,” and pointed out that “virtually no serious budget analyst agreed” with the administration’s accounting. Andrew Stiles of the Washington Free Beacon has more on Obama’s false budget claim:

Keith Hennessey, a former director of the National Economic Council, estimated the true value of Obama’s deficit reduction—minus these gimmicks—to be about $2.8 trillion, and called even that reduced figure a “generous” assessment.

The president’s budget, for instance, takes credit for about $1 trillion in spending cuts that were already signed into law in 2011, and should already be incorporated given that they fall outside the 10-year budget window.

The budget also includes another $800 billion in phantom savings related to the military drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan—money that would never have been spent to begin with—and another $800 billion in projected savings due to reduced interest payments on the debt, something not traditionally cited in federal budget documents as a form of government “spending” that can be “cut.”

As Bill Clinton’s chief of staff Erskine Bowles has said, the president’s budget is simply not a serious budget like Paul Ryan‘s budget:

“Have any of you all met Paul Ryan? We should get him to come to the university. I’m telling you this guy is amazing. … He is honest, he is straightforward, he is sincere. And the budget that he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit just like we did, by $4 trillion. … The president as you remember, came out with a budget and I don’t think anybody took that budget very seriously. The Senate voted against it 97 to nothing.”

October 4, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

FREEDOM OUTPOST by TIM BROWN


[Dagnabbit, if he ain’t gone and done it again.  He’s flippin’ us off! (Just Me)]

Obama: Without Tax Increases There Will Be No Bipartisanship

obama-finger-Geithner
On CBS’ Face The Nation on Sunday, Barack Obamawas clear that at the center of his presidential campaign was his crusade to raise Americans’ taxes. In 2011 Republicans indicated that they were willing to raise some taxes in order to cut the deficit, but that would be contingent upon Obama agreeing to spending cuts. That deal fell apart as Obama insisted in billions of new taxes which Republicans did not agree to.Scott Pelleyaddressed the issue with Obama:

OBAMA: What I’ve said in reducing our deficits – we can make sure that we cut 2.5 dollars for every dollar of increased revenue.

PELLEY: That’s the deal they turned down.

OBAMA: That’s part of what this election is about. Gov. Romney said he wouldn’t take a deal for $10 in spending cuts for $1 of revenue increases.


The Hill reports,

The dispute over taxes will take front-and-center stage after the election as lawmakers work to find a solution to avoid the “fiscal cliff,” the combination of expiring Bush-era tax rates and $1 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts which would take effect at the start of 2013.

Obama also cited former President Bill Clinton, who spoke at last week’s Democratic convention, to back his argument to raise tax rates on those making more than $250,000 by allowing the Bush rates to expire.

“If we go back to the rates we had under Bill Clinton, we can close the deficit stabilize the economy, and keep taxes on the middle class low,” Obama said.

Republicans though are in favor of extending the Bush rates for all tax brackets, saying that Obama’s proposal would hurt small businesses and weaken job growth.

At the same time that Obama was claiming Romney’s unwillingness to raise taxes in a deal to cut spending, vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan was on ABC’s This Week talking about a deal he would consider. Again, The Hill reports,

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Sunday refused to reject a hypothetical debt-reduction deal that would include both spending cuts and tax hikes.

In an interview on ABC’s This Week airing Sunday, Ryan was asked if he would straight reject a deal which would provide $1 in new taxes for every $10 in spending cuts.

Ryan, the GOP vice presidential nominee, said he would weigh the “quality of the agreement.”

“It depends on the quality of the policy. Our negotiators in the supercommittee offered higher revenues through tax reform. John Boehner did as well. So George, what really matters to me is not ratios but what matters is the quality of the policy,” Ryan told host George Stephanopoulos.

“There’s no deal to walk away from. The point is, you’re not giving me a deal to look at. You’re giving me ratios,” said Ryan. “Here’s — let me say this. Our problem is not that we are overtaxed. We are overtaxed. Our problem is we spend too much money.”

Ryan also said that there would be no “back room” deals cut and that they “shouldn’t hatch a secret plan like ObamaCare. We should do it out in the public view where the public can participate.” He did acknowledge that “high income earners use most of the loopholes,” but said the goal was that “high income earners should not get these kinds of loopholes.”

“If you take those loopholes, those tax shelters away from high income earners, more of their income is subject to taxation. And that allows us to lower tax rates on everybody — small businesses, families, economic growth,” said Ryan.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/09/obama-without-tax-increases-there-will-be-no-bipartisanship/#ixzz2674GRprf

September 10, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

GODFATHER POLITICS by DA TAGLIARE


Was Barack Obama Once a Muslim and Indonesian Citizen?

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/6548/was-barack-obama-once-a-muslim-and-indonesian-citizen/#ixzz23SoNCbk2

Questions about Barack Obama’s background have been circulating since he first announced his intentions to run for president in 2007.  Even former U.S. President Bill Clinton openly declared his doubt on Obama’s birth and eligibility to run for president until it was reported that the life of his daughter Chelsea was threatened by someone associated with the Obama campaign.

There have been several lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility, but so far, the courts have ruled in favor of the President.  On behalf of over 200 residence of his county, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has had his Cold Case Posse investigate the birth certificate presented by the White House as being that of Obama.  The investigation has discovered numerous pieces of evidence that indicate that the birth certificate and Selective Service Registration are both forgeries and constitute fraud.  Unfortunately, Congress appears to be impotent and unwilling to do anything about what could be the greatest case of fraud in the history of the United States and possibly all of history.

There has even been some question about whether or not Barack Hussein Obama was really born in Hawaii as he claims or in Kenya as they claim.  And to be honest, as often as he has lied to the American people about everything else, how can anyone trust him about this, especially when he has worked so hard and spent so much to hide his records.

Now, WND is reporting that they have information that indicates that Barack Hussein Obama was an Indonesian citizen during his youth.  According to the WND story, Wayne Allyn Root received a phone call from a Breitbart.com reporter claiming to have documentation proving that Obama at one time was an Indonesian citizen whose religion was listed as Muslim.  When Obama’s mother married her second husband and moved to Indonesia, he adopted Obama, making him a citizen of Indonesia.  Later on when young Obama attended public school, he was listed as a Muslim.

The WND article presents a lot more information, but I honestly feel that this close to the election that nothing will be done until after the elections in November.  Other than the few private lawsuits filed that have challenged Obama’s eligibility, no government official, no one in Congress, and no court is willing to broach the subject.  Whether they have been threatened as Chelsea Clinton was or are just plain scared of crossing the powerful backers behind Obama, no one really knows.  The only thing clear is that it doesn’t seem to matter how much evidence is made available, Obama seems completely untouchable and this is the scariest aspect of it all.

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/6548/was-barack-obama-once-a-muslim-and-indonesian-citizen/#ixzz23SngkoZN

MY TWO CENTS
Of course Obama is a Muslim, but more than that, he is in the mix of the Muslim Brotherhood.  He is also, or has been, a practicing Black Liberation Theology follower, and what that bottom line is is this; ‘if you are white, you need to give me, (a black person) everything you own so that you can truly understand what it means to be me.’  This is not a verbatim phrasing of the philosophy, but it includes hating whites, America, and everything else that’s been touched by white America.  This is the religion the Reverend Jeremiah Wright preaches to his congregation, which included President Obama and his family, for twenty years!  Got it?  Twenty years!  Only after the public threw a fit because it was so offended by Wright’s words, did Obama cut himself off from his lifelong minister and mentor.  Obama’s word, (mentor) not mine.  Radical Islam has the closest ideology to Black Liberation Theology than any other so-called religion on earth.  And both religions believe their god wants the white man gone–one way or another!
Barack Obama: ‘I’m no Usain Bolt’ (telegraph.co.uk)

August 15, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

WND POLITICS


WND EXCLUSIVE

Hollywood producer heard Bill Clinton say Obama ineligible

Insider in Hillary’s 2008 campaign points to ‘original birthers’

Published: 04/01/2012 at 9:12 PM

author-image by Jerome R. Corsi

Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers “The Obama Nation” and “Unfit for Command.” Corsi’s latest book is “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”More ↓
rss feed Subscribe to author feed

A successful Hollywood producer who had an insider’s view of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign claims she heard Bill Clinton say that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president.

Bettina Viviano – who started her own film production company in 1990 after serving as vice president of production for Steven Spielberg’s Amblin Entertainment – told WND that it was common knowledge among delegates committed to Hillary that the Clintons believed Obama was constitutionally ineligible and that Bill Clinton would eventually disclose his belief to the public.

 The Clintons were the original “birthers,” Viviano told WND in an interview in Los Angeles.

“Everybody who has called this a conspiracy from the Republicans or the tea party, they need to know who started it – the Democrats,” she said.

“It was Hillary and Bill, and it percolated up from there,” said Viviano, who had access to the campaign through a documentary she produced on the claims of delegates that Obama and the Democratic National Committee were stealing the nomination from Hillary.

As WND reported, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his team investigating Obama’s eligibility believe there is probable cause that the documents released by the White House as Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form are forgeries.

Help Sheriff Joe blow the lid off Obama’s fraud. Join the Cold Case Posse right now!

Viviano said that she was on a conference phone call during the primary season in the spring of 2008 in which she heard Bill Clinton refer to Obama as ineligible for the presidency.

In the course of the phone conversation with Hillary delegates, she recalled, Bill Clinton spoke of Obama as “the non-citizen.”

“In the world we were in, with [Hillary’s] super-delegates and delegates, it just was, ‘He’s not legit – that’s the end of it, period, end of story.’ It wasn’t up for discussion,” Viviano said.

Michele Thomas, a Hillary campaigner from Los Angeles, confirmed to WND that she learned from “many people who were close to Hillary” that Obama “was not eligible to be president.”

Thomas led a nationwide petition drive among delegates to force a vote on Hillary’s nomination at the convention after then-DNC Chairman Howard Dean announced her name would not be put into nomination and Obama would be declared the winner by unanimous acclamation.

Viviano said that it was understood that Bill Clinton would eventually go public with his contention that Obama was ineligible for the presidency.

“He, I believe, was frothing at the mouth to tell the truth about Obama,” she said.

In the meantime, she recalled, the former president would make ironic references in public in which he “teetered” on revealing he position.

“He would go on camera,” Viviano said, “and jokingly make comments about, you know, ‘Is Obama qualified to be president? Well, if he’s 35 and a wink, wink, United States citizen, I guess he’s qualified.’”

She claimed, however, that Bill Clinton’s intention to unequivocally state to the public that Obama was ineligible was stopped in its tracks by the murder of a close friend of the Clintons, Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman Bill Gwatney, just two weeks before the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Gwatney was killed Aug. 13, 2008, when a 50-year-old man entered Democratic Party headquarters in Little Rock and shot him three times. Police killed the murderer after a chase, and investigators found no motive.

The Clintons said in a statement that they were “stunned and shaken” by the killing of their “cherished friend and confidante.”

Viviano said a campaign staffer who was close to Hillary, whose name she requested be withheld for security reasons, told her Gwatney’s murder was a message to Bill Clinton.

“I was told by this person that that was ‘Shut up, Bill, or you’re next,’” she said.

The campaign adviser, according to Viviano, said that despite the intimidation and threats, Bill Clinton was prepared to speak out about Obama’s eligibility

“And then,” Viviano said, paraphrasing the staffer, “they went in and said, ‘OK, it’s your daughter, now, we’ll go after.’

“And then Bill never said anything.”

Others in the campaign who believe Gwatney’s murder was a message to the Clintons think it had to do with the fact that Gwatney was resisting an effort by the Obama campaign and the party to intimidate Hillary delegates into voting for Obama.

But Viviano argues that California delegates also were rebelling, and she says her source told her the same story two years later.

Since the 2008 campaign, Clinton has insisted publicly that Obama is eligible for the White House.

He weighed in on the issue in an April 2011 interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America,” when Donald Trump was urging Obama to release his long-form birth certificate to the public.

“If I were them, I’d be really careful riding that birther horse too much,” Clinton said. “Everyone knows it’s ludicrous.”

‘I had never voted in my life’

When Viviano headed production for Spielberg, her credits included the second and third “Back to the Future” films, “Cape Fear,” “Land Before Time,” “Schindler’s List,” “Always,” “Roger Rabbit” and the third “Indiana Jones” film.

She launched her own production and management company, Viviano Entertainment, in 1990. Her movies include “Three to Tango” and “Jack and Jill,” starring Adam Sandler.

Viviano was plunged into the world of campaign politics in 2008 as an admitted neophyte when Hollywood screenwriter and director Gigi Gaston asked her to produce a documentary called “We Will Not Be Silenced” on allegations of voter fraud against Hillary Clinton by the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

“I had never voted in my life. I wasn’t a Democrat, I wasn’t a Republican. I wasn’t anything,” Viviano said. “I didn’t know anything about any of this.”

Viviano said that when she and her co-workers informed Hillary campaigners that they were making a film about voter fraud, “the floodgates opened.”

“I mean, everybody had a story to tell about death threats, threats, intimidation, document falsifying, vandalism, property theft,” she said. “It was the most horrible thing I’ve ever heard in my life.”

Viviano said that in research for the film, allegations and evidence that Obama was not eligible “came up immediately.”

“We were getting hit with so many things about Obama,” she said. “This is when (Bill) Ayers and (Rashid) Khalidi were in the news, and then, all of a sudden, ‘Oh, and he’s not eligible to be president.’”

Viviano insisted to WND that her reason for speaking out now was not related to the fact that Obama beat Hillary.

“It’s not about Hillary,” she said. “It’s about No. 1, I’m American, I live in a country where there is a Constitution and a set of laws. I also have somebody in the White House who has lied, obfuscated, provided what we all know to be forged documents about who he is.”

She acknowledges that she could jeopardize her Hollywood career.

“What can you do?” she said. “It’s my country. My dad fought for this country in World War II in the 82nd Airborne.”

Her late father, she noted, was shot down twice during the war and was awarded two Purple Hearts.

“I think, would he rather have me sitting in the corner cowering, and afraid of people, or would he rather have me tell the truth and what I saw?”

Read the preliminary findings of Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse investigation after six months investigating Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president in “A Question of Eligibility,” co-authored by Jerome Corsi and Mike Zullo.

Follow all the future developments in this story – sign up for WND’s email news alerts right now!

August 13, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , | 13 Comments

GODFATHER POLITICS by DA TAGLIARE


Was Barack Obama Once a Muslim and Indonesian Citizen?

Questions about Barack Obama’s background have been circulating since he first announced his intentions to run for president in 2007.  Even former U.S. President Bill Clinton openly declared his doubt on Obama’s birth and eligibility to run for president until it was reported that the life of his daughter Chelsea was threatened by someone associated with the Obama campaign.

There have been several lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility, but so far, the courts have ruled in favor of the President.  On behalf of over 200 residence(sic) of his county, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has had his Cold Case Posse investigate the birth certificate presented by the White House as being that of Obama.  The investigation has discovered numerous pieces of evidence that indicate that the birth certificate and Selective Service Registration are both forgeries and constitute fraud.  Unfortunately, Congress appears to be impotent and unwilling to do anything about what could be the greatest case of fraud in the history of the United States and possibly all of history.

There has even been some question about whether or not Barack Hussein Obama was really born in Hawaii as he claims or in Kenya as they claim.  And to be honest, as often as he has lied to the American people about everything else, how can anyone trust him about this, especially when he has worked so hard and spent so much to hide his records.

Now, WND is reporting that they have information that indicates that Barack Hussein Obama was an Indonesian citizen during his youth.  According to the WND story, Wayne Allyn Root received a phone call from a Breitbart.com reporter claiming to have documentation proving that Obama at one time was an Indonesian citizen whose religion was listed as Muslim.  When Obama’s mother married her second husband and moved to Indonesia, he adopted Obama, making him a citizen of Indonesia.  Later on when young Obama attended public school, he was listed as a Muslim.

The WND article presents a lot more information, but I honestly feel that this close to the election that nothing will be done until after the elections in November.  Other than the few private lawsuits filed that have challenged Obama’s eligibility, no government official, no one in Congress, and no court is willing to broach the subject.  Whether they have been threatened as Chelsea Clinton was or are just plain scared of crossing the powerful backers behind Obama, no one really knows.  The only thing clear is that it doesn’t seem to matter how much evidence is made available, Obama seems completely untouchable and this is the scariest aspect of it all.

August 12, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

   

Political Vel Craft

Veil Of Politics

Political Film Blog

money, power, injustice, sex, violence, propaganda, anti-fascism...

@AMeansstotheend

Fighting Against Government Harassment

Constitutional Clayton

Politics surrounding the Constitution

mike884

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

John Groves Art Stuff

Art from johngrovesart

swissdefenceleague

Swiss Defence League

the seaton post

A little bit of this and a little bit of that

Jericho777's Blog

Correcting Misinformation!

%d bloggers like this: