Remember the solemn occasion at Andrews Air Force Base on September 14, 2012 when Hillary Clinton defiantly told the nation that the,”rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video is something that we had nothing to do with?”
Well it turns out Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama did have something to do with the video. They needed an excuse to hide the truth because they were both informed on 9/12/12 by a Defense Department memo that an Islamic terrorist group affiliated with Al-Qaeda was responsible for the deadly attack in Benghazi. According to newly released emails from the state department we learn that Hillary began contemplating using the idea of blaming a video for the attack as early as 5:50am on Friday September 11, 2012. Her email that morning was written well before there were any embassy uprisings in the Middle East. In fact, her email was written ten hours before anyone died in Benghazi.
At 5:50am on September 11, 2012 Hillary Clinton wrote an email to someone whose name is redacted. She cc’ed her assistant, Huma Abedin and asked for a copy of film made by Frenchman Bernard Henri-Levi’s documentary film about the Libyan war. She refers to Harvey Weinstein as someone who showed the film in Cannes. The Frenchman filmmaker is someone who is hated and reviled by many Muslims all across the Middle East and is often referred to as a neocon. Why on that now fateful day in American history would Hillary be focused on a video that was about Libya? Did she know that something awful was about to occur some 10 hours later?
What can be surmised is that as early as 5:50am on September 11, 2012, well before any embassy uprisings and consulate murders had occurred, Hillary and company knew they needed to affix blame to something that was going to happen in the Middle East and the blame certainly wasn’t going to be on their failed policies. What they did was concoct a shameless lie that a video was to be blamed for the carnage that was about to occur later on during the day. In the end they conveniently found an unknown filmmaker who happened to be a U.S. citizen. They quickly and quietly incarcerated him and placed him in a prison in America on a minor technicality due to a previous misdemeanor charge. Even though the world never heard of this obscure individual, the The New York Times explained that he was kept in protective custody for his own safety.
The entire nation was systematically lied to for three and half years by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and their friends in the Liar Czar Media. What the newly released documents reveal today is that the sole purpose of keeping the video lie alive was not only to help Obama’s reelection chances in 2012, but to keep Hillary’s chances alive for her White House run in 2016.
If George Stephanopoulos is in hot water with the head honchos over at ABC for donating to and participating in Clinton Foundation activities, then every other reporter at every other network should be scrutinized the same way.
Let’s take a look at CNN’s Erin Burnett? Although there is no proof that Erin has personally donated to the Clinton Foundation, the parent company that pays her salary has. It turns out Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc. has donated up to $25,000 to Hillary and Bill’s foundation leading to speculation that the folks over at CNN are not only in bed with the Clinton’s financially, but politically as well. Interestingly enough, Erin Burnett was a participant in the 10th Annual Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting in NYC in 2014 and her participation was advertised in the press release by the foundation. It should also be noted that Erin’s husband is an executive at Citigroup. That financial juggernaut has donated up to $1,000,000.00 to the Clinton Foundation in 2014.
Understanding the fact that Erin Burnett has attended elegant dinner parties in NYC with Hillary and Bill Clinton and other high profile celebrities who represent the hated one percent, you start to understand why she has so much admiration and devotion towards the them. When she interviews Bill Clintom she can barely contain herself. I mean come on. Leave that for the green room for crying out loud! It appears that the Clinton’s are practically like family to her. Erin seems to believe that the election of Hillary in 2016 is a forgon conclusion. Wow!
When you look at the facts and the circumstances regarding Erin Burnett and CNN’s reporting team you come to realize where their political allegiances lay. It’s with Bill and Hillary Clinton. You can find examples of this when Erin interviews opponents of Hillary. She becomes an over aggressive pit bull and an all out apologist for the Clinton’s. As you can see, Erin would no doubt make an excellent White House spokesperson and butt kisser for Hillary Clinton starting in 2016.
With all the scrutiny swirling around ABC and George Stephanopoulos concerning his unethical conduct regarding his political reporting on the Clinton’s political machine and the time and money he spent on their foundation, it is high time that every news organization in this country be scrutinized the same way. It is important to expose this unsavory and unethical alliance between the Liar Czar Media and their socialist-democrat political friends. If this cozy allegiance is allowed to continue our constitutional republic will no longer exist.
What reporters were told today at the White House was spin that was so ludacrous and untruthful it would have made the former spokesman for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein blush with envy. Remember when U. S. coalition forces successfully stormed the outskirts of Baghdad in 2003, the Iraqi spokesperson denied the obvious and within hours the regime of Saddam Hussein was over.
After one of the biggest cities in Iraq was strategically overtaken by the Islamic State, the Obama spokesperson had the gall to tell reporters at the White House press briefing that the, “Obama military strategy in Iraq is a success.”
Somebody needs to inform Obama and the incoherent boobs in the White House that they need to put away their golf clubs for the holiday weekend and start thinking about formulating a better military strategy that can be a real, “success” concerning the future security of Iraq. They need to forget about the idea of ISIL and start thinking about the real enemy. Their name is ISIS. The word around Baghdad is that they are just 60 miles away.
Remember the old adage that if you tell a lie long enough, and loud enough people will believe it is true? That’s what our main stream media outlets sells us everyday to shape their socialist narrative. This technique was on display Friday night on a seldom watched cable news show in which an old, blubbering idiot continued the far left narrative that there were never any weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq.
This is a bold face lie many on the left continue to facilitate to discredit the war in Iraq. In reality there were plenty of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq and there are numerous print stories that belie the leftist false narrative. In 2006 Fox News reported that WMD’s were found in the country. In that same year a report from defense.gov had another story that WMD’s were found on the battlefield in Iraq. Later in 2008 other news stories were reporting that WMD’s were found in Iraq according to the New York Times and NBC News. In 2010 as reported by Hotair.com. documents revealed WMD’s were found inside Iraq. Another report in 2014 disclosed that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction were quietly removed by the pentagon so that Obama’s Syrian Rebels could not get their hands on them. With all of this information out for the world to see we still have leftist propagandists in the media still fantasizing that weapons were never found in Iraq.
Unlike Obama’s unauthorized and illegal war in Libya, George Bush asked and received congressional approval twice for the use of force in Iraq. Without the approval of democrats in congress the war in Iraq would never have taken place. Ironically, one of the politicians who voted for the war in Iraq is a well respected person of high esteem who just so happens to be the political darling of the socialist-democrat party. She is their presumed presidential nominee and her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Even Mrs. Clinton would go on to say in 2003 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
It’s interesting to note that Hillary Clinton never really receives any of the type of scrutiny from the liar czar press for her role in starting an unjust war in a country that we are constantly reminded never had any weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, you would think that the press would have vilified and treated her as someone who is certainly by no means qualified to serve as president of the United States. The socialist left and their media conveniently forget that Hillary was implicit in starting the 2003 war in Iraq. That’s why you can never forget the the old adage that, “if you tell a lie long enough, and loud enough people will believe it is true.”
Today, 77 percent of the American people believe illegal immigration is a serious problem in our country. Furthermore, 63 percent of Americans believe controlling the border is more important than legalizing illegals already here. 58 percent of Americans believe that giving a pathway to citizens to people who have broken the law only encourages more lawlessness. Poll after poll indicates immigration issues are not a high priority to most Americans. With all of this polling information available why does Hillary Clinton come out this past week to push for a pathway to citizenship for people who are here illegally?
Looking back at Hillary Clinton’s view on immigration back in 2003 you will see she was dead against any type of pandering to illegal immigrants. Back then she sympathized with the view most Americans had regarding the issue.
Now why would Hillary Clinton flip-flop on an issue such as illegal immigration and go against the wishes of a majority of Americans? Big corporate money is your answer. Eight companies that have given money to the Clinton Foundation happen to be on board with her new stance on immigration. These companies plan to benefit from her position to acquire cheap, low skill workers that her plan will ultimately provide. Interestingly enough these eight companies and entities that have given over 37 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation are the same companies that support Hillary Clinton’s stance on a, “Pathway to Citizenship.” The companies include Microsoft, Yahoo, Coca Cola, Bloomberg, U.S. Chamber of Congress, Motorola, Marriott and Caterpillar. It seems that Mrs. Clinton is all to willing to ignore the priority and wishes of the American people and flip-flop her political positions to companies that have bought access from her and her husband’s dubious charity. If Mrs Clinton is willing to sell out the American people on immigration reform, what other public policy stance in America is she willing to sell out to the highest bidder?
The Baltimore, Maryland and Ferguson, Missouri riots have nothing to do about young men dying in confrontations with police officers. It has nothing to do about the rule of law either. It is about spending more taxpayer money to build more government programs that in the end create more inner city problems. Creating dependency in the inner city leads to more poor people who become addicted to big government socialism. Liberal democrat politicians are all in with that. They run on that message and the voters always fall for their inane emotional message of helping the little guy. In the end it creates devastating results. What these rioting idiots are really doing is participating in their own demise.
Since the war on poverty began in the 1960’s American taxpayers have spent 22 trillion dollars to fight poverty. After that war began over fifty years ago the same number of people remain in poverty. So if this war strategy is proven to be not working why not change course and try something different? If young men believe that there is no hope for a better life in their communities in which they live in would it not be in their best interest to vote differently? Would it not dawn on them that voting for a socialist democrat for all these years actually hasn’t helped their lot in life? Why do they let leftist politicians incentivize them into staying in their poor neighborhoods and survive on meager welfare payments that only keeps them existing on government handouts for the rest of their forgotten lives?
You gotta love how the socialist democrat politicians who routinely whine about income inequality are actually the self righteous ignoramuses who create it in the first place. Cities with the highest rates of income inequality are run by socialist democrats. It’s because they run on helping the little guy and the little guy always falls for it and votes for them waiting for something better to happen to them to make their so called burden in life a little more bearable. In the end all that happens to them is that more people begin to see more people in the same predicament as they are in. Instead of lashing out at the socialist democrat politicians who have created this mess, these people start displacing their anger out on society in general and the people who have been hired to keep society civil are the police officers.
When the angry people begin to understand the true nature of who is responsible for their plight in life, only then will they hopefully look for something different. If the last 50 years of experience doesn’t explain anything then nothing will. They need to understand that voting for people who only care about the little guy only creates more little guys. When all these little guys start getting together to release their frustrations and anger at being a little guy, they need to understand that it is they who are responsible for themselves and it is they who are actually participating in their own demise.