Hillary Clinton on Day 1 of the DNC Denver Convention - image MN. Public Radio
HT to Hillbuzz.org’s: “Bill Clinton Knew Obama was Ineligible” a simple blog post from a Chicago Blog with a twist – former Clinton Supporters, professional politico’s, who are often entertaining, however, bring issues to the forefront that are largely ignored by the media in general. That’s the question posed on Hillbuzz – why are the mainstream media not picking up on this story? The allegations made within the post, would, by any standards of what is known as journalism in America (Most often biased by politically progressive journalists (if one will), and their editors, and owners of the news organizations), be given barely a look, or most likely filed under “nothing to see here, move along” (See Howie Carr, WRKO – who’s line was co-opted for this post).
The post then refers on to a an article on World Net Daily:
“Hollywood Producer Heard Bill Clinton Say Obama Ineligible”, which for World Net Daily might not be considered an unusual headline, however, the video that supports the article, and the individuals involved in the documentary, compels one to ask a few questions as to the validity of the claims made and why, if these claims were true, Hillary Clinton is not now the President and Barack Obama is not now living in a cell block, along with what must have been conspirators at the highest levels of, for lack of a better phrase, organized political crime.
The documentary, under production by the group “We Will Not Be Silenced 2008” gives little indication that there is more to the documentary than voter fraud, which, is a part and parcel of American Politics, and has been for centuries (See or View: “Gangs of New York”.) It is in certain states, almost a given, that the dead will vote, bags of ballots will be tossed into the Harbor, and the Democrat incumbent will win the election. Those states that most often come to mind: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois , with Massachusetts and Illinois most likely vying for a tie for first place based on corruption, and arrests of high ranking state positions on a regular basis. However, to put that into a national context takes a bit of doing – the plan: Knock out Hillary Clinton to ensure that Barack Obama becomes President.
The documentary interview shown below is from World Net Daily – the producer is not a “nobody”, rather has obviously endangered her career by engaging in this project, given the overall progressive climate in “Hollywood” – or what some refer to as the “West Wing”. But what of the claims made in this video, ranging from death threats to a conspiracy to elect an individual who was not eligible to be president?
Watch the video; it is chilling in the implications of the raw, criminal power behind a major political party.
If these allegations are true, or even hold a drop of water, there are questions raised as to who else knew of the political machinations and criminal for that matter that would make one man president over an infinitely more qualified woman?
Who held the evidence? This would have taken place during the Bush Administrations watch – therefore, the Department of Justice under the Bush administration surely would have known something was afoot, and if so, to what end would they allow this to take place?
There was a call made to this blogger, in June of 2008, during the end of the primary that was gives some credence to the films premise. An acquaintance who worked for past presidents, of both parties, contacted this blog with the following: A relative married to an FBI agent in Albany New York had evidence that would end the campaign of Barack Obama, that they were dying to release this evidence but had been told to wait – in July, leading to the convention and the contact called again, this time to asked not to dig any deeper than I might have into the claims made – I insisted I did not as it was not as it was hearsay. They then suggested that the FBI in Albany would not release the documents, period. That certain members were under threat for the safety of their lives and families, and that this extended to the Governor’s office of New York and beyond to Chicago – I suggested that it would be best to drop it and not speak about anything further. At the time, it was filed under an acquaintance in a high profile and stressful job, just taking time out to have a bit of a breakdown.
Then memory was jogged when Hillbuzz released their post via Facebook. Of course, the aforementioned is still hearsay – but it does bring up questions, as to why, a couple considered the most powerful in the world, or the U.S. at the very least, would allow themselves to be bullied by their own party into not releasing information on a political opponent? We they also threatened or was it merely a non-story, designed to start those rumors that might call into question the legitimate qualifications of a presidential candidate and the opposition? Again, what of the GOP? Apparently not ostriches when it comes to running Presidential campaigns, they would have more political intelligence at that point, than perhaps any other campaign, given their access to the administration of George W. Bush, or at least one would think that the DOJ would have at least shared – that did not happen.
If true, it means that both political parties were involved and to what end? Obviously, on the Progressive side of the aisle, they would have a first duly elected Socialist to the highest office I the land. On the GOP side, they would have know that historically the Carter policies would not work, and they would win the House, possibly the Senate in the midterms (2010) and as the economy dissolved, and scandals broke left and right from 2010 to 2012, the GOP nominee of choice would handily be elected.
Very Machiavellian, could both groups, or even one of those groups really pull this off? To this mind, yes, on a local level, or state level for that matter (think Gangs of New York, updated to Gangs of Chicago, Gangs of Boston) but to go national, it would have to include that mindset in each and every state, and include: Gangs of Super delegates. It is intriguing to say the least, even if it came from WND, it does raise a few questions, especially when correlated with what one might have thought to be an overstressed and imaginative acquaintances paranoid delusions – one might owe that acquaintance an apology.
The most pressing question however is: Why now, and to what end? The polls (Gallup) taken over the course or four years, see the President as one-term, the angst regarding his policies can be felt in households containing voters from all political ideologies, and come November, it is more than likely that there will be a new President of these United States. To what end? If true, it would mean, as a feminist, that the party that purportedly is pro-woman, took the opportunity to oust the most qualified woman on U.S. soil, in the history of Presidential politics, and did so by intimidation and what one might characterizes as “mob-like” tactics. It would have broader implications of course, but that would have been the crux of it – also, there would not have been a question of a strong challenger in 2012 – as one can bet the house a Clinton President would have had strong approval ratings – as she is a centrist.
That is a few of the questions that arise.
However, it could all be chalked up to angry supporters of a political family that was, in every way, shape and form, robbed of the opportunity to compete via the option of the Super Delegates.
No comments:
Post a Comment