Thread: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???

WND EXCLUSIVE

Shocker: Seized Benghazi suspect worked for U.S.

Aligned with American interests against Gadhafi regime

Published: 13 hours ago



TEL AVIV – Benghazi suspect Ahmed Abu Khattallah, seized by the U.S. on Sunday, once served as a key conduit in an effort staged by the U.S. and Arab interests to aid insurgents fighting in Libya and later in Syria, according to informed Middle Eastern security officials.


It was not immediately clear whether Khattallah himself worked directly with the Americans or if he knew he was part of an effort that involved the U.S..
He did, however, receive funds for his participation in a nexus coordinated by the U.S., Saudis, Turkey and other Arab countries to recruit the fighters that ultimately toppled Muammar Gadhafi’s regime, the security officials said.

Khattallah, the senior leader of the Benghazi branch of the Ansar al-Sharia terrorist organization, was later instrumental in helping to recruit fighters from inside Libya to travel to Syria to aid in the insurgency targeting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in 2011, the officials said.
The actual truth about Benghazi is about to come out, and will stun the world. Order your autographed copy of “The REAL Benghazi Story” by Aaron Klein today!

Khattallah’s participation came to a grinding halt following the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attacks in which he is accused of participating.
Ansar al-Sharia was not yet declared a terrorist organization by the State Department during the period of Khatallah’s alleged work to help recruit Mideast rebels.

Prior to the Benghazi attacks, the U.S. relationship with those linked to Khattalah’s group was so comfortable that it was the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, an Ansar al-Sharia offshoot, that officially served as the armed quick reaction force within the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi.
In August 2013, almost one year after the assault, the U.S. filed the first criminal charges in the Benghazi attack against Khatallah, who was placed by witnesses at the scene during the initial assault on the U.S. Special Mission.

Khatallah’s al-Qaida-linked Ansar al-Sharia group advocates strict Shariah implementation and the creation of the Islamic Caliphate. The group infamously first took credit for the attack in social media while later claiming it “didn’t participate [in the attack] as a sole entity.” Witnesses told the media that not only did they see Ansar al-Sharia men laying siege to the compound, they also spotted vehicles brandishing Ansar al-Sharia’s logo at the scene.

Twelve days after Benghazi attacks, WND first reported on information from Middle Eastern security sources indicating both the U.S. mission and the nearby CIA annex in Benghazi served as a planning center for U.S. aid to rebels in the Middle East, with particular emphasis on shipping weapons to jihadists fighting the Assad regime in Syria.

Egyptian and other Middle Eastern sources said that just after the attacks that Ambassador Chris Stevens himself played a central role in recruiting and vetting jihadists and coordinating arms shipments to the gunmen fighting Assad’s regime in Syria.

Stevens’ original role in Libya was to serve as the main interlocutor between the Obama administration and the rebels based in Benghazi.

The news media churned out numerous reports of U.S.-coordinated arms being funneled to the anti-Gadhafi rebels starting at about the time Stevens arrived in Libya.

In December 2012, the New York Times reported the Obama administration “secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year.”

The article went on to say that the weapons and money from Qatar “strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Gadhafi government.” The weapons came from Qatar and not the United States, according to the Times.

In March 2011, Reuters exclusively reported Obama had signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for the rebel forces in Libya seeking to oust Gadhafi, quoting U.S. government officials.

Also that month, the U.K.-based Independent reported that “the Americans have asked Saudi Arabia if it can supply weapons to the rebels in Benghazi.”
The Times reported on March 25, 2013, that after the fall of Gadhafi, the U.S. began to coordinate aid, including weapons shipments, to the Syrian rebels in early 2012.

The Times reported in its March 2013 article the weapons airlifts to Syria began on a small scale and continued intermittently through the fall of 2012, expanding into a steady and much heavier flow later that year.

From offices at “secret locations,” American intelligence officers “helped the Arab governments shop for weapons … and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive,” according to the report.

The CIA declined to comment to the Times on the shipments to Syria or its role in them.



Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/shocker-s...Bo68ZGAQCdO.99

Clinton’s Caught Dodging Taxes they "Support"

By Onan Coca / 19 June 2014

Just like their liberal counterparts the Clinton’s can’t seem to find a tax that they don’t support. Also, just like many of their liberal counterparts, the Clinton’s can’t seem to help but be as hypocritical as possible, especially when it comes to taxes. The money guys over at Bloomberg news were recently digging through the Clinton families personal finances when they found some pretty astounding hypocrisy.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have long supported an estate tax to prevent the U.S. from being dominated by inherited wealth. That doesn’t mean they want to pay it.

To reduce the tax pinch, the Clintons are using financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth. These moves, common among multimillionaires, will help shield some of their estate from the tax that now tops out at 40 percent of assets upon death.
The Clintons created residence trusts in 2010 and shifted ownership of their New York house into them in 2011, according to federal financial disclosures and local property records.

Among the tax advantages of such trusts is that any appreciation in the house’s value can happen outside their taxable estate. The move could save the Clintons hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate taxes, said David Scott Sloan, a partner at Holland & Knight LLP in Boston.

Yes, the Clinton’s are among the 1% and yes, the Clintons embody exactly the type of people that the Occupy Wall Street freaks were pretending to hate. Except, most of the Occupy Wall Street protesters would have gladly voted for Hillary Clinton given the chance, (Yes, I am saying that the Occupy Wall Street losers were mostly hypocrites too.)

Don’t get too mad at the Clinton Hypocrisy… remember they were Dead Broke in 2000.



About the author: Onan Coca



Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in the Atlanta area with his wife, Leah. They have three children and enjoy the hectic pace of life in a young family. Onan and Leah are members of the Journey Church in Hiram, GA.
Website: http://www.eaglerising.com


Read more at http://eaglerising.com/6854/clintons...p7wB527XPgo.99


Can we say Hypocrite, good for "thee" but not for me!!!

BOOM: Hillary Clinton Gets Asked To Inscribe Book, “Hard Choices” to Chris Stevens (VIDEO)


Posted on June 19, 2014


When Jason Mattera approached Hillary Clinton to sign a copy of her book, Hard Choices, he asks her to make it out to ambassador Chris Stevens who was killed on the night of the Benghazi attacks. Watch what her reaction is via Daily Surge:
Jason Mattera caught up with Hillary Clinton at one of the DC stops on her book tour this week, and asked the former Secretary of State if she would mind signing a copy of Hard Choices… but with a twist. “If you could make it out to Christopher Stevens,” Mattera queried. “I think you knew him.”
Christopher Stevens, of course, was the U.S. ambassador to Libya who was murdered along with three other Americans on Clinton’s watch, when Jihadists attacked two U.S. outposts in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.
Read more at Daily Surge


video at link below

Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/06/boom-h...U8xoAU7Z0O5.99

University of Arkansas BANS Washington Free Beacon for Hillary Clinton articles http://wfb.tc/1pNaiCs #hillaryclinton #UniversityofArkansas 


Clinton Donor Bans Free Beacon From University of Arkansas Archives
Washington Free Beacon


A Hillary Clinton donor who serves as dean of the University of Arkansas libraries has banned the Washington Free Beacon from the school’s special collections archives, after the news outlet publish


Clinton Donor Bans Free Beacon From University of Arkansas Archives


Free Beacon reporter on double super-secret probation following yet another Clinton scoop
Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary enter the White House Feb. 27, 1979 / AP

BY: Alana Goodman
June 19, 2014 2:56 pm

A Hillary Clinton donor who serves as dean of the University of Arkansas libraries has banned the Washington Free Beacon from the school’s special collections archives, after the news outlet published revealing stories about Hillary Clinton based on documents available at the university library.

The ban came days after the Free Beacon ran a story about Clinton’s 1975 defense of a child rapist that drew from audio recordings available at the University of Arkansas library’s special collections archives.

However, the ban was not mentioned in a June 16 email to this reporter from Steve Voorhies, manager of media relations at the university.
“Congratulations on another fine mining expedition into the University of Arkansas Libraries archives,” Voorhies wrote.

“I appreciate you raising the profile of the University of Arkansas Libraries special collections,” Voorhies concluded his email, while asking for advanced notice prior to future stories.

“I expect there is more you will find in coming months,” he said.

Library dean Carolyn Henderson Allen informed editor-in-chief Matthew Continetti in a June 17 letter that the library had “officially suspended” the Free Beacon‘s research privileges.

The Free Beacon published the Hillary Papers, drawn from the archive of the late Clinton confidante Diane Blair, in February. Those papers are also housed in the special collections at the University of Arkansas.

“I am writing you to direct you and the Washington Beacon Press to cease and desist your ongoing violation of the intellectual property rights of the University of Arkansas with regard to your unauthorized publication of audio recordings obtained from the Roy Reed Collection,” wrote Allen.
According to Allen, who contributed $500 to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2007, the Free Beacon violated library rules by failing to submit a form requesting permission to publish the materials.

Allen called on the news outlet to “immediately remove the audio recordings of the Roy Reed Collection from your website” and “immediately return all audio recordings obtained from the Roy Reed Collection previously provided to you.”

The Clinton donor also expressed deep disappointment with the Free Beacon.

“I am very disappointed in your willful failure to comply with the policies of Special Collections,” she wrote.

“The University of Arkansas takes great pride in making materials, such as the Roy Reed Collection, available to researchers from around the world. The University, however, does not tolerate the blatant and willful disregard of its intellectual property rights and policies.”
Allen said the university would consider lifting the suspension if the Free Beacon complied with all its demands to remove the materials from its website.

Allen’s letter was also copied to University of Arkansas Chancellor G. David Gearhart, a former student of both Bill and Hillary Clinton at the law school.

According to the 1993 book Hillary Rodham Clinton: A First Lady for Our Time by Donnie Radcliffe, Gearhart recalled that as a professor, Hillary Clinton “expected a lot from us and gave a lot in return.”

Clinton gave Gearhart a C-plus in the class. “Frankly, I was glad to get it,” he told Radcliffe.

Gearhart’s brother, Van Gearhart, was the student coordinator for the legal aid clinic that Clinton was running when she defended the 41-year-old child rapist.

University spokesman Voorhies did not have immediate comment on the letter from the Clinton donor.

“The Clinton machine and its army of librarians won’t be able to keep us out of that archive,” Continetti said in a statement. “Who knows? We may be in there right now.”

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged 2016 Election, Hillary Clinton. Bookmark the permalink.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-donor-bans-free-beacon-from-university-of-arkansas-archives/

Well played, well played....this is too awesome! It made my day. Take THAT Killary!

-->Please support journalist Amanda Shea w/a page like<--


Epic Moment When Hillary Asked To Sign Her Book to Ambassador Stevens
universalfreepress.com

What Hillary Clinton thought would be a tour of praise and adoration for the new author, she s realizing quickly that she can t escape criticism from American s upset with her about her decisions, lies, and lack of action on important issues.

Hillary’s People

Column: The tapes they don’t want you to hear

The LIFE Picture Collection via Getty Images



BY: Matthew Continetti
June 20, 2014 5:00 am

The facts are these. In 1975, before she married Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham defended a child rapist in Arkansas court. She was not a public defender. No one ordered her to take the case. An ambitious young lawyer, she was asked by a friend if she would represent the accused, and she agreed. And her defense was successful. Attacking the credibility of the 12-year-old victim on the one hand, and questioning the chain of evidence on another, Clinton got a plea-bargain for her client. He served ten months in prison, and died in 1992. The victim, now 52, has had her life irrevocably altered—for the worse.

Sometime in the mid-1980s, for an Esquire profile of rising political stars, Hillary Clinton and her husband agreed to a series of interviews with the Arkansas journalist Roy Reed. Reed and Hillary Clinton discussed at some length her defense of the child rapist, and in the course of that discussion she bragged and laughed about the case, implied she had known her client was guilty, and said her “faith in polygraphs” was forever destroyed when she saw that her client had taken one and passed. Reed’s article was never published. His tapes of the interviews were later donated to the University of Arkansas. Where they remained, gathering dust.

Contrary to what you may have heard over the past week, Clinton’s successful defense of the rapist Thomas Alfred Taylor is not “old news.” On the contrary: For a CV that has been scrutinized so closely, references to the rape case in the public record have been rather thin. One of those references came from Clinton herself. In 2003, when she was a senator from New York, and published her first memoir, Living History, Clinton included a brief mention of the case, mainly as a way to take credit for Arkansas’ first rape crisis hotline. And in 2008, Glenn Thrush—then at Newsday—wrote a lengthy article on the subject.

Don’t remember it? There’s a reason. “My then-editor appended a meaningless intro to the story, delayed and buried it because, in his words, ‘It might have an impact,’” Thrush said in a June 15 tweet. Well, the editor got his way. It didn’t have an impact.

The occasion for Thrush’s tweet was “The Hillary Tapes” by the Washington Free Beacon’s Alana Goodman, who obtained the Reed interview and made it public for the first time. Goodman is careful to quote a source saying that, once an attorney takes on a client, he is required to provide that client with the strongest possible defense. Yet the same source also noted that Hillary Clinton’s subsequent narrative of the case—specifically, her implication to Reed that her client had been guilty all along—raised serious questions regarding attorney-client privilege. And Goodman also notes the casual and complacent manner in which Clinton treats such a morally fraught episode, as well as the “parallels between the tactics Clinton employed to defend Taylor and the tactics she, her husband, and their allies have used to defend themselves against accusations of wrongdoing over the course of their three decades in public life.” Pretty newsworthy, it seems to me.

And yet, looking over the treatment of Goodman’s scoop over the past week, I can’t help thinking that the reaction to “The Hillary Tapes” is just as newsworthy as the tapes themselves. That reaction has been decidedly mixed. Not long ago, in 2012, the Washington Post ran an extensive investigation into the “troubling incidents” of Mitt Romney’s prep-school days, whereupon the media devoted hour after hour to the all-important discussion of whether Willard M. Romney had been something of a child bully. Here, though, we have a newly unearthed recording of Hillary Clinton laughing out loud over her defense of a child rapist—and plenty of outlets have ignored the story altogether. The difference? As the Newsday editor said: It might have an impact.

No matter your view of Hillary Clinton, no matter your position on legal ethics, the recording of the Reed interview is news. It tells us something we did not already know. It tells us that, when her guard was down, Clinton found the whole disturbing incident a trifling and joking matter. And the fact that so many supposedly sophisticated and au courant journalists and writers have dismissed the story as nothing more than an attorney “doing her job” is, I think, equally disturbing. Dana Bash to the contrary notwithstanding, Hillary Clinton was not forced to take on Taylor as a client. It was her choice—and not, for her, a hard one. Certainly that complicates our understanding of the former first lady as an unrelenting defender and advocate of women and girls.

Let’s even concede that Clinton was just doing her job. What makes that job exempt from inquiry and skepticism and criticism? Yes, Mumia, Bill Ayers, and child rapists have the right to legal representation. But that does not give the lawyers who represent them the right—the entitlement—to public office. If it is fair to attack a candidate because he used to travel with the family dog on the roof of his car, because he may have forcibly subjected a fellow student to a haircut, then it is entirely fair, it is more than fair, to attack a candidate for defending the rapist of a 12-year-old girl, and for laughing about it a decade later.

Lawyers I can handle. Librarians? They’re trouble. I did not expect, when I arrived at the office Wednesday, to find a letter from a dean of the University of Arkansas sitting on my desk, informing me that the Free Beacon’s research privileges had been suspended because we failed to fill out a permission slip, that we were in violation of the University of Arkansas’ “intellectual property rights,” and demanding that we remove the audio of the Hillary tapes from our website. (Both the letter from Dean Allen and the response of the Free Beacon’s lawyers can be read below.)
Now, we obtained these materials without having to fill out any forms and without being provided a copy of any university “policy.” The university has yet to prove that it owns the copyright to the Reed audio. Nor has it explained how, exactly, that audio does not fall under fair use. And remember, too, that the institution protesting our story is a library—which ostensibly exists for the sole purpose of spreading knowledge and literacy and information and print and audio and visual media. That is what libraries are for, isn’t it?

Puzzling. Less puzzling, though, when I discovered that the author of the letter, Dean Carolyn Henderson Allen, was a donor to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, and that the University of Arkansas Chancellor, David Gearhart, is a former student of the Clintons, and that his brother, Van Gearhart, worked at the same legal aid clinic as Clinton at the time of the Taylor case.

One would expect the media to rally behind potential violations of a publication’s First Amendment rights—but, with the exception of this Politico story, the University of Arkansas’ attempt to suppress the Hillary tapes has yet to be the subject of extensive coverage.

I wonder why.

“Defending even a child rapist as vigorously as possible might be a plus if she were running to lead the American Bar Association,” wrote Melinda Henneberger, in one of the few stories about the Hillary tapes to appear in the mainstream media. “But wouldn’t her apparent willingness to attack a sixth-grader compromise a presidential run?”

Indeed, I think it would. Which is why the reaction to Alana Goodman’s scoop has been so muted and unusual. And why Hillary’s people must be wondering: What’s next?

Read the University of Arkansas letter and the Free Beacon response here:

University of Arkansas letter to WFB by Washington Free Beacon

http://www.scribd.com/doc/230496417/...-letter-to-WFB




Matthew Continetti Email Matthew | Full Bio | RSS
Matthew Continetti is the Editor in Chief of the Washington Free Beacon. He can be reached at comments@freebeacon.com.

http://freebeacon.com/columns/hillarys-people/

Clinton Donor Bans Free Beacon From University of Arkansas Archives

Free Beacon reporter on double super-secret probation following yet another Clinton scoop




Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary enter the White House Feb. 27, 1979 / AP


BY: Alana Goodman
June 19, 2014 2:56 pm

A Hillary Clinton donor who serves as dean of the University of Arkansas libraries has banned the Washington Free Beacon from the school’s special collections archives, after the news outlet published revealing stories about Hillary Clinton based on documents available at the university library.

The ban came days after the Free Beacon ran a story about Clinton’s 1975 defense of a child rapist that drew from audio recordings available at the University of Arkansas library’s special collections archives.

However, the ban was not mentioned in a June 16 email to this reporter from Steve Voorhies, manager of media relations at the university.

“Congratulations on another fine mining expedition into the University of Arkansas Libraries archives,” Voorhies wrote.

“I appreciate you raising the profile of the University of Arkansas Libraries special collections,” Voorhies concluded his email, while asking for advanced notice prior to future stories.

“I expect there is more you will find in coming months,” he said.

Library dean Carolyn Henderson Allen informed editor-in-chief Matthew Continetti in a June 17 letter that the library had “officially suspended” the Free Beacon‘s research privileges.

The Free Beacon published the Hillary Papers, drawn from the archive of the late Clinton confidante Diane Blair, in February. Those papers are also housed in the special collections at the University of Arkansas.

“I am writing you to direct you and the Washington Beacon Press to cease and desist your ongoing violation of the intellectual property rights of the University of Arkansas with regard to your unauthorized publication of audio recordings obtained from the Roy Reed Collection,” wrote Allen.
According to Allen, who contributed $500 to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2007, the Free Beacon violated library rules by failing to submit a form requesting permission to publish the materials.

Allen called on the news outlet to “immediately remove the audio recordings of the Roy Reed Collection from your website” and “immediately return all audio recordings obtained from the Roy Reed Collection previously provided to you.”

The Clinton donor also expressed deep disappointment with the Free Beacon.

“I am very disappointed in your willful failure to comply with the policies of Special Collections,” she wrote.

“The University of Arkansas takes great pride in making materials, such as the Roy Reed Collection, available to researchers from around the world. The University, however, does not tolerate the blatant and willful disregard of its intellectual property rights and policies.”

Allen said the university would consider lifting the suspension if the Free Beacon complied with all its demands to remove the materials from its website.

Allen’s letter was also copied to University of Arkansas Chancellor G. David Gearhart, a former student of both Bill and Hillary Clinton at the law school.

According to the 1993 book Hillary Rodham Clinton: A First Lady for Our Time by Donnie Radcliffe, Gearhart recalled that as a professor, Hillary Clinton “expected a lot from us and gave a lot in return.”

Clinton gave Gearhart a C-plus in the class. “Frankly, I was glad to get it,” he told Radcliffe.

Gearhart’s brother, Van Gearhart, was the student coordinator for the legal aid clinic that Clinton was running when she defended the 41-year-old child rapist.

“The Clinton machine and its army of librarians won’t be able to keep us out of that archive,” Continetti said in a statement. “Who knows? We may be in there right now.”

http://freebeacon.com/politics/clint...nsas-archives/

Rape Victim: Hillary Clinton 'Took Me Through Hell'

Guy Benson | Jun 20, 2014







A brutal-to-read follow up to my Monday post regarding newly-released audio of Hillary Clinton reflecting on a 1975 criminal case in which she represented an accused child rapist whom she believed to be guilty. On the tape, Mrs. Clinton recalls a catastrophic error made by the police, who lost DNA evidence implicating her client -- a man she'd taken on as a client as a favor to a local prosecutor. Court documents reveal that Clinton planned to aggressively assail the victim's credibility (the victim was a 12-year-old girl) by asserting that she had a history of making baseless allegations of assault, and by citing the opinion of an expert who argued that adolescent girls from broken homes are prone to "exaggerate" and "romanticize" sexual behavior." In doing so, Hillary embraced a smear-the-victim legal strategy while calling into question the veracity of an entire class of potential victims of sexual assault. Critics may wonder how these actions coincide with Clinton's carefully-cultivated image as a champion of women and girls. The audio recordings also capture Hillary chuckling about her efforts to exploit the local authorities' mistake, which ultimately allowed the her client to get off with an extremely reduced sentence on lesser charges. Her laughter over decidedly unfunny developments is strange and off-putting. A legal expert quoted by the Washington Free Beacon, which published the original story, also questioned the ethics of Clinton revealing the results of her client's polygraph test. She told a reporter that the accused man passed the test, which "forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs," a clear indication of Hillary's opinion of her client's guilt. The Free Beacon piece did not quote the victim extensively, saying that the woman (now 52 years old) declined an interview. She did, however, express a "deep and abiding hostility" toward Mrs. Clinton. In the wake of the audio's release, the Daily Beast managed to land an interview with the victim, who comes across as a troubled woman who remains furious with Hillary:

In a long, emotional interview with The Daily Beast, she accused Clinton of intentionally lying about her in court documents, going to extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape, and later callously acknowledging and laughing about her attackers’ guilt on the recordings. “Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” the victim said. The Daily Beast agreed to withhold her name out of concern for her privacy as a victim of sexual assault. The victim said if she saw Clinton today, she would call her out for what she sees as the hypocrisy of Clinton’s current campaign to fight for women’s rights compared to her actions regarding this rape case so long ago. “I would say [to Clinton], ‘You took a case of mine in ‘75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”

The victim, who remains anonymous, says Hillary's claims about her supposed history of unfounded accusations were flat-out lies:

The victim vigorously denied Clinton’s accusations and said there has never been any explanation of what Clinton was referring to in that affidavit. She claims she never accused anyone of attacking her before her rape. “I’ve never said that about anyone. I don’t know why she said that. I have never made false allegations. I know she was lying,” she said. “I definitely didn’t see older men. I don’t know why Hillary put that in there and it makes me plumb mad.”

She also says that listening to the clip of Hillary discussing her case reduced her to tears and compelled her to speak out at greater length:

For the victim, the tapes prove that while Clinton was arguing in the affidavit that the victim could have some culpability in her own attack, she actually believed that her client was guilty. Taylor’s light sentence was a miscarriage of justice, the victim said. “It’s proven fact, with all the tapes [now revealed], she lied like a dog on me. I think she was trying to do whatever she could do to make herself look good at the time…. She wanted it to look good, she didn’t care if those guys did it or not,” she said. “Them two guys should have got a lot longer time. I do not think justice was served at all.” “When I heard that tape I was pretty upset, I went back to the room and was talking to my two cousins and I cried a little bit. I ain’t gonna lie, some of this has got me pretty down,” she said. “But I thought to myself, ‘I’m going to stand up to her. I’m going to stand up for what I’ve got to stand up for, you know?”

Based on her experience, the woman does not believe Hillary Clinton would make for an honest president:

“I think she wants to be a role model being who she is, to look good, but I don’t think she’s a role model at all… If she had have been, she would have helped me at the time, being a 12-year-old girl who was raped by two guys,” she said. “She did that to look good and she told lies on that. How many other lies has she told to get where she’s at today? If she becomes president, is she gonna be telling the world the truth? No. She’s going to be telling lies out there, what the world wants to hear.” The victim is concerned that speaking out will make her a target for attacks but she no longer feels she is able to stay silent. “I’m a little scared of her… When this all comes about, I’m a little worried she might try to hurt me, I hope not,” she said. “They can lie all they want, say all they want, I know what’s true.”

This woman may sound like she has an axe to grind. Hell yes, she does. She was raped at a very young age, and Hillary Clinton called her a liar at the time, then laughed about how her guilty client eluded justice years later. According to the Daily Beast report, the victim was a virgin at the time of her attack, and has struggled with addiction and depression throughout her adult life. We'll see if the Clintons unleash their patented "nuts and sluts" attack machine against this victim of child rape. As I mentioned in my previous post, one news report dredged up this story in 2008 -- and its author alleges that it was "buried" at the time by his editor. The story said the victim did not hold any residual resentment against Mrs. Clinton (which she now hotly disputes), and it quoted a spokesman for Hillary dismissing the decades-old episode. Among other things, the spokesman claimed that Hillary was "appointed [to the case] by the Circuit Court of Washington County." Clinton's own account from the recorded interview, however, indicates that she chose to accept this particular client as a favor. Meanwhile, the Washington Free Beacon has been banned from the University of Arkansas' public library, where reporter Alana Goodman uncovered the Hillary audio. The wagons-circling, punitive decision was detailed in a letter from the dean of the libraries, who happens to be a Hillary Clinton donor. The WFB's attorney fired off an irate and incredulous reply (italics original, other emphasis mine):

Your claim that the Free Beacon violated “the University’sintellectual property rights” is equally perplexing. You have notdemonstrated or even asserted that the University owns the copyright inthese recordings. And even if the University did own the copyright, the Free Beacon’s use of the materials undoubtedly would constitute fair use. As you know, the newsworthiness of information greatly increases the likelihoodthat its republication constitutes fair use. It is hard to conceive ofinformation that is more newsworthy than details about the career one of thenation’s most prominent political figures. Additionally, when determining whether a publication constitutes fair use, courts heavily weigh the effect ofthe use on the market for the copyrighted work. To our knowledge, there is no “market” for this material, as university libraries do not typically sellaccess to their collections. Any reference to a claim based on your“intellectual property” is patently frivolous. Your demand that the Free Beacon “[i]mmediately remove the audio recordings” from its website is entirely unprecedented and particularly troubling. Post-publication restraints on the press are among the most pernicious intrusions on free speech. In addition to lacking absolutely anylegal basis, your demand flies in the face of the values that we expect from our libraries...Your purported suspension of my client’s journalists from your public library for the sole reason that they published audio recordings is similarly invalid and highly inappropriate. You cite absolutely no policy that gives you the unilateral authority to exclude journalists from a public library based on the content of the material that they publish. In addition to clearly violating the First Amendment, this suspension is contrary to Arkansas state law.

The library's disturbing and heavy-handed response has even earned the scorn of some left-leaning media figures:
michaelscherer ✔ @michaelscherer Follow
Me too. RT @samsteinhp: I'm on Team Free Beacon http://www.scribd.com/doc/230496643/WFB-reply-to-University-of-Arkansas …
7:05 AM - 20 Jun 2014
WFB reply to University of Arkansas

The Free Beacon replies to the decision by the University of Arkansas to revoke its research privileges at the University library.

Scribd @Scribd


What else might the Clintons and their acolytes prefer to stay buried?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybens...-hell-n1853879

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Hillary on 2nd Amendment: the “viewpoint” crime

Dees Illustration

Jon Rappoport
Activist Post

After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military. (William Burroughs, Grand Street no. 37, 1992)

Hillary on guns at a CNN town hall meeting:

“I’m well aware that this is a hot political subject. And again, I will speak out no matter what role I find myself in. [Ahem, a role like President, or President, or possibly even President.] But I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation. We cannot let a minority of people – and it’s, that’s what it is, it is a minority of people – hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”

I see. So the Viewpoint in favor of gun ownership is a hostile act. The Viewpoint itself terrorizes the population.

Could there be a more transparent illustration of political correctness?

Well, suppose I have the idiosyncratic viewpoint that schools who punish kids for bringing toy guns or bubble gum guns or poptart guns or screen saver guns to class—those schools should be shut down and the teachers and administrators who punish the kids should be shipped to a desert island?

Am I terrorizing the population?

Hillary then went on to talk about the need to protect students and teachers from someone who brings a gun to school and goes crazy and shoots people.

This is her example? This is her talking point? This is her rallying cry?

She doesn’t mention where the majority of gun violence takes place in America. She omits that. Where is it? The Southwest? Montana? The plains of Iowa? Key West? Maine? Are good old boys with pickups and shotguns mowing people down on back country roads? Is that the epicenter?

I guess the places where the most gun violence is occurring are on a special list, titled: “not responsible.”

No one shot anyone there.

Poverty pulled the triggers. Drugs pulled the triggers. Bad schools pulled the triggers. Broken homes pulled the triggers.

So those places don’t count—therefore, guess what? Statistically, we have very, very little human-caused gun violence in America. We’re in good shape. We don’t need new restrictions on gun ownership.

Issue solved. Case closed.

These unmentionable places where lots of people are shooting at other people and killing them and maiming them: they’re not real, they don’t exist. After all, Hillary didn’t talk about them.

But if those places did exist, where are the guns coming from? Gun shops? The guns are all legally obtained? Are they coming from the ATF? Oh, wait, no, that’s Mexico. The ATF runs guns into Mexico for the drug cartels. Fast&Furious, and before that, under Bush, Operation End-Around. But that op is also unmentionable now. It’s stale. Old news. Forget it.

And military weapons, including drones, in the hands of American soldiers and the CIA: that’s way off the reservation. It’s called war. Can’t discuss that as part of the gun problem.

Anything else we can’t discuss? How about the CIA program under Bill, when he was governor of Arkansas, whereby factories were secretly built in his home state to manufacture guns for the Contras? (See Terry Reed, John Cummings, “Compromised.”) Were those factories, at the very least, a viewpoint-crime? Seems like it.

Police forces all over America are now being outfitted with military hardware. Armored vehicles, heavy weapons. Does that constitute a hostile viewpoint-crime?

And then there’s this old (but true) saw: people like Hillary walk and drive around with formidable security. Those guards are packing heat. Somehow, it seems unfair. Regular citizens don’t have a cordon of protection. Hillary doesn’t need a gun because her people have them. So why should anyone listen to her pontificate on the subject of weapons?

She’s essentially saying, “See my guys? They’re armed. They’re always around. You people don’t have that. That’s tough. Too bad. Give up your guns.”

Appears to be another hostile viewpoint-crime. Very hostile, pretentious, and condescending.

Reminiscent of her recent comment that she and Bill were “broke” when they left the White House in 2000. Broke, except for a book contract and a house that magically appeared for them in posh Westchester County.

The Clintons are like that. They feel your pain, they’re just like you, except when they’re not, which is always.

But don’t worry. As the symbolic first woman President (every criticism against her will be labeled sexist), she’ll tirelessly work toward that shining day when all guns will be removed from the populace. The police and the military will have all the weapons. The streets will be quiet and serene.

She’ll come rolling into your town accompanied by a bevy of tanks.

Just to be on the safe side.

Jon Rappoport is the author of two explosive collections, The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

http://www.activistpost.com/2014/06/...int-crime.html