CIP School in the Phils.


on September 16, 2016

alvin in long sleeves





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.

And as Bloomberg Politics noted last week, a top 2008 Clinton campaign adviser wrote a 2007 memo that said Obama’s “roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited.”

“I cannot imagine,” the memo said, “America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and his values.”

Even Trump accused Clinton of promoting the “birther” issue in a tweet published Tuesday night:

First Lady Michelle Obama denounced the caustic campaign style of Donald Trump on Friday, demonstrating a new willingness to wade into this year’s messy political battle while arguing for a Hillary Clinton presidency.

While she didn’t mention Trump by name, the first lady aimed squarely at the Republican candidate’s most pronounced positions and tactics, including his persistent challenges to her husband’s eligibility for office.
“There were those who questioned and continue to question for the past eight years, up through this very day, whether my husband was even born in this country,” Obama said in Fairfax, Virginia, during her first solo campaign appearance for Clinton. “Well, during his time in office, I think Barack has answered those questions with the example he set by going high when they go low.”

So far, the election campaign season of 2015 and 2016 has been unprecedented for the Democratic Party. Before and after Hillary Clinton was crowned the Party’s presidential nominee, which was all but predicted more than a year ago, scandal after scandal has washed over the Party like larger and larger waves threatening to engulf the Titanic.

With each successive scandal, more and more voters are beginning to scratch their heads and wonder if we aren’t witnessing a slow-motion sinking of the party of FDR and JFK as reports of actions that would have been unthinkable a generation ago continue to surface.

At the same time, the two “grifters” that form the head of the Clinton “crime family” — as some better-known political writers refer to Bill and Hillary Clinton — have grown bolder and bolder and appear to know no such thing as shame as they seem to enjoy prosecutorial immunity under the administration of President Barack Obama and his Attorney General lackey, Loretta Lynch.

Reports that FBI Director James Comey has a much cozier relationship with the Clintons than has previously been reported continue to roll in — Comey was a board member and director of HSBC’s Swiss banking arm, which is tightly connected to the Clinton Foundation and has been guilty of money laundering for terrorist regimes and drug cartels in the past.

Billionaire HSBC clients such as Frank Giustra, Richard Caring and Jeffrey Epstein have donated more than $80 million to the Clinton Foundation, and it’s highly likely that anyone serving on the board of HSBC would want to preserve the reputations of the bank’s clients.

In multiple state primaries and caucuses, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) under former chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was accused of mishandling delegate voting and arranging for superdelegates for Hillary Clinton, allowing her to assemble a numerical superiority over her archival Bernie Sanders despite Sanders’ drawing much larger audiences at his rallies and much more social media attention.

Under Wasserman-Schultz, media coverage of Sanders in conjunction with Democratic events and debates was muted, and the debates themselves (of which there were only six, compared to 26 in 2008) mostly took place on Saturday nights when the smallest possible television audiences would be tuned in.

Charges of vote fraud surfaced and were substantiated in New York and California, the latter of which were proven in a Stanford University study after Bernie Sanders conceded the state and endorsed his former bitter enemy. Knowing what we know now, however, it may have been too early for Sanders to throw in the towel.

Documents obtained by Wikileaks (potentially from DNC staffer Seth Rich, who died mysteriously days after Wikileaks got ahold of them) showed that there were numerous misdeeds being engaged in at the DNC, from special dinners with Hillary Clinton for Party donors contributing $200,000 or more to cutting off the Sanders campaign’s access to valuable voter database files. Money that was supposed to be used by the DNC to support down-ticket candidates was illicitly channeled into fundraising efforts supporting Clinton.

All of this proves that the DNC violated its own charter by not being impartial regarding its candidates and arranging for Hillary to be the ultimate nominee. Emails published by Wikileaks show that strategizing for the latter was being actively carried out in March of 2015 — before Bernie Sanders had even declared his candidacy.

Because of all this, class-action lawsuits have now been filed against the DNC and Wasserman-Schultz, and voters have realized that the concerns of the DNC are far from the same as those of its constituents.

On top of all of this, of course, are the scandals Hillary Clinton herself is involved in. First, there was the Benghazi incident — in which Clinton was accused of lying about the reasons for the attack on the Libyan consulate in which American Ambassador Chris Stevens died, including lying directly to the relatives of the men who were killed in the raid.

Then there was the Clinton Foundation, which has been accused of massive corruption and of being a “slush fund” and “private piggy bank” for the Clintons via donations from shadowy contributors who sought political favors and tax write-offs.

The Clinton Foundation has been subject to multiple investigations, including by the FBI, but with FBI Director Comey’s links to the Clintons (see above), a special prosecutor would likely be needed to get to the bottom of all the wrongdoing involved in this decades-long case.

And finally, there was the email scandal, which refuses to die, having expanded through four different probes and now possibly incorporating a fifth whereby Clinton could be charged with lying to Congress. In this affair, Clinton, as Secretary of State, kept a private server at home to handle her classified government emails, in violation of federal law. Clinton admitted deleting more than 30,000 of the messages, and only now are the contents of many of them becoming public.

For the Democrats to proclaim that these are merely minor bureaucratic details instead of massive crimes is to completely de-legitimize the party which in the past has tarred and feathered Republicans for lesser or equal charges (think: Iran-Contra, the Valerie Plame Affair and Watergate; in the latter case, Hillary Clinton herself served as an aide to the Congressional committee working to impeach Republican former President Richard Nixon).

Americans who’ve been polled on the subject have an almost universal disgust for Clinton, giving her record-high unfavorability ratings for a Democrat of 67 percent or more, saying that as a candidate she is “untrustworthy” and “dishonest” in large numbers.

But less spoken about is Americans’ increasing disgust for the Democratic Party itself. If a populist candidate such as Bernie Sanders can be absolutely railroaded by the Party, which is shown to have favored the less popular and more connected candidate Clinton, then it’s all but clear that the powers behind the scenes running the Party are intractably corrupt.

Even if Americans “hold their nose” (as perennial leftist political critic Noam Chomsky has claimed he would) to vote for Hillary Clinton in this election, it may be with the ultimate conviction that this will be the last time a Democratic candidate manipulates them this way again.

As it is, Democratic turnout in this election is predicted to be at record low levels for the last 10 years, and more voters than ever are leaving the Democrats to register as independent voters rather than be held hostage to draconian party rules that force them to vote for candidates who are all but criminals.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: