Anthony, TX: Where TWO of Hillary's most problematic Filmmakers are locked up

The anti-Muhammad filmmaker - Nakoula Basseley Nakoula - currently sits in a federal prison in West Texas. So does another thorn in Hillary Clinton's side. His name is Peter Paul. That two of Hillary's most problematic individuals are locked up in the same federal prison is indeed worth a look, especially since Paul is serving a sentence that is longer than what the maximum sentence for his crime allows.

If there was a single individual who came out of the May 8th Benghazi hearings looking worse than anyone else, it was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The number two man in Libya - before Ambassador Christopher Stevens was murdered - was Gregory Hicks. During his testimony, all signs pointed to the buck needing to stop at the very top of the State Department. Cheryl Mills, Hillary's Chief of Staff, was named as a key player in what is to objective eyes, a cover-up.

Barack Obama doesn't exactly have a reputation for telling the truth but when he referred to Nakoula Basseley Nakoula - the alleged man behind the anti-Muhammad video blamed for the 9/11/12 Benghazi attacks - as a 'shadowy character', Obama said something truthful. While the alleged filmmaker's past associations should certainly raise more eyebrows than they currently do, Nakoula is seemingly being kept in the shadows by the administration.

No one could have accurately predicted that an obscure YouTube video Nakoula was involved in producing would be a central component in the cover-up of the Benghazi attacks. On September 14th, just three days after the attacks, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton allegedly told the father of Tyrone Woods - the former Navy SEAL who was murdered in Benghazi - that the man behind the film would be arrested and prosecuted.

If the administration wanted Nakoula locked up not just to send a message to the Muslim world but also to prevent his story from being told, it certainly picked an interesting place to put him.

In his article the Benghazi Patsy, Rich Lowry writes:

...Nakoula was brought in for questioning by five Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies at midnight, eventually arrested and held without bond, and finally thrown into jail for a year. He sits in La Tuna Federal Correctional Institution in Texas right now, even as the deceptive spin that blamed his video for the Benghazi attack looks more egregious by the day.

If Nakoula's story provides trouble for Hillary Clinton, the fact that he sits at the La Tuna facility is a case of history repeating itself, which leads to the story of Peter Paul, who isn't scheduled to be released until 2014. The problem with that release date is that the maximum sentence for Paul's crime is ten years and he was first jailed for his alleged white-collar crime in 2001 - in a Brazilian prison, with hardened criminals.

In short, in 2000, Paul was a Hollywood mogul and put on a star-studded gala for Bill and Hillary. For Bill, it was a farewell gala and for Hillary, it was a campaign fundraiser for her U.S. Senate run in New York. In exchange, Paul expected Bill to work for him and Stan Lee (of Marvel Comics fame) as a rainmaker for Paul's company after Bill left office.

Unfortunately for Paul, once the gala was over, the Clintons reneged and he was discarded. Unfortunately for the Clintons (Hillary in particular), Paul would not go quietly. In 2007, while under house arrest, he put together a team that produced a documentary entitled, Hillary Uncensored. For nearly a decade, he dogged Hillary relentlessly. The trailer for his video - seen below - caught fire just as Hillary's primary with Obama was heating up. In fact, in October of that year, the video was the number one viewed video on Google, garnering more than 50,000 views / day. Then, magically, on one Saturday in early November, it was no longer in Google's top 100 videos.

When all was said and done, the trailer got more than 10 Million views before Hillary conceded defeat to Obama for the nomination.

Here is that trailer:

Hillary on 9/11/12: 'Some' have blamed the anti-Muhammad video

Susan Rice has got to have steam shooting out of her ears... We now know that Hillary Clinton issued a statement on 9/11/12 that pointed to the anti-Muhammad video as being involved in the Benghazi attack:

"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet." - Hillary Clinton, 9/11/12

Question: What individuals made up the "some" to which Hillary was referring?

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice is not getting Hillary Clinton's job for one primary reason. She appeared on five Sunday talk shows five days after the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi and lied; she said the attack on our consulate was in response to the anti-Muhammad video. Despite not having any responsibility over the State Department, Rice is the one who was punished politically.

Secretary of State Clinton said she was ultimately responsible for the security of State Department personnel and commissioned the Accountability Review Board (ARB) to investigate. The ARB found no one accountable.

Now we have a great find, courtesy of Terrence Jeffrey at CNS News, who has pointed out that five days prior to Susan Rice blaming the video, Hillary did the same thing... on the day of the attacks and before the death of the two former Navy SEALs.

According to Jeffrey's research, this statement released by Hillary Clinton was published at 10:58pm EST on September 11th. Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed by mortar fire sometime between 11:16pm EST - 11:26pm EST.

Here is a screenshot of the statement posted to the State Department website before the deaths of Doherty and Woods (click on image to enlarge):

What has been Susan Rice's defense in the face of warranted criticism about her lies on September 16th? She said the following in an interview with NBC's Brian Williams that aired on December 13th:

When I went on the Sunday shows on September 16th, I was doing just as I have always done, providing the best information available to me and available to our government at the time. I was very careful to explain that the information was preliminary, and it could change. And yet I think it was misconstrued and contorted into something much more nefarious, it was never indeed the case nor my intention.

This begs a very important question: If Susan Rice conceded to Brian Williams on December 13th that the information she provided on September 16th was wrong, though based on "the best information available", what does Hillary have to say about her statement, released before two of the four dead Americans were murdered?

This means that Hillary went public with a lie five days before Rice told the same one and became persona non-grata as a result.

Clinton's comments in that September 11th statement are also relevant based on what she said in the days before Rice echoed them.

Here is Clinton on September 13th. Note how close she comes to blaming the video directly. Though she doesn't, the implication is absolutely there. When you couple that implication with what she said in the aforementioned 9/11/12 statement, it means Clinton was clearly on the same page Rice was on 9/16/12. Take note at the :37, the 3:09, and the 3:42 marks as Hillary's comments about the video are like three puzzle pieces that beg for the one found by Jeffrey to complete a four-piece jigsaw patch:



One day later, Clinton was on-hand at Andrews Air Force Base when the caskets holding four dead Americans arrived home. During her speech, she said the following:

This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.

Here is the video of Clinton at Andrews on 9/14/12 (13:15 mark):



It's also worth remembering that the father of one of those Navy SEALs told radio talk show host Lars Larson that upon meeting Hillary at the Andrews Air Force ceremony, was told by the Secretary of State that the maker of the anti-Muhammad film would be arrested and prosecuted.

Let's take a look at that one sentence from Hillary's 9/11/12 statement in particular:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.

Based on the fact that she made that statement before Doherty and Woods had been killed, are we not left to conclude that Hillary is part of the "some" to which she refers?

Perhaps she might be available to testify "some" day.

New York Times interview with Innocence of Muslims filmmaker raises question about YouTube channel

There was an interesting tidbit found toward the end of a 6-page article written by Serge Kovaleski and Brooks Barnes of the New York Times - in which the two reporters revealed the contents of their interview with Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man behind the Innocence of Muslims video. Until now, it was only assumed that the Sam Bacile YouTube channel belonged to the filmmaker.

According to Kovaleski and Barnes, the person responsible for creating and maintaining the YouTube account is Nakoula's twenty one year-old son, Abanob Nakoula:

On July 2, the trailer was posted on YouTube by someone using the name Sam Bacile. Mr. Nakoula’s son said he was the one who did it.

“My dad is not tech-savvy at all, and does not know how to work social media,” Abanob Nakoula said. “So he asked me to take the initiative to spread the word, and I did my best.”

He explained that using the name Sam Bacile, he created a Facebook account before production started and then the YouTube account.

Now that we know who is responsible for the YouTube account, how about some questions about content?

This screenshot was captured on October 5, 2012 (converted from tiff to jpeg on November 28th). At the time, it was the only video found under the channel's "Likes" tab. The video consists of an interview between a woman from the U.K. who had converted to Islam and an Arabic-speaking man. The woman is effusive in her praise of Islam. The video has since disappeared from the Sam Bacile YouTube account:

Here is a screenshot of the YouTube page today. Note, there are no more "Likes" on the page (the video is no longer posted):

This is the video once liked by who is now believed to be Abanob, based on what can logically be deduced from the New York Times piece:

The question it'd be nice to know the answer to is:

Why would someone so anti-Islam "like" a very pro-Islam video?

A logical follow-up question would be:

What made Abanob "un-Like" the video?

Questions about this YouTube account have been raised before.

Time to revisit Hillary Clinton's September 13th speech?

While the talking points recited by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on September 16th continues to be a point of interest, confusion, and conflicting accounts, looking at the words uttered by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton three days earlier might shed some light on how those talking points got altered. The conflicting stories between former CIA Director David Petraeus and DNI Director James Clapper seem to fall within that 9/13 - 9/16 window.

Again, let's look at the November 20th report from CBS, which reported that the entity responsible for taking the reference to al-Qaeda out of the talking points was the Department of National Intelligence (DNI):

An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."

The head of the DNI is James Clapper, an Obama appointee. He ultimately did review the points, before they were given to Ambassador Rice and members of the House intelligence committee on Sept. 14. They were compiled the day before.

According to that report, Clapper's office made the changes between September 13th and when they were given to Rice on September 14th. As an aside, on November 15th, CBS reported that Rice was given the talking points on September 15th, not the 14th.

After Petraeus gave closed-door testimony to the House Intelligence committee on November 16th, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) told reporters that Petraeus said he didn't know who altered the talking points and that the former CIA Director testified that he knew the attack was an act of terror all along. One day prior to Petraeus' November 16th testimony, his immediate boss (Clapper) gave testimony that would ultimately be completely contradicted, which caused even more problems for both Petraeus and Clapper.

Via Catherine Herridge of Fox News:

Fox News was told by one source that Clapper, in a classified session on Thursday, was “unequivocal, and without hesitation insisted the changes were made outside the Intelligence community. He didn’t know who but was emphatic he would find out."

A day later, former CIA Director David Petraeus also stated changes were made after his agency drafted the talking points, adding no one imagined how changing the language would end up being such a big deal.

But late Monday night, Clapper spokesman Shawn Turner said in a series of briefings for reporters that the intelligence community was solely responsible for “substantive” changes to the talking points, which were finalized on Sept. 15 – four days after the attack and one day before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s controversial appearance on five Sunday talk shows, when she described the attack as spontaneous violence that grew out of protests of an anti-Islam film.

Uh, but Petraeus said on November 16th that he didn't know who altered the talking points. If that's true, Clapper's office has got to be lying now. Either Clapper's November 15th testimony jibes with Petraeus' November 16th testimony or Petraeus' November 16th testimony doesn't jibe with what Clapper's office is saying now. If we're to believe Clapper's spokesman's November 19th comments, Petraeus may have committed perjury at a time when he should have come clean.

Now, let's go back to September 13th. This is the date given by CBS in a report published one day after Clapper's spokesman said his boss' office is where the talking points were altered. This means that Clapper's office was altering the talking points on the same day that Hillary Clinton was giving this speech.

Relevant portions transcribed below video.



At the :37 mark:

I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. Let me state very clearly, and I hope it is obvious, that the United States government had nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation and as you know, we are home to people of ALL religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims and we have the greatest respect for people of faith. To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose; to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.

Then, at the 3:09 mark, after ripping the video, Hillary seems to imply it was responsible for violence:

It is especially wrong for violence to be directed against diplomatic missions. These are places whose very purpose is peaceful, to promote better understanding across countries and cultures. All governments have a responsibility to protect those spaces and people.

At the 3:42 mark, Hillary seems to be laying the groundwork for the talking points that Susan Rice issued on 9/16. Remember, CBS reported that Clapper's office was compiling the final talking points at approximately the same time that Hillary was giving this speech. After what she said up to this point, it is easy to see how she is making the implication that the video is responsible for the Benghazi attack:

Now I know it is hard for some people to understand why the United States cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day. Now I would note that in today's world with today's technologies that is impossible but even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression which is enshrined in our constitution and our law and we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be.

Of course, keep in mind that Charles Woods, the father of one of the four murdered Americans, told Lars Larson that Hillary told him on 9/14 (one day after the aforementioned speech and on the same day that Rice was given her talking points), that the anti-Muhammad video's filmmaker would be arrested and prosecuted.

It's also important to remember that shortly after Petraeus' testimony on November 16th, Rep. King told reporters the following about how the final talking points emerged. According to Petraeus, through King:

it went through a long process involving many agencies, to include the Department of Justice, to include the State Department.

In conclusion, if both the November 20th CBS report and King's claim that the State Department was involved in altering the talking points that were given to Susan Rice on 9/14, it means that the State Department was likely altering those talking points on the same day that Hillary Clinton gave a speech which unequivocally laid the foundation for talking points which ultimately said the video was responsible for the attack in Benghazi.

I refer you to Rule #8 from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

The events were the attack and the video. Blaming the video instead of al-Qaeda would serve two purposes. One, it would protect the administration's narrative that al-Qaeda was on the run. Two, it would chill freedom of speech and first amendment rights through tacit intimidation that said, if you criticize Islam, there could be consequences.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are very learned students of Saul Alinsky.

How is CNN different from makers of anti-Muhammad video?

On September 11, 2012 attacks on U.S. embassies took place all across the Middle East, most notably in Cairo. Attackers blamed an anti-Muhammad video called Innocence of Muslims. Magically, those who laid siege were not responsible for their own actions. There was evidence of foul play in the video's production as well. In post-production editing, the words Muslims found most incendiary appeared to be dubbed in; the actors said they were duped.

We have now learned that CNN is responsible for putting forth egregious propaganda... on video. It is the kind of propaganda that, in the past, has been blamed for - you guessed it - violence in the Middle East. Like in the year 2000, it involves the exploitation of a young Palestinian boy.

In 2000, a Palestinian cameraman who was a stringer for France 2 shot what he claimed was news footage (rushes) at Netzarim Junction in the Gaza Strip. When Talal Abu Rahman sent the rushes to Charles Enderlin at France 2, he claimed to have footage of the now infamous shooting death of a young Palestinian boy named Muhamad al-Dura at the hands of Israeli forces. This news report was pointed to as being responsible for the second intifada; mass riots ensued.

Osama bin Laden pointed to the death of al-Dura as a motivating factor in the 9/11 attacks; Daniel Pearl's murderers blamed the al-Dura shooting for Pearl's murder; and two weeks after al-Dura was allegedly gunned down by Israelis, two Israeli soldiers were literally torn to pieces by an angry Palestinian mob in Ramallah.

There was one problem. The world was set on fire over a lie. The rushes captured nothing more than manufactured scenes that were passed off as news.

Boston University professor Richard Landes had a chance encounter with Enderlin in 2003 when the latter thought he had an ally in Landes after the professor was introduced to Enderlin by the Israeli ambassador to France. Upon visiting the France 2 studios, Landes was exposed to staged scene after staged scene. In 2006, he produced the first of three documentaries that would reveal the truth about a conspiratorial culture he identified as "Pallywood".

Fast forward to 2012. As Israel bears down on Gaza after having to endure rocket attack after rocket attack, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Egypt's Prime Minister Hisham Kandil attempted to capture some of the al-Dura / Pallywood glory while Kandil was visiting Gaza. Photos of the two men holding and kissing a dead Palestinian child appeared to lay the foundation for the narrative that Israel's attacks on Gaza was responsible.

It wasn't. The child was killed by Hamas, the same group led by Haniyeh, who was all too willing to exploit the young boy over a lie. In hindsight, perhaps the propagandists wish they hadn't included Kandil in the photos; there were no Israeli rockets fired into Gaza while he was there.

CNN's Sara Sidner, in much the same way that Charles Enderlin did in 2000, produced a news report that echoed the narrative of Hamas, saying that the boy's death was the result of Israeli rocket fire. You can watch that report here.

This report from Sidner is an outright lie, Pallywood style:



That is not the only example either. Earlier, the BBC had captured video of a large man, allegedly injured, being carried away by several Palestinians. Moments later, the man was walking around as if nothing happened. During a CNN report anchored by Anderson Cooper, the footage of the man being carried away, as if injured, was used to portray Palestinian suffering at the hands of Israelis.

In a word - fraudulent.

CNN is now officially complicit in Pallywood. If, as many on the left believe, a video can spawn outrage in the Middle East, then CNN is using fraudulent footage of a boy's death that could lead to the same outcome.

Can someone please explain how CNN, Anderson Cooper, and Sara Sidner are any different from the makers of Innocence of Muslims?

If you haven't seen the 2006 Pallywood documentary, please have a look:

Petraeus: Administration's knowledge of affair did not influence my testimony

The headlines that seem to be dominating the news relative to the closed-door testimony of former CIA Director David Petraeus in front of House and Senate Intelligence Committees was that someone changed the CIA's talking points before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice recited them on five Sunday talk shows on September 16th. Petraeus reportedly told the committees that he knew the attack was coordinated and not the result of a spontaneous reaction to a video.

That is indeed significant but there is another aspect of Petraeus' testimony that warrants further investigation. When House Intelligence committee member, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) was asked if the extramarital affair Petraeus engaged in with biographer Paula Broadwell in any way influenced the former CIA Director's testimony on September 14th, King volunteered that Petraeus said that it did not.

Hopefully, the next question that was asked was:

Did you know at the time of your September 14th testimony that the administration knew about your extramarital affair?

If that question was asked, what was the answer?

Via MRC (at the 1:15 mark):



Lt. Col. Ralph Peters indicated on November 9th that he thought the administration likely held the affair over Petraeus' head, as did Charles Krauthammer on November 13th. If such a thing were true, it would constitute blackmail and be a much more serious infraction by the White House than altering the CIA talking points from September 14th by taking out any reference to al-Qaeda and putting in that line about the attack being caused by the anti-Muhammad video.

While it is a bit of a bombshell for Petraeus to admit that he knew the 9/11/12 attack was terrorism and not related to a video, he almost had to concede that ground based on what had come out so far. Not doing so would have opened up an entirely new can of worms.

Also take note of what King said in the above video when Petraeus allegedly insisted that he knew it was terrorism all along. King made reference to the fact that Petraeus clearly left a different impression during his September 14th testimony. Here is the opening of an ABC news report at the time:

The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intel committee, said Petraeus laid out “a chronological order exactly what we felt happened, how it happened, and where we’re going in the future.”

“In the Benghazi area, in the beginning we feel that it was spontaneous – the protest- because it went on for two or three hours, which is very relevant because if it was something that was planned, then they could have come and attacked right away,” Ruppersberger, D-Md., said following the hour-long briefing by Petraeus. “At this point it looks as if there was a spontaneous situation that occurred and that as a result of that, the extreme groups that were probably connected to al Qaeda took advantage of that situation and then the attack started.”

This is important because it looks like Petraeus wants to say he didn't say what he said. King made reference to that but doesn't underscore it enough. On September 14th, Petraeus seemed to allege that the attack began as a spontaneous reaction which drew in al-Qaeda elements. On November 16th, he seemed to say the attack was coordinated and planned in advance by al-Qaeda elements.

Let's go back to that October 26th speech by Paula Broadwell, Petraeus' mistress. In it, she said two things of import relative to the discrepancies between how Petraeus testified on September 14th and November 16th. First, at the 1:30 mark, Broadwell asserts that Petraeus knew what was going on within twenty-four hours of the attack in Benghazi and then says everyone thought that all of the protests were the result of the video.



So which is it? Did Petraeus know within 24 hours of the attack that it was an act of terrorism that had nothing to do with the video or did he think it was the result of the video? Inconsistencies between what he said on September 14th and November 16th absolutely exist. That is what makes this an issue of Petraeus' credibility.

That is why questions about the possibility that Petraeus' September 14th testimony being unduly influenced by an administration that knew of his extramarital affair should continue to be asked.

That would mean blackmail, which would be an impeachable offense. This debate about whether the talking points were changed, though important, pales by comparison.

Hillary Clinton, Videos, and Political Prisoners

When the father of Tyrone Woods (Charles Woods) called in to the Lars Larson show on October 23rd, what he told the host indicates that Hillary Clinton is willing to incarcerate people for political reasons. In the case Woods was referring to, he said Hillary pledged to prosecute the man behind the anti-Muhammad video, Innocence of Muslims. Such a reality would indicate a willingness on the part of the Secretary of State to jail people as political prisoners in America.

This is no small matter... and it's also not unprecedented for Hillary Clinton.

In the year 2000, a Hollywood mogul named Peter Paul put on a star-studded gala for both Bill and Hillary; it consisted of Hollywood's A-list at the time. Whoopi Goldberg, Sugar Ray, Paul Anka, Cher, Toni Braxton, and others took the stage. Nicholas Cage, Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt, John Travolta, and other celebrities were in attendance; it went off without a hitch in a very short period of time (six weeks) and cost Paul over $1.2 Million. It was meant to be a farewell to Bill and a fundraiser for Hillary's Senate campaign.

What was Paul expecting in return? Well, in 1998, he formed a company with Stan Lee (of Marvel Comics fame) called Stan Lee Media (SLM), Inc. Paul wanted Bill to work to work for SLM as a rainmaker after leaving office.

Though Paul upheld his end of the deal, the Clintons never did. Shortly after the Gala, Clinton machine apparatchiks went to work. Paul was smeared and his largest investor was wooed away from him by a man named Jim Levin, who had served as an intermediary between the president and Paul in the run-up to the gala. Soon thereafter, SLM went bankrupt and the Clintons could say they didn't renege because there was no longer a Stan Lee Media to work for.

In a last ditch effort to save the company, Paul did manipulate the stock price in hopes of preventing the destruction of his company. It didn't work and he was charged with a Securities and Exchange Commission violation - which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison - and arrested while in Brazil, tending to one of his other companies in 2001.

Before being detained, Paul gave an explosive interview to ABC's Brian Ross that was incredibly damaging to the Clintons, though some of the more explosive claims were edited out at the last minute. He named both Bill and Hillary in a lawsuit and would cause them fits for years. Paul had videos, documents, witnesses, letters from both Bill and Hillary, and a mountain of other evidence that was incredibly damaging to the president and first lady. In fact, David Rosen - Hillary's campaign finance director - was indicted, in large part because of Paul's evidence and subsequent public pressure. Though Rosen was ultimately acquitted, the extent to which powerful people had to go in order to get that acquittal stunk of corruption and cover-up.

Paul was actually jailed for two years in Brazil, spent more time in a Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center, and then four years under house arrest. Paul claims that in 2009, he accepted a plea deal that would include those four years counting as time served. When he surrendered in November of 2009, Paul was informed that the deal reached between himself and the U.S. Attorney was essentially withdrawn and his credit for time served under house arrest was not awarded.

This reality falls in the lap of Attorney General Eric Holder.

In essence, Peter Paul has become a political prisoner; the U.S. Government has reneged on a plea deal; and Paul is serving more than the maximum sentence for his crime.

Holder and the Clintons have a long history together as well (think Marc Rich pardon, the release of Weather Underground terrorists Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg, and the freeing of FALN terrorists).

There are two separate dynamics when it comes to Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (Mark Basseley Yousef), the man behind the anti-Muhammad video. First, by all accounts, he has an extremely checkered history and real questions about his relationship with a man named Eiad Salameh still need to be answered, as do questions about his real motivations behind producing the film. Americans deserve to know the truth about those motivations as well as his associations.

The second dynamic is Hillary's alleged willingness to jail someone for political reasons. If she told Charles Woods what he alleges she told him, it means that she is willing to imprison someone for doing something that is not against the law.

In Unsung Davids, the very first chapter is about Peter Paul's battle with Hillary Clinton. After reading about how much damage he did to the Clintons, to include a documentary that went viral in late 2007 - when Hillary was beginning her long campaign fight with Barack Obama - it should become clear why Paul is a political prisoner in America.

UNSUNG DAVIDS: Ten Men who Battled Goliath without Glory

Here is the video that did legitimate damage to Hillary Clinton in 2007 and likely contributed to Peter Paul becoming a political prisoner. Paul is not scheduled for release until 2014, four years after the maximum sentence for the crime he was charged with.

Issa points finger directly at Obama in letter over Benghazi-gate

There was quite an interesting mass e-mail waiting for me this morning from Darrell Issa's press secretary. In a letter sent to Barack Obama by Oversight Committee chairman Issa and Committee member, Jason Chaffetz, the two Republicans are asking some very hard questions and demanding answers about Benghazi-gate. The implied charge is made fairly early on in the letter that the poor security which existed in Libya was the result of a policy of "normalization" in that country. If true, that would make the deaths of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya along with three other Americans, the likely result of political decisions.

From the very first paragraph of the letter, via Oversight:

Information supplied to the committee by senior officials demonstrates that not only did the administration repeatedly reject requests for increased security despite escalating violence, but it also systematically decreased existing security to dangerous and ineffective levels. We have been told repeatedly that the administration did this to effectuate a policy of "normalization" in Libya after the conclusion of its civil war. These actions not only resulted in extreme vulnerability, but also undermined Ambassador Stevens and the diplomatic mission.

Issa also called Obama on the fact that several members of his administration - to include Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and White House press secretary Jay Carney - repeatedly blamed the attack on Innocence of Muslims, an anti-Muhammad video. After factoring in the matter of the video, one can easily connect the dots of plausibility:

...if administration officials indeed reviewed security reports on a daily basis, they would have seen the overwhelming evidence prior to the 9/11 attack that terrorists were actively targeting westerners in Benghazi.

This introduces three variables into the investigation.

1. Normalization: The administration wanted to 'normalize' Libya after Gadhafi was overthrown, a noble goal to be sure but not one that should be wished into existence for political reasons, especially if an opposite reality is the one that exists. 'Normalization' may just be the key to unlocking much of what happened.
2. Implausible Deniability: Between the number of catalogued security incidents and the repeated requests for beefed up security, there were far too many red flags for decision-makers in the administration to be able to claim plausible deniability if something happened. Something did happen; four Americans were murdered (not reading reports and memos was an excuse given by Eric Holder in the Fast and Furious investigation).
3. The Video: If normalization was the goal and denial of security was the means, we're talking major scandal in the wake of four dead Americans. It would point to a political agenda trumping human life (Fast and Furious was about furthering the gun control agenda by putting guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels that resulted in ending many human lives). That's before we get to any sort of cover-up. A consequence (unintended or otherwise) of blaming the video, was that Obama administration actually aligned itself with the Islamists, who pointed to the video as a reason to criminalize any speech critical of Islam. In blaming the video, the Obama administration was facilitating attacks on the first amendment.

Back to the letter...

According to Assistant Regional Security Officer David Oliveira - who was stationed in Benghazi from June 2, 2012, to July 5, 2012 - "they (local guard force) felt that the U.S. was a target and they felt that they didn't want to work overnight... A Facebook posting also called for the assassination of Ambassador Stevens and provided details of his jogging route in Tripoli along with his picture.

Issa points to an unfathomable event in Benghazi that was met with an unfathomable non-response from Washington, smack dab in the middle of that June 2 - July 5 window:

...al Qaeda organized a rally in Benghazi. On or about June 10, 2012, fighters from Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Mali paraded through the streets with weapons and black flags... These events were the subject of an early July country team meeting where Ambassador Stevens and others expressed their concerns about these develeopments and the need for increased security. According to one participant, this "fell like a dead fish on the table" because everyone, including Ambassador Stevens, knew that the Embassy lacked support from Washington, D.C., and could do little about it.

Also within that time frame - on June 6th, in the middle of the night - a white truck approached the compound, an Islamist got out of the truck, and placed a bomb along the consulate's perimeter wall. Check out the first 17 of these 45 photos provided by sent as attachments to the letter. The first three show the white truck approaching the front gate. Photos 4-17 show the hole that was blown through the perimeter wall.

With that as a backdrop, check out this excerpt from Issa's October 19th letter (page 6):

In August 2012, Ambassador Stevens continued to warn Main State of a "security vacuum" being exploited by independent actors. He further noted that "Islamist extremists are active." His warnings culminated with two cables in September 2012 in which he notified the State Department that Benghazi had entered a state of "maximum alert" and that Islamist influence was expanding in Derna. His last notification came on September 11, 2012, the day he was assassinated.

Ranking member of the Oversight Committee, while accusing Issa of playing election year politics with the Benghazi attack, apparently decided to engage in some politicizing of his own. Before I get into the "normalization" aspect of Issa's letter, take a look at what Cummings said at the October 10th hearing. Also take note of the, 'never let a crisis go to waste' dynamic at work here. Cummings alleges that Republicans in the House cut funding for security. Cummings likely saw a two-birds-with-one-stone opportunity.

By pointing to Republicans, he attempted to shift blame for Stevens' murder away from the administration and toward Issa's Party. He was also shamelessly attempting to lay the ground work for increased funding as a direct result of this attack.



There are a few problems for Cummings at this point. First, according to Issa's letter (page 8), the cost of the Security Support Team (SST) in question was absorbed by the Defense Department, not the State Department. Second, the State Department actually increased "danger pay" for its employees in Libya while removing security. Third, Charlene Lamb, the woman who withheld security from Benghazi, testified at the October 10th hearing that lack of funding had nothing to do with the withdrawal of security:



Also on page 8 of Issa's letter, he writes the following:

According to witnesses and documents received by the Committee, the administration made a policy decision to place Libya into a "normalized" country status as quickly as possible. The normalization process... appeared to have been aimed at conveying the impression that the situation in Libya was getting better, not worse.

Before concluding the letter, Issa points a finger directly at the White House National Security Council (NSC), which is chaired by the President of the United States. In essence, Issa is pointing the finger of culpability directly at Obama himself:

These critical foreign policy decisions are not made by low or mid-level career officials - they are typically made through a structured and well-reasoned process that includes the National Security Council at the White House. The ultimate responsibility rests with you as the President of the United States.

To underscore this point, check out this excerpt from Whitehouse.gov about who makes up the NSC and who attends the meetings:

The NSC is chaired by the President. Its regular attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) are the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the statutory military advisor to the Council, and the Director of National Intelligence is the intelligence advisor. The Chief of Staff to the President, Counsel to the President, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy are invited to attend any NSC meeting. The Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget are invited to attend meetings pertaining to their responsibilities. The heads of other executive departments and agencies, as well as other senior officials, are invited to attend meetings of the NSC when appropriate.

I've posted this exchange between Lamb and Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL) from the October 10th hearing before but it's provides a look into how the Oversight Committee might best proceed in the context of determining the level of culpability the NSC might have had in the deaths. The relevant portion comes in the first minute. Note how Adams asks Lamb if the latter had sole discretion to deny security to the consulate. After being told "no", Lamb is asked to provide names of those who did. She coughs up two names at the 1:00 mark.



If the NSC is responsible, those two men didn't have sole discretion either. Both should be placed under oath and be made to tell the committee if they acted on their own or were instructed to refuse security requests.

Elijah Cummings, member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) caucus (code for Communists) will not be happy:

Cummings: Running interference for Obama is tough business

Does Obama have an anti-Osama film problem?

In the days after the Benghazi attack, the Obama administration pointed to the anti-Muhammad video, Innocence of Muslims as the cause. They also repeated another mantra, that the U.S. Government had nothing to do with the making of the video (a puzzling assertion).

The administration is still waffling on whether or not the anti-Muhammad film had a hand in the attack on the Benghazi consulate. They're already on record as having referred to the video as 'disgusting' and 'reprehensible', regardless of whether they settle on the video's ability to incite riots and murderous attacks. Therefore, regardless of whether Barack, Hillary, et. al. finally and conclusively decide that the attack was planned and coordinated, they still must believe that a movie could theoretically cause such an attack. Here we are more than a month later and they're still not sure.

Enter National Geographic, which is apparently being inundated with threats because of a film being distributed by major Obama supporter Harvey Weinstein, that is set to air on that channel two days before the election.

Via New York Post:

The National Geographic Channel has beefed up security at its Washington headquarters after being “bombarded” by threats over its upcoming film, “SEAL Team Six: The Raid on Osama Bin Laden,” a source said yesterday.

The movie has prompted enough threats from what one source called “Muslim extremist groups” that the network felt it had to take the action.

“They have been bombarded with phone calls and blog posts, saying that anyone airing a film like this is asking for trouble,” the source added.

“Enough threats have come in that the network is on higher security alert. They have a huge public building, with a museum and 1,600 people working.”

The network was already receiving sharp criticism for its decision to debut the feature-length TV movie Nov. 4, two days before the presidential election. Critics charged the timing was calculated to boost President Obama’s campaign.

This is quite the conundrum for the administration. If violence follows the airing of the Osama movie, will said movie also be 'reprehensible' and 'disgusting'? Will the onus then be placed squarely on the rioters? If yes, then such an onus should be placed squarely on the attackers in Benghazi and the administration should stop waffling.

The Daily Mail adds this:

A spokesperson for National Geographic told the Post that the channel will air the film 'no matter what,' adding, 'we are big believers in the First Amendment.'

The movie will be available on Netflix streaming 24 hours after its TV premiere.

So, the cable channel that is airing the pro-Obama / anti-Osama film two days before the election, which is being distributed a huge Obama donor, is citing its first amendment right to air the movie, regardless of whom it offends. Presumably, so is Weinstein. In this case, threats are preceding the airing of the movie. If we are to believe the Obama administration when it comes to Benghazi, either it didn't know about any such threats to attack over Innocence of Muslims or it ignored them.

Nat Geo CEO David Lyle insists that the timing of the pro-Obama / anti-Osama film has nothing to do with politics, despite Weinstein's status as a huge Obama donor.

Yeah, right.

Concerns on the right are not about whether Weinstein or Nat Geo has the first amendment right to distribute / air the film. They do. The concerns are about politicizing an event that could have national security implications. SEAL Team Six prefers needs to operate under the radar for a reason.

Responsibility for any riots or violence that takes place will fall solely on the perpetrators but for the Obama administration to be consistent, it will have to waffle on such a conclusion.

That said, any attempt by the administration to assert that the U.S. Government had nothing to do with this film will be a much tougher sell given the content, the timing, and relationship of the distributor to the President.

Ben Affleck: Conflict of Interest at State Department?

It's been all but confirmed that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was a premeditated attack by al-Qaeda, which is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. As Frank Gaffney points out, the lack of security at the consulate, coupled with the false narrative of the Obama administration / State Department - that a video was the cause of the attack - both warrant further investigation into the extent of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. Government, which is what Rep. Michele Bachmann called for back in June.

'Argo', the new movie directed by Ben Affleck is getting quite a bit of attention and promotion. It's a film Affleck is extremely proud of making. At a premiere screening of the film in Washington, D.C. on October 10th, Affleck referred to the controversial Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton - Huma Abedin - as "a really close friend of mine" and went on to say:

“In fact, Huma — the reason why she’s here — is she was instrumental in helping us shoot the State Department. As you know, we shot at the real State Department. We never would have had any of that stuff in our research [otherwise]. ...Huma was enormously helpful, and obviously we invited her and she brought her husband. I look forward to seeing him.”

On October 12th, Affleck appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher and adamantly defended the Obama administration. By extension, he defended the State Department, which is home to his "really close friend" who was "enormously helpful" and "instrumental" in the production of his film. If not for Huma, according to Affleck, there wouldn't have been any access to the real State Department. That could potentially make Affleck biased in favor of the State Department. After all, it is taking great heat over its handling of the Benghazi attack.

It's called conflict of interest.

The Hollywood actor / director actually argued that Barack Obama cannot be expected to know about the security detail at every consulate all over the world.

That's not the point; it smacks of deflection and bias. The point is that Obama administration / State Department policies should have prevented it. When the Regional Security Officer (RSO) testifies that he felt like the State Department was his biggest obstacle after being denied security assets by his Regional Director (RD), we have a procedural problem that is a direct extension of the president's policies. Take a look at what RSO Eric Nordstrom said in sworn testimony when describing his failed attempts to get 12 additional security agents from that RD:

"His response to that was, 'you're asking for the sun, moon, and the stars.' My response to him was... 'Jim, you know what makes it most frustrating about this assignment? It's not the hardships, it's not the gunfire, it's not the threats. It's dealing and fighting against the people, programs, and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me.' I added to that by saying, 'for me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.'"

Affleck also accused Republicans of purposely politicizing the attack so soon before the presidential election. Uh, not only did the attack happen so close to the election but there are four dead Americans and testimony from State Department officials that security was either denied or taken away, which left the consulate incredibly vulnerable. That doesn't even take into account the false narrative that the anti-Muhammad video caused the attacks, a false narrative the administration had to withdraw.

Incidentally, that narrative exactly mirrors the one coming out of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group to which Abedin has irrefutable familial connections; her mother is a leader with the Muslim Sisterhood.

Senator John McCain, who has been on the wrong side of the Libya issue ever since it began, issued the most vehement defense of Huma Abedin from the Republican side of the aisle in either House of Congress. His defense of Abedin included this quote:

"…it has been alleged that Huma Abedin, a Muslim American, is part of a nefarious conspiracy to harm the United States by unduly influencing U.S. foreign policy at the Department of State in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist causes."

At minimum, there appears to be a bureaucratic conspiracy at the Department of State that has had the consequence of benefiting al-Qaeda in Benghazi. U.S. foreign policy was indeed unduly influenced by something or someone before the attack. It's what we call a self-evident truth.

At the October 10th Oversight Committee hearing, Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL) asked Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb (:30 mark) if it was her "sole discretion to deny extra manpower" in Libya. Lamb's response was, 'no'. Adams pressed Lamb for names of those who did... and she got them - Scott Bultrowicz and Eric Boswell.



The obvious question then becomes:

Did Bultrowicz and Boswell have sole discretion to deny extra manpower?

If yes, why did they do it? If no, what are the names of those who did? Darrell Issa and company should keep moving up the ladder. The fact remains that the administration's response to the Benghazi attack had the effect of benefiting all Muslim fundamentalists. Making the claim over and over again that the attacks were the result of the anti-Muhammad video were in sync with the claims of those fundamentalists. The Brotherhood's motives for doing so involved an agenda to criminalize any criticism of Islam. What was the motive of the Obama administration?

Egypt's president Mohamed Mursi, whose wife is also a Sisterhood member and close colleague of Huma Abedin's mother, made that very clear:



The Saudis are still pushing that line to this day. Incidentally, Huma Abedin is connected to a very influential Saudi herself - Abdullah Omar Naseef. For years (1996 - 2008), she served on the board of an institute Naseef founded. For many of those years, she served with Naseef.

Now then, why would U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, White House press secretary Jay Carney, and State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland all push the same narrative (riots caused by video) as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudis?

Also at the October 10th Oversight committee hearing, Rep. Trey Gowdy called for the testimony of Ambassador Rice and Carney - under oath - so that they can reveal who told them to blame the attack on a video and because Gowdy "want(s) to know why we were lied to."



One of the reasons why Huma Abedin's familial associations matter is because she can be easily conflicted. National Review's Andrew McCarthy explained that perfectly last August. If Affleck is "a really close friend" of Huma, wouldn't he be easily conflicted as well, especially when it was Huma who gave him access to the State Department as well as protocol guidance that greatly enhanced his film?

How many other people are conflicted as a result of their relationship with Huma Abedin?

Shoebat: Anti-Muhammad film the result of Muslim Provocateurs?

The Innocence of Muslims film is looking increasingly like the work of some very bad actors, not the work of Coptic Christians. Shoebat has uncovered some very powerful and indisputable facts.

Via Shoebat:

The Innocence of Muslims and the spark of an Islamic revolution can be linked to a handful of culprits. The mystery is unlocked when we review the original YouTube page of one named Sam Bacile (the same name attributed to the filmmaker at one time). Bacile forgot to cover his tracks, leaving two links to three very crucial videos. On the “Feed” tab are two of those videos.

One features a Muslim named Wisam Abdul Waris, uploaded to YouTube on September 9th (linked from the Bacile page no later than September 10th). Wisam’s video was uploaded to Bacile’s page because Bacile commented on the video. Yet, when one attempts to view the comments, all have been scrubbed and the comment feature disabled, though the comment allegedly made by Sam Bacile appears on the “Feed” tab, just above the video.

The second video on the Sam Bacile “Feed” tab is none other Nader Bakkar, from as far back as May of 2012. This video was added to Bacile’s YouTube page as a “Favorite” about one week prior to the embassy attack in Cairo on 9/11.

The third video is on the “Likes” tab of the Sam Bacile YouTube page. It consists of an interview with an English speaking western woman who converted to Islam.

Why would a supposed Christian filmmaker “like” this video?

Who are these two named Wisam Abdul Waris and Nader Bakkar?

Waris and Bakkar, the two main interests on Sam Bacile’s YouTube channel, were the two men we identified back on September 13th as being the two primary culprits behind the Cairo riots on 9/11.

These two have been conspicuously absent, all along, from all western media narratives. For example, days after the attacks in Egypt and Libya, Reuters reported an incomplete narrative that the “flashpoint” of the violence was when Sheikh Khalid Abdallah on Al-Nas TV in Egypt aired portions of the film Innocence of Muslims.

The clip Reuters is referring to (uploaded September 9th) was a TV interview on al-Nas, where Sheikh Khalid Abdallah interviewed an activist named Mohammad Hamdy, who was engaged in a blatant form of guilt by association, creating a link between the Copts in Egypt and the Copts in the Diaspora. He blamed all Copts worldwide, not just the ones involved in the film.

Then came these two on September 9th, Wisam Abdul Waris, a Salafist who announced the formation of a new organization, the Coalition of Dar al-Hekma, an activist group wanting to enforce blasphemy laws worldwide and especially in the West. Nader Bakkar was the head of the Nour Salafist party, who gladly announced his new membership in the coalition on the day these two condemned the film.

Contrary to what Reuters reported, what caused the riots was when Waris called in to Khalid to promote them. Khalid simply asked for the date and accepted the invitation. The details and evidence of how the riots erupted by these two was explained here. The rest is history.

The conclusion is that all evidence reveals a small circle of predators—the filmmaker and two individuals prominently displayed on the Sam Bacile YouTube channel.

Wisam and Bakkar planned and executed the riots.

Read it all. There's a lot more...

Video: Innocence of Muslims Producer denied bail

It appears that we may have more questions than answers. The man allegedly responsible for producing the anti-Muhammad film Innocence of Muslims, was arrested yesterday and told by a judge that he would be denied bail because he is a flight risk. The reason for his arrest? Violating the terms of his probation, which included not using an alias or a computer.

Via NBC 4 in Los Angeles:

The Cerritos man who many believe to be behind an anti-Muslim video that has inflamed the Islamic world was denied bail Thursday afternoon after a judge deemed him a flight risk.

Nakoula Besseley Nakoula remains in federal custody after being arrested hours earlier on suspicion of violating the terms of his parole, according to a spokesman for the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney's Office.

Nakoula's arrest was sought by officials of the United States Probation Office, spokesman Thom Mrozek said.

Here is where things get a little confusing. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was the man convicted in 2010 on charges related to a bank fraud scheme and violated the terms of his probation by using the internet and aliases.

Presumptively, that must necessarily mean that Nakoula was the guy who violated the terms of his probation, right? Well, in this news report, NBC 4 says his real name is Mark Bacile Yousef. Does that mean he gave an alias to the court back in 2010 or does it mean that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is not the guy who was arrested yesterday?

View more videos at: http://nbclosangeles.com.

Shoebat: Anti-Muslim Film made by Terrorists

The anti-Muhammad film Innocence of Muslims that was allegedly produced by a Coptic Christian and caused riots all over the Middle East appears to have been made by someone with ties to Muslim terrorists. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was arrested in 2009 for his role in a bank fraud scheme. The ringleader of that scheme is a man named Eiad Salameh.

Salameh's first cousin is former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat, who knows a great deal about Eiad's allegiances. According to Shoebat, Eiad is a staunch Muslim who hates Christians and Jews. So why would he partner with an alleged Coptic Christian, who are known as being among the most orthodox of Christians?

From Shoebat, via Fox Nation:

When it comes to the film Innocence of Muslims, our government and the media uses a narrative mired in contradictions and false statements provided by the filmmaker, who himself is an untrustworthy source.

If we stick to what can be proven we might obtain the possibility that terror supporters produced the film. Muhammad Al Dura and Paliwood are two cases in point showing the type of stunts used by Palestinian terrorists.

So lets examine facts instead of the filmmaker’s fiction.

Court documents reveal that Nakoula Bacile Nakoula, producer of the movie Innocence of Muslims, partnered in a scheme with Eiad Salameh, my first cousin.

Eiad is a Muslim terror supporter and is not an Egyptian Copt.

He comes from Beit Sahour, Bethlehem and is well known by the FBI and the Arab community as a conduit for Middle Easterners who can obtain authentic, legitimate identifications, from passports to credit cards that include many nationalities. He then places these forms of identification into the hands of dubious characters that are not the real identity.

In fact, I revealed Eiad Salameh way before this whole fiasco erupted—in 2008 and the first reporting on the connection between Eiad and Nakoula was revealed on September 14th, 2012 by the Smoking Gun, which published court documents that prove these two were connected in 2009, as part of a major financial fraud scheme.

The narrative that circulates the media fails to address crucial questions about the mystery of this film.

For a much more detailed report, CLICK HERE.