PDA

View Full Version : Fox Suggests Obama Campaign Threatens Murder



DiabloViejo
04-05-2012, 12:48 AM
Fox’s Heather Childers Suggests Obama Campaign Threatens Murder
April 4, 2012
By Kimberley Johnson
Addicting Info (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04/04/foxs-heather-childers-suggests-obama-campaign-threatens-murder/)


The Fox News network and those who represent it have gone too far. For a while it was comical. Then it became frustrating but the recent suggestion by one of its anchors that Obama and his campaign are capable of murder has shown us very clearly that Fox News is a dangerous network, inciting violence with it’s bold and outright lies. The is a network defending a man who murdered a teen and now promotes our president as a possible murderer.

Heather Childers, anchor for the Fox News program America’s News Headquarters and co-host of Fox and Friends First, tweeted: “Thoughts? Did Obama Campaign Threaten Chelsea Clinton’s Life To Keep Parents Silent.” Childers included a link to a blog post suggesting the Obama campaign threatened murder to individuals to keep them quiet about Obama’s eligibility. It was one of several tweets implying conspiracy theory on behalf of the Obama camp.

In a statement to Mediate, Fox senior VP Michael Clemente said: “Tweets have been addressed with Heather and she understands this was a mistake.”

Childers replied to the backlash in a tweet saying “Here’s the thing folks…that ONE topic sure got alot of you tweeting. Why? I apologize if the article offended anyone. Very interesting.” The tweet illustrates that she is not at all sorry and continues to push her violent message with snark and sarcasm.

Her Twitter account is set to private. Not surprising, considering this vile woman chooses to spread hate and lies, knowing the loyal Fox followers will believe any nonsense they are told because we have a black president and the racists just can’t deal with it.

I encourage you to send a Tweet to Heather and let her know in a productive way, that what she’s doing is not only wrong, it’s dangerous and irresponsible. As a journalist, she should be taken off the air. Her handle is @HeatherChilders .

llotter
04-05-2012, 07:57 AM
Sounds like routine 'Chicago' politics. Threats or implied threats are the modus operandi of the La Cosa Nostra and community organizers.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/4506/obama-...-ineligibility/ (http://godfatherpolitics.com/4506/obama-campaign-threaten-life-of-chelsea-clinton-to-keep-parents-silent-on-obamas-ineligibility/)

An interesting video included.

Soflasnapper
04-05-2012, 08:57 AM
Without yet seeing the video, I recall the claims that the Clintons had people murdered right and left, with the so-called Clinton death list plumped up to over 80 people. In earlier times, such a man's murder in Arkansas would be laid at their feet instead of supposedly Obama's people.

Referenced by Jennifer Flowers on her appearance on Chris Matthews show, these mass murder responsibility charges made it to cable news broadcasts at least if not network broadcasts, and former Air America (now Premiere Radio) liberal talk host Randi Rhodes said on air that she had dirt on Hillary and could reveal things during the primary between her and O, but was afraid she would be killed. Randi is a joker, but that seemed serious, so much that some liberal fans were revolted and now hate her as a tool and she's now slandered as at least an alcoholic (which she addressed just this week as wholly untrue, although admitting that is what is said of her if you Google).

Personally, although as a best practice I give everything at least a 5% chance of being true regardless of implausibilities, I am not impressed with this particular story here. I don't find the murder of the Arkansas Democratic Party leader to be a likely hit when you look into that story, and without that linchpin, the rest of the story has no credible predicate, whatever that woman may be saying.

Also, the O people directly (or backers) could be murdering thugs or threatening violence without having threatened the Clintons through threatening their daughter, whose own reputations as killers and their being 'made' insiders (not to mention SS protection) make that seem unwise and unlikely, at best. That is, this woman could well have been threatened without the rest of this story having any accuracy at all.

eg8r
04-05-2012, 09:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Fox News network and those who represent it have gone too far. For a while it was comical. Then it became frustrating but the recent suggestion by one of its anchors that Obama and his campaign are capable of murder has shown us very clearly that Fox News is a dangerous network</div></div>What are you talking about. The Obama and his campaign have already proven that murder is exactly what they are willing to do to get their way. They killed Obama in a way that can only be deemed illegal and then they sent in a drone to kill a US citizen. How would you not call that murder?

I don't know anything about this achor or what she said but to try and paint Obama as anything that could never include a murderer then that is being untruthful.

eg8r

llotter
04-05-2012, 09:58 AM
It is really the leftist sycophants in the MSM that lead those of us looking for some objectivity to non-MSM. Granted it is next to impossible to sort out that balance, but doing otherwise is to be perpetually ignorant of reality.

LWW
04-05-2012, 10:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Without yet seeing the video ...</div></div>

Nothing more needed to be said.

DiabloViejo
04-05-2012, 04:39 PM
Other than disgruntled PUMA Bettina Viviano's statements...what proof does any reliable source have? Oh that's right.. they don't have any! Silly me.

DiabloViejo
04-05-2012, 05:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Fox News network and those who represent it have gone too far. For a while it was comical. Then it became frustrating but the recent suggestion by one of its anchors that Obama and his campaign are capable of murder has shown us very clearly that Fox News is a dangerous network</div></div>What are you talking about. The Obama and his campaign have already proven that murder is exactly what they are willing to do to get their way. They killed Obama in a way that can only be deemed illegal and then they sent in a drone to kill a US citizen. How would you not call that murder?

I don't know anything about this achor or what she said but to try and paint Obama as anything that could never include a murderer then that is being untruthful.

eg8r </div></div>

So now we're supposed to be sad that Osama Bin Laden was killed? If George Bush had whacked him you guys would've had a collective orgasm..no matter how he'd met his end.

Regarding the American citizen, Anwar Al Alawki, let's not forget that he was a senior member of Al Qaeda and had pledged himself to the destruction of the USA and her people. He was no innocent American tourist. He was a traitor who took up arms against this country on behalf of Al Qaeda and got what he so richly deserved.

Soflasnapper
04-05-2012, 06:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Without yet seeing the video ...</div></div>

Nothing more needed to be said. </div></div>

Generally a fine point, but in this case, does she claim knowledge that the Arkansas man (who had already endorsed Obama after HRC's withdrawal) was actually murdered as a warning to WJC? If not, there is no predicate to her claims. SHE got bullied/threatened? Hardly the same thing as proof of death threats and actual instigation of murder.

All right, after listening/viewing the taped interview, we find this woman has no knowledge, but various hearsay statements from others who remain nameless, who may or may not have been in any position to have heard what they claimed directly from close enough to the top to be reliable.

Not a Democrat or a Republican, she says (which means she's a Republican, btw), approached by WHOM (she doesn't say) to make an anti-Democrat documentary involving primary voting fraud?

Please, this is lacking any kind of credibility at all.

DiabloViejo
04-05-2012, 11:15 PM
I guess the birthers and Tea Tards--- seeing as that lawsuit claiming President Obama can’t be the Commander-in-Chief because he’s a “mulatto” is laughable lunacy at best---apparently needed something else to harp on, so they found another another angle.

LWW
04-06-2012, 04:33 AM
Actually ... your title is a total scam.

FOX did not suggest this.

A leftist working closely with the Hillary campaign suggested this.

Your confusion comes from the fact that since it wasn't spoon fed to you by a regime approved source, well you widdle head just can't get wrapped around it.

And, your most recent post is also a falsehood in that the entire birther issue started from within the Hillary campaign.

But Fats ... you haven't been one to let truth get in your way for quite some time.

Qtec
04-06-2012, 04:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FOX did not suggest this. </div></div>

Not FOX but,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Heather Childers, anchor for the Fox News program <span style='font-size: 17pt'>America’s News Headquarters</span> and co-host of Fox and Friends First, </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A leftist working closely with the Hillary campaign suggested this. </div></div>

LOL. How many times do you have to be told that when you make accusations, you should back it up by more than your pathetic, insignificant partisan opinion.

Eh?

Q

Qtec
04-06-2012, 05:02 AM
Just remembered. Didn't you tell us that Clinton had like 20 people bumped off?
Why should he be intimidated by a skinny Obama?

He would just say,

" you don't know who you are dealing with. I give the word and you are dead ."

Or not?

Q

eg8r
04-06-2012, 08:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So now we're supposed to be sad that Osama Bin Laden was killed? </div></div>Did I say that? I am just asking that you call a spade a spade. The man is a murderer plain and simple. Just because you don't like the current situation you cannot ignore his past actions.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If George Bush had whacked him you guys would've had a collective orgasm..no matter how he'd met his end.
</div></div>Again, you are not comprehending what I posted. Bush attacked legally. Obama did not. In another murderous example Obama sent a drone to kill an American citizen.

I am calling a spade a spade that is all.

eg8r

eg8r
04-06-2012, 08:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">seeing as that lawsuit claiming President Obama can’t be the Commander-in-Chief because he’s a “mulatto” is laughable lunacy at best</div></div>When did this happen?

eg8r

eg8r
04-06-2012, 08:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just remembered. Didn't you tell us that Clinton had like 20 people bumped off?
Why should he be intimidated by a skinny Obama?
</div></div>The boys from Chicago play with nastier guns than the boys from Arkansas. The boys in Chicago aren't afraid of birdshot.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
04-06-2012, 10:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess the birthers and Tea Tards--- seeing as that lawsuit claiming President Obama can’t be the Commander-in-Chief because he’s a “mulatto” is laughable lunacy at best---apparently needed something else to harp on, so they found another another angle. </div></div>

This is an attempt to answer the question about birtherism that has stopped some who had questions-- why if true wouldn't the ruthless Clintons have stooped to hurl this fact at the guy so she could win?

This is the claimed answer. They knew, and would have acted, except for this direct death threat backed up by a prior act of murder. Now by this theory, WHEN would they have acted? At the convention, only as of that late date? And blown up the party's candidate? That really makes no sense, but by the time frame of the Arkansas party head's murder, that was AFTER HRC's withdrawal so that he'd already switched his endorsement from her to him.

So, supposedly, no, the Clintons didn't bring it up when the race was on-going, and only planned to bring it up at the convention or afterwards, so as to blow up the party? I can't make out a plausible scenario that works like this.

Soflasnapper
04-06-2012, 10:38 AM
Bush attacked legally. Obama did not.

That's not true. Bush did a little work to try to get legitimacy and legality to his attack, but as an appearance only. I guess it worked, as it convinced you and likely many millions more.

It didn't convince international law experts of any stripe, and they have the superior arguments from treaty law which are binding on the president as (part of) 'the supreme law of the land,' according to the COTUS itself. Making his actions an impeachable offense of the highest order, far from legal.

DiabloViejo
04-06-2012, 10:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">seeing as that lawsuit claiming President Obama can’t be the Commander-in-Chief because he’s a “mulatto” is laughable lunacy at best</div></div>When did this happen?

eg8r </div></div>

In 2011 Gordon Warren Epperly of Alaska filed a birther lawsuit claiming that President Obama can't be the commander-in-chief because he's African American.
The Alaska man filed suit to remove Obama from the state's ballots come November because he is not a "natural born citizen."

Here is his complaint:

"...for an Individual to be a candidate for the office of president of the United States, the candidate must meet the qualifications set forth in the United States Constitution and one of those qualifications is that the Candidate shall be a "natural born citizen" of the United States. As Barack Hussein Obama II is of the "mulatto" race, his status of citizenship is founded upon the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Before the [purported] ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the race of "Negro" or "mulatto" had no standing to be citizens of the United States under the United States Constitution."

eg8r
04-06-2012, 11:38 AM
LOL, he got the required approval. If the international law experts had any "stripe" they would have blocked it an impeached him long ago. They certainly would not have allowed him to be re-elected.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
04-06-2012, 02:32 PM
The required approval was the UN SC, and he did not get their approval.

The substitute allegedly adequate approval, the AUMF, was disobeyed on its terms (making that claimed approval from that null and void) but that doesn't matter, as the US treaty that ratified the UN Charter specified no resort to military force except for true self defense (not preventative war) except as approved by the UN Security Council.

By the Nuremburg standard, W engaged in aggressive warfare, which is the primary war crime from which all others stem.

As for impeaching W, that can only come from the HOR, which he held in his party control through 2006. Prior to taking the majority, the prospective Speaker of the House declared impeachment off the table.

Soflasnapper
04-07-2012, 10:28 AM
If one wonders how the world sees the Bush/Cheney actions, look no further than the reluctance both men have for leaving our borders to travel to another country.

They are rightfully worried that, like a Pinochet, a third party country would exercise their right of prosecution of war crimes, arrest them in their sphere of control (that foreign country), and bring them before a competent tribunal.

This isn't only wild countries, minor countries, or countries who have always hated this country anyway. It's also England, our closest ally with the special relationship, according to the statements of the Lord Mayor of the City of London (who in some respects outranks the queen).

eg8r
04-07-2012, 02:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The required approval was the UN SC, and he did not get their approval.
</div></div>If you had any substance proof then the rest of the world would have agreed and not joined him in the fight. You can argue all you want but the fact of the matter is that he got all the approvals and support he needed.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
04-07-2012, 05:48 PM
That's a poor argument indeed. W told the world you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists, and we will make no distinction between terrorists or those who support them.

With the cheers of America behind him, in full revenge mode.

Whereas, by contrast, there are these expert opinions from that time:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal."[1][2] The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reported in February 2006 that he had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes had been committed.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> London Mayor Boris Johnson wrote:

“It is not yet clear whether George W Bush is planning to cross the Atlantic to flog us his memoirs, but if I were his PR people I would urge caution. As book tours go, this one would be an absolute corker. It is not just that every European capital would be brought to a standstill, as book-signings turned into anti-war riots. The real trouble – from the Bush point of view – is that he might never see Texas again.”

Mayor Johnson reminds Bush that former Chilean dictator Augusto Pincohet was eventually arrested in the UK for his crimes against the people of Chile.

Johnson speculates that if Bush comes to Britain officials could “place some handcuffs on the former leader of the Free World, and take him away to be charged. Of course, we are told this scenario is unlikely. Dubya is the former leader of a friendly power, with whom this country is determined to have good relations. But that is what torture-authorising Augusto Pinochet thought. And unlike Pinochet, Mr Bush is making no bones about what he has done.”</div></div>

eg8r
04-08-2012, 04:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's a poor argument indeed. W told the world you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists, and we will make no distinction between terrorists or those who support them.
</div></div>Wow, you give some serious power to W don't you. Not one single country that joined us in that war had the spine to stand up against W? No, we don't believe that and again your argument is even weaker than you dreamed mine was. LOL, they were all scared of W's statement, yeah that is why they joined in the fight.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
04-09-2012, 02:34 PM
By far most countries did not participate in that war with us.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Iraq war
Friday, Mar 21, 2003 8:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Operation Inflate the Coalition</span>
During the last Gulf War, 32 nations sent troops. This time around, 3 nations did.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">President Bush’s critics are constantly slamming his “unilateral war against Iraq,” as former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a Democratic presidential candidate, constantly puts it. So it must have been a shock to hear the president say Wednesday night that “more than 35 countries are giving crucial support — from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units.” The White House calls this group the “Coalition of the Willing,” and on Thursday its numbers increased to 43.

Some critics have questioned how much of a true coalition this is, given that only three countries — the U.S., U.K. and Australia — have actually sent soldiers. Asked about this apparent weakness in the “coalition,” White House press secretary Ari Fleischer on Tuesday said that the White House has “all along said, in terms of actual active combat, there will be very, very few countries.”

Since that admission, the White House has gone on an offensive to prove how multilateral this coalition is. It’s No. 1 in the administration’s talking points. But they may have gone too far. On Thursday, when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters that the coalition behind Operation Iraqi Freedom is even bigger than the one behind Operation Desert Storm, even some military leaders and veterans of Republican administrations disagreed and were dismayed at the disingenuousness. Meanwhile, some countries the U.S. counts as among the “willing” are continuing to criticize the U.S. military moves against Iraq, raising questions about how willing they really are.

Operation Inflate the Coalition began on Tuesday, when Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the Coalition of the Willing “includes some 30 nations who have publicly said they could be included in such a listing” as well as “15 other nations, who, for one reason or another do not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition.”

</div></div> Text linked here (http://www.salon.com/2003/03/22/willing/singleton)

The list was padded by including countries like France who famously refused to participate in the war, who said they would provide hospital treatment for casualties in their own country. That's how far they stretched the 'coalition of the willing' to pretend huge numbers of countries were joining us in the war. So there's one example of a country that 'joined' us in the war who had the spine to stand up to W's war mongering, and then was said to be in the COTW anyway. Pure PR crap.

Compare and contrast to a REAL world-wide participation in the first Gulf War. No comparison. Those that didn't send troops sent MONEY, so we broke even or made a profit on the first Gulf War.

Look into it and you will find threats and strong inducements to all manner of countries, as to treaty and trade arrangments.

And yes, given the W was a psychopathic killer type, his threats of reprisals for refusal were indeed taken seriously, and for good reason.