Author Archive

THE COMMUNIST ARM OF OBAMA TAKES AWAY FREE SPEECH -Federal Attorney Warns Posts Against Islam Could Get You Prison Time

If you have seen the stories around the globe of how cartoonists, journalists and people simply posting tweets or Facebook posts has gotten them in hot water with Islam and even the government, then you have probably said, “That can’t happen in America,” right? Well hold on to your seat my friend because you are in for a rude awakening.

Barack Obama’s Attorney for the Eastern district of Tennessee Bill Killian and Kenneth Moore, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Knoxville Division, want Americans to know that if you say something negative towards Islam or Muslims, the Federal government may imprison you. They will be having an event called “Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society” on June 4, the same day Obama is scheduled to sign the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.

The Tullahoma Times reports,
Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media.

“This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian told The News Monday. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”

Killian said the presentation will also focus on Muslim culture and how, that although terrorist acts have been committed by some in the faith, they are no different from those in other religions.

Killian also wants to portray Oklahoma City Bomber Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols as Christians and then link them to terrorism in the same fashion as Islamic jihadists. Please, the entire Christian community came out against the actions of the OKC bombing and neither of these guys were Christians, nor were they following the teachings of the Bible. The Islamic community has yet to condemn terrorism and the Qur’an clearly teaches them to commit violence (See video above). They hide behind certain words to mask the terrorism they are to engage in via the Qur’an. Instead, the Qur’an teaches them to actively engage in jihad. For a thorough dealing with jihad and its historical meaning and understanding, I highly recommend Lebanon-born Walid Phares’ book Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against America. That will help you see clearly that nothing has changed in nearly 1,500 years of Islamic history.

However, the criminal Attorney General Eric Holder seems to be backing Killian and Moore. Judicial Watch reports,
In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S. the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights.

The move comes a few years after the administration became the first in history to dispatch a U.S. Attorney General to personally reassure Muslims that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is dedicated to protecting them. In the unprecedented event, Attorney General Eric Holder assured a San Francisco-based organization (Muslim Advocates) that urges members not to cooperate in federal terrorism investigations that the “us versus them” environment created by the U.S. government, law enforcement agents and fellow citizens is unacceptable and inconsistent with what America is all about.

“Muslims and Arab Americans have helped build and strengthen our nation,” Holder said after expressing that he is “grateful” to have Muslims as a partner in promoting tolerance, ensuring public safety and protecting civil rights. He also vowed to strengthen “crucial dialogue” between Muslim and Arab-American communities and law enforcement.
SignIslamFreeSpeechWesternTerrorismThe DOJ actually became the first to assure Muslims it is dedicated to protecting them. I don’t recall this administration doing the same thing for Christians who are constantly having inflammatory videos and posts put up by Muslims.

Second, Muslims and Arab Americans have “helped build and strengthen our nation”? While I grant there are many Arab Americans who have come here legally, integrated with our society and lived among us and have contributed greatly to the society, I can’t give a full stamp of approval that we have been strengthened by Muslims. In fact, I would say we have been weakened by Muslim influence, specifically I’m talking about those currently in the Obama administration and the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Additionally the Tullahoma Times indicated that the goal is to increase awareness and understanding that American Muslims are not the terrorists some have made them out to be in social media and other circles. While I grant that every person who calls themselves a Muslim is not engaged in terrorism, the reality is that because of the teachings of the Qur’an, you cannot trust what they say, but respond to what they do. Virtually all Muslim mosques in America are funded by Saudi Arabia or other Muslim countries. Virtually all of them also, in turn, fund the Islamic Society of North America, which aligns itself with the Brady campaign to attack the Second Amendment. Additionally these Muslim groups are doing just as the Obama DOJ is doing and that is to go after the First Amendment.

Killian said, “We want to inform everybody about what the law is, but more importantly, we want to provide what the law means to Muslims, Hindus and every other religion in the country. It’s why we came here in the first place. In England, they were using Christianity to further their power in government. That’s why the First Amendment is there.”

So let’s get this straight, the First Amendment is there to protect Islamists in their speech, but not Christians? I see clearly now. Killian clearly doesn’t understand that whole part about “Congress shall make no law” regarding not only the establishment of a religion, but also “impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press” among other things. This means his claim about federal law in this matter is completely unconstitutional and he should be removed from his office.

You’ll recall back in August 2012 that Assistant Attorney General of the DOJ Civil Rights Division Thomas Perez refused to affirm the First Amendment rights of Americans to speak out against other religions. He was questioned four times and all he did was beat around the bush. This is the creeping Sharia that we and many others are warning about.
One wonders just how long it will be until we will be forced to defend our freedom of speech with our freedom to keep and bear arms from Islam and its co-conspirators in government.

Finally, I often hear the famous quotation from Voltaire, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Well, for those posting this claiming that this should be applied to Christians or Jews, I suggest you take a second look and see who is bringing the hammer down now.


Mayor takes stand against Muslim Shariah courts


When a group of imams tried to bring a form of “Shariah light” to Texas, they met an unlikely foe – Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne.

Now, Van Duyne has been thrust into the national media spotlight, and her city is being called “ground zero” in the battle to prevent Islamic law from gaining a foothold, no matter how small, in the U.S. legal system.

Van Duyne’s name and picture has popped up on Facebook pages and Twitter feeds across America in recent days, casting her with equal enthusiasm as villain or hero, depending on one’s political outlook.

She’s either the mayor who stood up to the Muslim Brotherhood or the “Islamophobic bigot” looking to cash in politically on fears about Islamic terrorism.

The media frenzy was touched off by reports that an Islamic tribunal was being set up in the Dallas, Texas, area. A group of imams from surrounding mosques would sit on what they call a “mediation panel,” as defacto judges, and mediate disputes between Muslims who voluntarily submit to its edicts. They denied this was a Shariah court, saying the panel would mete out nonbinding decisions in business disputes, divorces and other family matters “in full accordance with the law.”

Van Duyne wrote a blistering Facebook post last month in which she vowed to “fight with every fiber of my being against this action.”

Get the details on how to stop Islamization of America – $4.95 today only!

She worked with state legislators to craft a bill that would declare it illegal for any U.S. court to adopt any foreign legal system for the basis of its rulings. Islam was not mentioned in the bill, nor was any religion.

Last Thursday the Irving City Council voted 5-4 to endorse the bill before a packed room full of mostly angry Muslims.

When called on by the Council of American-Islamic Relations to apologize for her February Facebook post, Van Duyne flatly refused. She also appeared in the national spotlight in an interview with conservative media icon Glenn Beck.

She’s been practically canonized by some websites while becoming the target of journalistic hit pieces from others.

Her local newspaper, the Dallas Morning News, cast her as a petulant demagogue who uses “gifted speaking skills” to “get a crowd on her side.”

“The dispute has made Van Duyne a hero among a fringe movement that believes Muslims – a tiny fraction of the U.S. population – are plotting to take over American culture and courts,” the Dallas Morning News reported. The newspaper then quoted local imam Zia Sheikh as saying the mayor’s stance “fuels anti-Islamic hysteria” and is “very Islamophobic.”

But to conservatives who have watched one city, state and federal leader after another kowtow to the threats and demands of CAIR, she is a breath of fresh air.

“The U.S. is a constitutional republic ruled by constitutional law. If Muslims want to live under Shariah law, fine, then let them move to a country that is ruled by Shariah law,” wrote Greg Polkowski in a March 24 Facebook post. “The problem is they come here for the freedom and opportunities that aren’t available in their home countries (usually Muslim controlled) and upon arrival decide they want to change the U.S. to reflect the political/religious environment they left. This reminds me of a sign I’ve seen posted by a few swimming pools over the years, ‘We don’t swim in your toilet, please don’t pee in our pool.’”

The Dallas Morning News attacked Van Duyne’s supporters as followers of “fringe websites.”

“Van Duyne had spent the last month criticizing and questioning a Muslim mediation panel, conflating it with a court in an interview seen around the country. That night, she pushed the council to endorse a state bill whose author had targeted the panel.

“The dispute has made Van Duyne a hero on fringe websites that fear an Islamic takeover of America.”

While eager to denigrate Van Duyne’s supporters, the Dallas newspaper closes its eyes to the dubious reputation of the group demanding apologies, CAIR. More than just a fringe element, CAIR is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, which are terrorist elements.

CAIR is known in the U.S. as a nonprofit advocacy group for Muslim-Americans, but in 2007 U.S. prosecutors named it an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism-funding case against the Holy Land Foundation charity. The charity was convicted of supporting Hamas, which is on the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. When President Obama took office in 2008 the trial was shut down and investigations into CAIR ceased. In fact, the president has sought counsel from CAIR officials in matters of Homeland Security and law enforcement, acceding to its demand that the FBI scrub from its training manuals all references to radical Islam.

Yet, despite its connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Dallas Morning News and countless other U.S. media outlets continue to quote its officials as credible representatives of all U.S. Muslims. The Muslim Brotherhood has been designated a terrorist organization by scores of countries, including even some Arab and Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates, along with Russia, Israel and others.

Dr. Mark Christian grew up in a prominent Muslim family in Egypt and converted to Christianity as an adult. He has been disowned by his family.
Dr. Mark Christian grew up in a prominent Muslim family in Egypt and converted to Christianity as an adult. He has been disowned by his family.
Dr. Mark Christian, a former Muslim who grew up in Egypt the son of a Muslim Brotherhood activist, said such “mediation panels” would not be tolerated in Egypt. But the ignorance of American government officials makes them easy prey for CAIR’s intimidation.

“The concept of ‘Shariah mediation’ to settle disputes between Muslims here in the U.S. is indeed disturbing.” he said. “It is the first step in establishing a parallel system of government within our own system.”

After fleeing Egypt, Christian lived in Great Britain before coming to the United States.

“I have seen these tribunals in operation in Britain,” he said. “They supplant the laws of the host nation by forcing Muslims to abandon their inherent rights under our law and submit instead to Shariah, many times to their own detriment.”

“I applaud the mayor for her strength of conviction. She isn’t denying rights to Muslims; she is preserving them for Muslims.

“She is, however, denying the Muslim Brotherhood one of their chief tools in controlling Muslim populations in free nations.”

CAIR’s alliance with leftists in the U.S. media and so-called “watchdog” groups like the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center assures that whenever someone criticizes CAIR and points out facts about its connections to the Muslim Brotherhood they get branded as “Islamophobic” or “bigoted.”

Thus, it’s no surprise that most politicians cower at the sight of a CAIR spokesman and avoid at all costs saying anything that can be seen as remotely anti-Islam.

But the mayor of one small city in Texas seems to dance to a different drumbeat.

WND requested a phone interview with Van Duyne Tuesday but was told by her secretary that she had urgent city business to tend to.

“I wish to see her character in every elected official in our nation,” Christian said.


FEMA To Deny Funding To States Without Global Warming Plans

Next year, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will start denying disaster funding to states that don’t incorporate global warming into their emergency preparedness plans.

Governors looking for disaster preparedness funding will have to start reporting on how man-made global warming will impact their states such as “more intense storms, frequent heavy precipitation, heat waves, drought, extreme flooding, and higher sea levels,” according to FEMA.

FEMA’s updated guidelines for disaster planning don’t affect federal relief funding for after a natural disaster like a hurricane or flood, but the guidelines essentially force some state governments to acknowledge the alleged risks of man-made warming.

InsideClimate News reports that most states have not updated their disaster planning to include global warming because FEMA’s 2008 policies didn’t have this requirement. Some states, like New York, however, have updated their disaster planning.



By Michael Goodwin

First he comes for the banks and health care, uses the IRS to go after critics, politicizes the Justice Department, spies on journalists, tries to curb religious freedom, slashes the military, throws open the borders, doubles the debt and nationalizes the Internet.

He lies to the public, ignores the Constitution, inflames race relations and urges Latinos to punish Republican “enemies.” He abandons our ­allies, appeases tyrants, coddles ­adversaries and uses the Crusades as an excuse for inaction as Islamist terrorists slaughter their way across the Mideast.
Now he’s coming for Israel.

Barack Obama’s promise to transform America was too modest. He is transforming the whole world before our eyes. Do you see it yet?

Against the backdrop of the tsunami of trouble he has unleashed, Obama’s pledge to “reassess” America’s relationship with Israel cannot be taken lightly. Already paving the way for an Iranian nuke, he is hinting he’ll also let the other anti-Semites at Turtle Bay have their way. That could mean American support for punitive Security Council resolutions or for Palestinian statehood initiatives. It could mean both, or something worse.
Whatever form the punishment takes, it will aim to teach Bibi Netanyahu never again to upstage him. And to teach Israeli voters never again to elect somebody Obama doesn’t like.

Apologists and wishful thinkers, including some Jews, insist Obama real­izes that the special relationship between Israel and the United States must prevail and that allowing too much daylight between friends will encourage enemies.
Those people are slow learners, or, more dangerously, deny-ists.

If Obama’s six years in office teach us anything, it is that he is impervious to appeals to good sense. Quite the contrary. Even respectful suggestions from supporters that he behave in the traditions of American presidents fill him with angry determination to do it his way.

For Israel, the consequences will be intended. Those who make excuses for Obama’s policy failures — naive, bad advice, bad luck — have not come to grips with his dark impulses and deep-seated rage.

His visceral dislike for Netanyahu is genuine, but also serves as a convenient fig leaf for his visceral dislike of Israel. The fact that it’s personal with Netanyahu doesn’t explain six years of trying to bully Israelis into signing a suicide pact with Muslims bent on destroying them. Netanyahu’s only sin is that he puts his nation’s security first and refuses to knuckle ­under to Obama’s endless demands for unilateral concessions.

That refusal is now the excuse to act against Israel. Consider that, for all the upheaval around the world, the president rarely has a cross word for, let alone an open dispute with, any other foreign leader. He calls Great Britain’s David Cameron “bro” and praised Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohammed Morsi, who had called Zionists “the descendants of apes and pigs.”

Obama asked Vladimir Putin for patience, promising “more flexibility” after the 2012 election, a genuflection that earned him Russian aggression. His Asian pivot was a head fake, and China is exploiting the vacuum. None of those leaders has gotten the Netanyahu treatment, which included his being forced to use the White House back door on one trip, and the cold shoulder on another.

It is a clear and glaring double standard.
Most troubling is Obama’s bended-knee deference to Iran’s Supreme Leader, which has been repaid with “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” demonstrations in Tehran and expanded Iranian military action in other countries.
The courtship reached the height of absurdity last week, when Obama wished Iranians a happy Persian new year by equating Republican critics of his nuclear deal with the resistance of theocratic hard-liners, saying both “oppose a diplomatic solution.” That is a damnable slur given that a top American military official estimates that Iranian weapons, proxies and trainers killed 1,500 US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who in their right mind would trust such an evil regime with a nuke?

Yet Netanyahu, the leader of our only reliable ally in the region, is ­repeatedly singled out for abuse. He alone is the target of an orchestrated attempt to defeat him at the polls, with Obama political operatives, funded in part by American taxpayers, working to elect his opponent.

They failed and Netanyahu prevailed because Israelis see him as their best bet to protect them. Their choice was wise, but they’d better buckle up because it’s Israel’s turn to face the wrath of Obama.
It’s just like old crimes

Reader Stephen Shapiro agrees that the bad old days of “Taxi Driver” are coming back to Gotham. “Only last night, my wife noted the same thing when walking up Broadway from the Theater District,” he writes. “The sidewalks were packed with illegal sellers of cheap trinkets and maybe stolen goods. Like it was decades ago.”
Step right up, NYers

P.T. Barnum is credited with saying, “There’s a sucker born every minute,” but the sentiment applies better to Albany than the circus. After all, who are the greater fools: ticket buyers who believe in sword swallowers and fire-eaters, or taxpayers who believe Gov. Andrew Cuomo and legislators will clean up corruption?
School vow is more blah-blah-blasio

There he goes again. Mayor Bill de Blasio is making promises that make no sense and saying things he can’t possibly believe.

Putzie is so desperate to fend off state changes to his control of city schools that he is promising to apply crime-control techniques to educrats. “We’re going to hold every one of the principals to the same kinds of standards that our precinct commanders are held to via CompStat,” he declared.

That’s crazy talk for two reasons.
First, he and Chancellor Carmen Fariña say repeatedly they don’t like mainstream educational standards, especially a heavy use of standardized tests for evaluating students and teachers. Throw in their cutback of suspensions for disruptive students and their willful expansion of union power, and it’s hard to see on what basis they will measure principals’ performance.

Second, his reference to the Police Department as the gold standard of accountability would be valid — if de Blasio weren’t mayor. He is taking away so many enforcement tools from the NYPD that shootings and murder are soaring and evidence mounts that cops are under orders to ignore many quality-of-life crimes. With cops increasingly reduced to responding to crimes already committed, it is unclear what standards de Blasio is using to measure police commanders.
In truth, the similarity between the mayor’s approach to schools and crime reveals the danger of his incoherent philosophy. He’s a central planner of the Soviet model who doesn’t trust principals, teachers or cops to exercise their professional judgment. Ideological to the core, he’s imposing his political prejudices on their authority despite his lack of experience and training.

His decisions amount to micromanagement, not leadership, and represent the height of arrogance from a man who is late for virtually every public engagement.

Here’s an offer: He starts to show up on time, and we start to take him seriously.

Sheriff Joe plea: Rein in Obama ‘power grab’

by Bob Unruh

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, is asking an appeals court in Washington, D.C., to rein in the massive power that would be granted to President Obama and future presidents if a lower court’s decision stands.

The ruling threw out a legal challenge to Obama’s executive-memo driven amnesty program for millions of illegal aliens, despite the fact that amnesty was rejected by Congress and the plan would contradict state law.

Arpaio, represented by attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to step into the case thrown out earlier by Judge Beryl Howell.

Arpaio contends the administration’s claim that “prosecutorial discretion” allows Obama to promise the benefits of citizenship to millions of illegal aliens is wrong.

“What is to stop a future president from simply directing the Internal Revenue Service to stop collecting taxes on capital gains or stop collecting income taxes above a rate lower than set by Congress?” asked a reply brief and request for oral argument filed Monday.

“Indeed, who would have standing to challenge taxes left uncollected from another person? What is to stop a future president from refusing to enforce environmental laws, labor union protections, securities laws, voting rights laws, or civil rights laws, on a claim of prosecutorial discretion?

“May a future president direct the IRS not to collect the penalty supporting Obamacare’s ‘individual mandate,’ producing actuarial collapse?”

“Appellees ask this court to endorse this power grab. Constitutional government in the United States would end in all but name. Any future president may ignore the law claiming ‘prosecutorial discretion’ wholesale.”

The brief contends that the issue is not a “policy dispute” as the government claims.

“The executive branch seeks to raise its own ‘policies’ above congressional statutes. Executive branch policies are not the ‘supreme law of the land’ as congressional enactments are.”

The brief also notes that in a similar case, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen already has issued a preliminary injunction halting Obama’s executive amnesty, because the administration failed to follow the Administrative Procedures Act.

Hanen now has ordered the Obama administration to be in his courtroom later this week to explain why the administration apparently is not abiding by his preliminary injunction.

Arpaio’s case aims for a ruling that the president’s actions are unconstitutional.

He argues that while the power to execute laws, residing in the executive branch, includes the ability to resolve questions, “it does not include unilateral implementation of legislative policies.”

The president must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” and not take executive action to create laws, he points out.

Klayman earlier told the appeals court that, according to the Office of Legal Counsel, Obama didn’t have the authority to order amnesty.

That agency concluded, “The executive cannot, under the guise of exercising enforcement discretion, attempt to effectively rewrite the laws to match its policy preferences.”

“Yet the appellees are doing exactly what OLC warned them not to do. Appellees’ programs are not prosecutorial discretion but rewriting the statutes. Appellees seek to grant amnesty to an estimated 6 million (53 percent) of the estimated 11.3 million illegal aliens that congressional enactments command them to deport,” Klayman has argued.

WND reported earlier when Arpaio said his local government had spent at least $9.2 million extra on detention and other costs because of Obama’s first “deferred action” plan providing some of the benefits of citizenship to illegal aliens.

Arpaio alleges he suffers direct economic harm from the defendants’ executive action amnesty for citizens belonging to a foreign country.

In their case filings, Arpaio and Klayman have argued that some aspects of amnesty already have begun taking effect, and the federal government is preparing to hired thousands of workers to process illegal aliens under amnesty.

The goal of the case at the outset was to obtain a ruling from the Supreme Court on Obama’s strategy to use notes to federal agencies, called executive memoranda, to change the law, rather than going through Congress.

Klayman has contended Obama “cannot end-run Congress based on his own ‘emperor-like’ actions.”

“By his own admission 22 times in the past, Obama lacks the power to take this unconstitutional executive action,” Klayman said. “To allow this to stand would amount to trashing our constitutional republic and set a bad precedent for future presidents.”

He argued the status quo should be maintained until Congress changes the national law.

WND also reported when a federal judge in Pennsylvania declared the amnesty unconstitutional.

“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional,” said U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab.

The judge noted Obama “contended that although legislation is the most appropriate course of action to solve the immigration debate, his executive action was necessary because of Congress’ failure to pass legislation, acceptable to him, in this regard.”

“This proposition is arbitrary and does not negate the requirement that the November 20, 2014, executive action be lawfully within the president’s executive authority,” the judge wrote. “It is not.”


Fundraising Operation Inside State Dept. Raked in Cash for Hillary


Excerpted from the book “HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton”
Hillary tapped Kris Balderston, the hit list author, to keep the Clinton political network humming at State. A longtime lieutenant to both Clintons, Balderston, who called everyone “buddy,” liked to talk in salesman’s terms about Hillary’s “power to convene” and her commitment to making sure her partners could “do well by doing good.” What he meant was that Hillary could use the Clinton Rolodex to focus private-sector money, government power, and the expertise at colleges and nonprofits to solve global problems. At best, they would do a public service and make a buck. At worst, they would make a powerful friend. Balderston became, for lack of a better term, Hillary’s special ops guy at State.

He wrote Hillary the first memo on his concept for an office that would mirror Bill’s Clinton Global Initiative on December 8, 2008, less than a week after she was named to her job and more than six weeks before she took office. Though she had to wait for some of her lieutenants to clear the Obama vetting process and a Senate confirmation vote, she had made it a priority to empower Balderston, the political fixer who could help her build unique networks connecting her State Department to other government agencies, the nonprofit sector, and the corporate world. While many Democrats believe that government is the answer to the world’s problems, and many Republicans believe the same of the private sector, Balderston’s office was the embodiment of Hillary’s core Clintonian belief that government, business, and charitable organizations are all vital components of a thriving society.

“It’s more than raising money,” said one source familiar with the concept. “It’s networking other people’s intellectual property, networks, lists, that sort of thing. You need somebody who does more than just raise money.” Just like the Clinton Global Initiative.

But intellectual property and network expansion would have to wait—Hillary needed cash. Balderston was still setting up the office when Hillary approached him at the end of February 2009. “I have the first project for you,” she said. The job: raise more than $60 million from the private sector in nine months. In an era of billion-dollar presidential campaigns, that might not sound like much jack. But the government generally doesn’t raise money from the private sector, in large part because of the potential for corporate donors to give with the expectation that they will get specific government actions in return. Moreover, Congress and the Bush administration had shunned the very initiative Hillary wanted Balderston to execute.

Hillary had just returned from China, the anchor stop on her first trip overseas, where she had been surprised to find that the United States didn’t have a plan to build a pavilion at the world’s fair the following year, the Shanghai Expo. Chinese officials were incensed at the insensitivity to a major international showcase event in their country, and they gave Hillary an earful. They had been complaining to American businesses, too. From China’s perspective, America’s failure to build a pavilion would be a little less insulting than a boycott of the Olympics but not much. At the time, Hillary and Obama were touting an American “pivot” toward Asia, a shift of focus away from Europe and the Middle East and toward China, Japan, and their neighbors, as a central part of their foreign policy agenda. The elevation of State through the Strategic & Economic Dialogue was but one example of the new emphasis on building a more comprehensive relationship with China. After all, the world’s two most powerful nations had common interests in issues ranging from the world economy to fighting terrorism. Certainly, snubbing China at the encore to the 2008 Beijing Olympics would complicate those efforts.

So the expo held outsize symbolic importance in the new partnership Obama wanted to build. “It became important to [Hillary] because it was made clear to her by the Chinese senior leadership that it was important to them,” said José Villarreal, a veteran Clinton fundraiser with ties to China. “It was inconceivable to the Chinese that they could have a world expo and not have the United States there, especially not have the United States [be] virtually the only country that was not going to participate.”

While she was in China, Hillary confessed that she hadn’t been briefed on the fair—few politicians fail to blame their staff when necessary—and committed to looking into it when she got home. This impending diplomatic faux pas over the Shanghai Expo would be a serious affront to a country that the United States was in the process of courting. In addition to the downside risk, the expo offered Hillary two opportunities. First, she could draw a sharp contrast with the Bush administration, which had made clear that it wouldn’t use government resources to raise money for a pavilion. “The Department of State is not now authorized, and does not in the future intend to seek authorization from the U.S. Congress, to provide funding for any aspect of the U.S. exhibition at the World Expo,” the department wrote in a 2006 request-for-proposals for a private entity to try to build a pavilion on America’s behalf. That effort had been going nowhere when the Chinese approached Hillary.

The U.S. government had soured on the world’s fair idea after a scandal involving the American operation at the 1998 expo in Lisbon, and Congress had subsequently placed a nearly comprehensive ban on the State Department directly funding pavilions at future world’s fairs. But lawmakers had left a loophole for staff to raise money from private donors, corporations, NGOs, and foreign governments. That loophole was just the right size for Balderston and his new shop to fit through. Under federal law and ethics regulations, Hillary could even express her support to potential donors without making a direct appeal for money—a wrinkle in the law that would create great controversy when the secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius, helped raise private funds to promote Obamacare in 2013.

As a second bonus, setting up a fund-raising operation for the fair gave Hillary an invaluable early opportunity to strengthen and expand her network among top American business executives, a potential source of campaign contributions if she decided to run in 2016.

Balderston was a political operative but not a fund-raiser per se, and Hillary turned to two longtime Clinton money bundlers, Elizabeth Bagley and Villarreal, to jump-start the capital campaign. Bagley, a former ambassador to Portugal and a million-dollar donor to the Clinton Foundation, was named as Hillary’s special representative for global partnerships, a role that Balderston would later take over. A former adviser to both Clintons and the treasurer of Al Gore’s 2000 campaign, Villareal had been a “Hillraiser,” one of her big-time campaign cash bundlers. He was also a former member of the board of directors of Walmart Stores.

Villarreal had heard about the Shanghai Expo issue on a trip to China to visit his daughter a few months earlier, when Chinese Walmart executives gave him the same grilling on America’s expected absence from the fair that Hillary would get from government officials. When he heard Hillary had been in China, he told Cheryl Mills he would be happy to help organize a U.S. pavilion— and Hillary tapped him to do just that as the U.S. commissioner for the expo.

In addition to the sheer magnitude of the fund-raising challenge, Villarreal, Bagley, and Balderston faced a set of rules that complicated their effort. They had to raise all the money from private donors, and Hillary couldn’t solicit corporate contributions directly. To make matters worse, several of America’s biggest players in China, including Coca-Cola and GM, were already building their own pavilions to safeguard their own relationships with the Chinese. As a result, they were not likely to contribute money to the official U.S. pavilion.

Hillary had a lot riding on her ability to turn an international slip into a diplomatic coup that saved face for both the United States and China. The talk about her clout as an international celebrity was nice, but could she deliver? Her fund-raising commandos didn’t have the luxury of time. They couldn’t wait for the charitable-giving arms of major corporations to process requests. Instead, they went straight to CEOs, and they made it crystal clear that the ask was from Hillary.

“We knew how to get to the leadership of companies, and of course, being able to suggest that this was a project that was very, very important to Secretary Clinton really, really helped in opening doors,” Villarreal recalled. Hillary even drafted a letter of support for potential donors, just in case they needed more proof than a name drop. Sources say she carefully walked on the legal side of the line, but there was no doubt that she was engaged. “She did a really good job of actually getting into the muck of raising that money,” said one source.

In the summer of 2009, PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi, one of the world’s most powerful women, according to Forbes, committed $5 million, a contribution that helped get the ball rolling. Chevron, General Electric, Honeywell, Microsoft, Intel, Yum!, the National Basketball Association, Pfizer, and nearly five dozen other corporations and foundations jumped on board. Just scratching the surface, the list included a who’s who of major donors to the Clinton Foundation. In addition to Microsoft, Yum!, and Pfizer, common contributors to the Clinton Foundation and the U.S. effort at the expo included Bloomberg LP, Citigroup and its foundation, Dow Chemical, Procter & Gamble, and Sidney Harman. (Harman’s company gave to the Shanghai Expo while his family foundation gave to the Clinton Foundation.)

“The Shanghai Expo,” one Clintonworld fund-raising source said, “was a primary example of being able to tap into a base of people that Elizabeth [Bagley] was able to go after.”

In November 2009, nine months after the Chinese chastised her, Hillary returned to Shanghai, where she made a personal pitch for more money. After visiting Boeing’s new two-bay hangar at Shanghai Pudong Airport, where she spoke to a group of fifteen to twenty executives, including the heads of Boeing China, Caterpillar China, and GE China, Hillary made her way to the fairgrounds to take a look at the still-skeletal U.S. pavilion and make an ask.

“I know there are some in the audience who are still contemplating sponsorship or who may be in negotiations with the USA Pavilion team,” she said. “Now is the time to join this effort.” Boeing, the host of her earlier session with executives, doubled its contribution to the pavilion fund from $1 million to $2 million.

Hillary’s personal effort paid dividends for Bagley, Villarreal, Balderston, and America’s relationship with China. They had raised enough money at that point to ensure that America would be present at the fair, but the U.S. pavilion wouldn’t be completed until the last minute.

Two days before the May 1, 2010, opening of the fair, Chinese president Hu Jintao, vice premier Wang Qishan, and state councilor Dai Bingguo toured the U.S. Pavilion, taking in what Hillary and her team had accomplished in less than fifteen months—under half the time it might normally have taken to complete such a project.

“We were still working on the finishing touches even after the expo officially opened,” Villareal said. “Had it not been for her personal involvement in really lending her personal prestige, we just never would have been able to get it done.”

In late May 2010, Hillary came back to Shanghai for a third time to get her own firsthand look as one of 7.36 million people who visited the carbon-neutral U.S. pavilion over a six-month period. The reviews were fair but not good. John Pomfret of the Washington Post called it “one of the singular successes” of her first year and a half in office but noted that the pavilion looked more like “a convention center in a medium-size American city than a national showcase—a warren of dark rooms with movie screens that pales in comparison to the ambitious pavilions of, among others, Saudi Arabia, which features the world’s biggest IMAX screen, and Germany, festooned with hundreds of giant red balls.”

Villarreal acknowledged that “we could have done much better” with two or three years to put it together. “We made the most that we could, given the limitations,” he said. “At the end of the day, the question is ‘Did ordinary Chinese enjoy it?’ and the answer is ‘Absolutely.’”

“I’m just relieved,” Hillary said when she arrived, adding a lukewarm assessment of the pavilion itself: “It’s fine.”

Years later an iconic photograph of Hillary speaking in the rain at the construction site hung on the wall of the reception area outside Balderston’s office, a testament to the first major project of the State Department’s version of the Clinton Global Initiative. American and Chinese officials knew that it was a minor miracle that Hillary had been able to secure financing and build the pavilion in the first place, which was a major sign of respect for China. The Clinton family contact list had been invaluable for Bagley, Balderston, and Villarreal as they dialed angel donors directly. They “went to a lot of people in the network, the givers and funders network,” said a senior Hillary adviser.

A hint of the Clinton network’s central role was inscribed on the first page of Balderston’s copy of the world’s fair commemorative coffee table book: “As you would say, ‘We did it, buddy.’” The signature: Bill Clinton.

Excerpted from the book “HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton” by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes. Copyright © 2015 by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes. Excerpted by permission of Broadway, a division of Penguin Random House.