Tag:

Hillary Clinton

More Islamist Money Flows to Hillary Clinton

by Gregg Roman October 29, 2016

written by Gregg Roman

Originally published at the Middle East Forum.

The Middle East Forum’s “Islamist Money in Politics” (IMIP) project has recorded an additional $12,061 in campaign contributions from Islamist sources to Hillary Clinton since releasing its list of the top ten recipients of Islamist money for 2015-2016 on October 20. The new figures come from just-released FEC filings from August and September.

Mrs. Clinton has padded her lead atop the list, accepting $53,226 from prominent Islamists. This includes $16,216 from individuals associated with the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a group with deep ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. MPAC’s current president, Salam al-Marayati, was kicked off a congressional commission in 1999 when his defense of terrorist groups came to light.

Presidential candidate Evan McMullin has vaulted to sixth place on the list, accepting $5,400 from Islamists in August and September. Among other current presidential candidates, Jill Stein has accepted $250; Donald Trump and Gary Johnson have not received any Islamist money.

For full details of all Islamist contributions in a sortable database, click here.

While the amounts of Islamist donations are relatively small, the information: (1) holds politicians accountable for accepting funds from soiled sources; (2) signals the Islamist lobby’s affections and intentions; and (3) tells voters who takes money from individuals linked to enemies of the United States and its allies.

Islamists – be they violent or lawful – seek a caliphate and imposition of Shari’a law. This is what Khomeini, Bin Laden, and ISIS believe in.

Islamist Money in Politics shines a light on Islamist influence in U.S. politics by making public the campaign contributions of 1,356 leading figures in America’s most important Islamist groups. To date, IMIP has documented 3,005 Islamist contributions worth $1.45 million.

Launched in 2014, the non-partisan project continually updates contribution data to educate politicians themselves and the public.

The Middle East Forum promotes American interests through intellectual, activist, and philanthropic efforts.

[huge_it_share]

October 29, 2016 0 comments

Borders

The Coming War Maybe the Last

by Allan M. Coleman October 25, 2016

written by Allan M. Coleman

With a resurgent Putin and ascending China one wonders how the global structure that has existed since the end of the Cold War will continue to exist. Most people view events through a lens of national interests mixed with political bravado. These cross interests usually line up. Due to this alignment we rarely have the disconnect we currently have in the West. During the Cold War, anti-Soviet sentiment coincided with both the political and economic needs of the West’s establishment and everyday person.

No one in Washington or Brussels imagined a world where both Russia and China would reemerge as serious challengers to the West’s financial and geopolitical control, yet this is precisely what has happened. With Putin on the move in the Middle East and Eastern Europe and countries like the Philippines changing sides to China, the elite in the West have begun to panic. This is the cause of Hillary’s break with Obama’s policy when it comes to these new rising powers.

Goldman Sachs Speeches are Key to the Coming Confrontation

Hillary is bought and sold by the banks. Her speeches make it clear she works for them and is essentially their pupet in the White House. Like always wars are far more about economy and financial control than anything else. True there is an element ideology or nationalism at play, but choosing confrontation rarely has to do with that. Hillary and her backers see Russia and China as a serious threat for their continuing monopoly on global finance.

With this at play, the interests of main street and the elite diverge drastically. Most Americans don’t care about Russian moves in the Middle East or Eastern Europe. This is why Trump’s foreign policy is attractive. However, Trump is not the President whether or not he wins may not stave off a major confrontation between the USA/EU/Britain and Russia/China.

The financials in the West see a direct confrontation now, even at risk of full-blown WW3 levels rather than a proxy war as better to make sure their control stays in tact. Putin is not waiting either and this makes the “Great Game” far more dangerous than ever. For Putin and even China they understand the West is not going to let them steam roll their new world order.

When Will This Happen?

If Tump pulls an upset and wins, look for Obama to push towards an open confrontation now. If Hillary wins, Putin will want to move fast in order to throw her foreign policy off before she gets in office. The war will start, but on Putin’s time-table. Either way, the stakes are so high this next war maybe the world’s last.

[huge_it_share]

October 25, 2016 2 comments

“Trump Is Less Dangerous Than Clinton; She Will Start Nuclear War With Russia”

by Allan M. Coleman October 13, 2016

written by Allan M. Coleman

Well we know we’ve got a problem when the Green Party candidate is more honest than the Democratic Nominee. Jill Stein is absolutely correct. Hillary Clinton is fully willing to start a war with Russia at the behest of her neoconservatie backers. Hillary Clinton may be a socialist at heart, but her foreign policy is based on neoconservative ideas rooted in America’s role in being an active change maker for the globalist agenda.

All of this Trump has been very much on target about. The challenge has been that his campaign has been derailed for now by the national media’s obsession in covering for the Clintons.

A New Chapter for America

Why is Hillary Clinton so dangerous? The answer to this can be found in her ability to weave corporatist money into a socialist sort of control over the economy. She is one of the architects of many of the current globalist goals which learned to blend coroporate wealth with a mutated version of socialism.

Hillary envisions a world that is transformed and governed by corporate interests that are molded in the halls of government in a way where everyone is a dependent on a buearcracy so intertwined with the financial interests of the 1% that it will be hard to see the difference between Goldman Sachs and Capital Hill. Marx wins in a most ironic way. Instead of the government being the arbiter of the choices of the masses it becomes the tool of the corporations that are he true arbiters.

Why the Hate for Russia?

Once we understand that all neoconservative goals lie in the belief that it is only the American military that can truly bring stability to the world then we can understand the driving force behind this way of thinking. It is in fact these corporate elements that fund the security super structure at the heart of America’s globalist arm. Hillary is unabashed in being “in bed” with this group in a way Obama was always uncomfortable about. The corporate elements in the West view Putin and his backers as dangerous to their profit margins and would like to put them in their place before Russia becomes unstoppable.

If Trump loses on Nov. 8th, duck. Putin will not wait to be relegated to a defensive posture when Hillary takes over. He will look to grab important areas in Ukraine and other eastern European countries while Obama is still in office.

[huge_it_share]

October 13, 2016 1 comment

United States

Hillary Clinton Deserves to Lose Tonight’s Debate for this Reason…

by Allan M. Coleman September 26, 2016

written by Allan M. Coleman

There are so many reasons that Hillary deserves to lose tonight’s debate and therefore the election. She is part of the neoconservative globalist elite whose goal is to destroy nationhood, individualism, and free thought. Their main aim in doing so is to uproot the people of Israel from their Land, thus rendering the people of G-d non-chosen. This is their mission. If they succeed, the tremendous light that was brought into the world upon the Jewish people’s return to their homeland, would be extinguished.

All of these reasons are enough not to support Hillary. Yet, the above video is perhaps the greatest reason of all. In November 1999, Hillary Cinton found herself in Ramallah with the wife of arch-terrorist suddenly transformed into a statesman Yasser Arafat. After Suha gave a scathing address against Israel, Hillary embraced her. This singular event should remind everyone who she is. Arafat was responsible for killing more Jews post Holocaust than anyone else. He was the architect of the imaginary Palestinians and a KGB agent.

Hillary and her husband Bill knew who these people were and still saw fit to threaten and conjole Israel into an agreement with the leader of a group of heinous individuals languishing in terrorist exile in Tunisia. Arafat and his number two the current “President” of the Palestinian Authority Abbas came to Ramallah under the Oslo accords and wasted no time wiping out their moderate opposition. After they accomplished this they began a campaign of brainwashing the “Palestinian” Arab youth that still continues today.

The above image should remind voters who they should vote for, because if she can kiss the wife of the father of modern global terrorism, what makes them believe she has a desire to keep America, Israel, and the world safe.

[huge_it_share]

September 26, 2016 0 comments

The Society United States

Why Hillary’s “Experience” Presents a Problem

by Dan Calic September 18, 2016

written by Dan Calic

Many people are understandably concerned about this year’s presidential election. Some are saying the two chief candidates are the worst choices in decades. I’ve often heard it said that elections are not so much about voting for who you favor, but more about voting against who you disfavor. In other words, voting for the lessor of two evils. In 2016 this represents my personal position as well.

Some have decided to boycott the election altogether. In my opinion this is a copout and negates said individual from participating in discussions, as they have opted out of the process. Not making a decision, is making a decision.

One of the justifications people have used to support Hillary Clinton, vs Donald Trump, is she has experience. I understand that, however just because someone has “experience,” does that mean they deserve to be the most powerful person in the world? Also, one has to evaluate their “experience,” to determine if what they have previously done merits greater responsibility, and reward.

One of the flashpoint issues of the day is terrorism. It is here where I would like to dig a little deeper. Since Trump has not served in public office, his “experience” cannot be evaluated. Yet, he has made his views regarding terror quite clear.

Hillary on the other hand has significant experience, which includes serving as Secretary of State from 2009 – 2013. Let’s take a closer look, specifically with respect to terrorism.

One of the official duties in the job description of Secretary of State is “ensures the protection of the US Government to American citizens, property and interests in foreign countries.”

In March 2016 an American- Taylor Force was murdered by a terrorist while he was visiting Israel. His killer, Basar Masalha who was killed during the attack, was a member of Hamas. Masalha was praised as a “martyr” by the official PA newspaper Al-Hayat Al Jidada. PA President Mahmoud Abbas was asked to publically condemn the murder. He refused, which is tantamount to implicit support.

What’s the connection between Force’s murder and Hillary Clinton? Allow me to connect the dots.

It’s been documented, but worth repeating the Arab Palestinians reward terror. Starting in 2003, when a “soldier of Allah” commits murder, or another act of terror his crime provides him with a place of honor. It also entitles him to be paid a salary. The more heinous the crime, the greater the salary. If the murderer dies, or is killed while committing his crime, he becomes known as a “shahid,” or martyr. In this case his family is awarded the financial compensation. Palestinian murderers and/or their families in some cases collect as much as $3,500 (US) per month, which is 5 times greater than the average Palestinian family income.

Aside from Hamas, the terrorist can be from numerous groups, including Fatah, the political party of PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

The Palestinian Authority allocates roughly 6% of their budget to reward murderers. Since the government of the Palestinians is providing said compensation, it can easily be defined as state sponsored terrorism. Yet where are the demands to halt this despicable policy? Certainly none have come from Hillary.

While world leaders turn a blind eye to this ‘official’ sanctioning of murder, the same world leaders are often heard roundly criticizing Israel for construction in areas that have long been understood as being part of the Jewish State. Such criticizing voices have included Hillary Clinton. While there may be disagreement that said construction is in an acceptable area, how can any leader deserving of respect focus on construction, while ignoring outright murder?

Yet, there is more to this story. The Palestinian Authority receives over $1.3 billion aid money from around the world. (2014 figures) The single largest source is the United States which provides $400 million annually. The EU, Saudi Arabia and UK are 2nd, 3rd and 4th respectively in annual support.

While Clinton was not Secretary of State when Taylor Force was murdered, she was from 2009 – 2013. As such she was part of an ongoing US policy of being the majority financial supporter for a government which promotes and rewards murderers of Israeli civilians, which subsequently included Americans. In addition to Taylor Force, one of the three teens murdered by Hamas in June 2014-Naftali Frenkel, was American. During Clinton’s tenure she did nothing to criticize, impede or prevent the PA policy of rewarding murder, which was in place while she served as Secretary of State, and remains in effect today.

What’s the take away from this?

Indeed it is true that Hillary Clinton has “experience.” The question begs is the knowledge of and financial support for ongoing murder of innocent lives (which includes Americans) the type of “experience” that justifies electing her President?

I think Donald Trump would say “no.”

The real question is what will Americans say?

For more of Dan Calic’s articles see his Facebook Page.

September 18, 2016 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts