On the world stage, a more repressive regime than Saudi Arabia can scarcely be found. It is qualitatively and quantitatively a worse violator of human rights than even the infamously oppressive North Korea.
North Korea does not force women to wear black, full body, burkas in the desert heat, it does not practice female genital mutilation, neither does it condone the killing of young girls for the crime of having been raped- as does Saudi Arabia.
Also, North Korea- mercifully- does not have a ban on alcohol. Saudi Arabia is among the world’s greatest known sponsors of terrorism, and they are infamous for manipulating the global economy using the influence they gain from owning some of the world’s largest oil reserves.
Its common sense that anyone who donates money to the political campaigns of American politicians can expect to have a degree of influence over the policies promoted by the politician proportional to the amount of money donated. It’s been this way for a very long time.
Major corporations and monied interests have been lining the pockets of our nation’s leaders for decades, if not longer- and the practice is more accepted than it ever has been. This would seem to indicate that the character, political goals and, reputation of the donor to a political campaign would rub off on the politician to which they donated.
Today, we know beyond the shadow of doubt that Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation have been the recipients of massive amounts of Saudi money in the form of donations. The question is, how much influence have they managed to purchase from her?
One answer appears to be, enough to secure very attractive weapons deals from the Clinton State Department.
In 2008, after a decade of refusing to reveal her donors, Hillary Clinton dropped a large cache of names. Saudi Arabia gave between $10 and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Other foreign donors include Norway, Kuwait, Brunei Qatar, Jamaica, Oman, and Italy. The Dutch National lottery donated somewhere in the ballpark of $5 to $10 million. The Blackwater Training Center, (a security organization infamous for committing hideous acts of violence against Iraqi citizens) donated as much as $25,000. This was all before Mrs. Clinton was even made secretary of state.
This is all ancient history, and there are zero signs that Hillary, her husband, and their foundation have slowed one bit on accepting donations from disreputable sources.
In fact, it seems, the more disreputable the source- the more Hillary Clinton likes them. This stands out starkly after making Debbie Wasserman a major part of her presidential campaign immediately following Wasserman’s being fired for misconduct in her previous position.
After the famously secret 28 pages of the 9/11 report were revealed it became obvious that Saudi Arabia has some major amount of culpability for the Twin Tower attacks. A frightened Saudi Arabia threatened to cut the US off from their oil reserves if bereaved Americans were allowed to sue them for the terrorist attacks.
By 2008, while the public had no access to the 28 pages, it seems unlikely that Hillary Clinton would not somehow have been warned off taking Saudi money- otherwise she would be compromised by not just the worst and most draconian government on the planet- but by the very people responsible- at least in part- for the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001.
How could the then, future Secretary of State accept that kind of culpability? It’s as good a question then as it is now.
The list also names such conspicuous liberal moneymen as Peter Lewis and Steven Bing — not to mention George Soros. Some corporations were on the list, including All-Tel, Entergy and Duke Energy, as well as Citibank and Bank of America.
When the shocking revelation was made in 2008, the Clinton Foundation claimed that 90% of the donations they received amounted to $250 or less. But there were enough well-funded names on that list to cast doubt on the forthrightness of that claim.
For years, people have been trying to get strident supporters of the Clintons to see how many disreputable interests are funding them. We know so much more now- from the admitted classified email incompetence to proof of stolen votes. But the message seems to have gotten lost in the high-pitched liberal droning for the Nation’s First Female President.
Regards,
Ethan Warrick
Editor
Wealth Authority
