Dear Dupes with Candles: Hillary is Funded by Radical Islam

by William Skink

For those in the LGBT community rallying against hate and intolerance, I’m sure it’s tempting to see the Democratic party as the political party that has your back. But the awkward truth of the matter is you are merely pawns in a larger political game.

Domestically, sure, Democrats have your back because it’s politically advantageous to do so. Religious fundamentalism is the purview of conservatives, after all.

Or is it?

Things get a little more complicated when one moves beyond the borders of this exceptional country because a different sort of calculus is required to maintain global hegemony. LGBT rights in this context only matter if they can be used against a global adversary, like we saw with Russia during the Olympic games:

Gay rights activists across the world have been holding a day of protests against the Russian government, just two days before the Winter Olympics begin in the southern resort of Sochi.

The protests seek to persuade sponsors of the event to speak out over Russia’s controversial laws on homosexuality.

The gay rights protests were organised in 19 cities around the globe.

The issue of gay rights was cynically exploited by western nations to embarrass Russia during the Olympic games. If gay rights were actually supported by western nations, then why the selective outrage against Russia and not, say, Islamic fundamentalists in countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, 2 of the 10 countries were being gay is punishable by death?

Earlier this year, Saudi Arabia declared it wanted to execute gay people who showed their sexuality in public or online:

The government in the Sunni Kingdom is reportedly demanding tougher punishments on those found guilty and claimed social media has caused a boom in homosexuality.

According to Okaz newspaper, the last six months has seen 35 cases of homosexuality and 50 cases of cross-dressers as well as cases of “sexual perversion” in Saudi Arabia.

The judiciary reportedly also claimed there has been a large rise in “perverts” displaying “sins and obscenities” on social media in the Sunni Kingdom.

It comes after a Saudi man was arrested this week when he raised the rainbow flag outside his home in Jeddah.

In the wake of the Orlando massacre, some confusing information is coming out about the shooter that indicates he suffered not just from a mental illness, but very possibly was a conflicted gay man caught between his sexual orientation and his parents intolerance.

Omar Mateen had been a patron of the gay bar, Pulse, ‘for years’ according to a witness.  Mateen also went on a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia fives years ago, before he got on the radar of the FBI.

While this complicates matters, for a presidential candidate like Hillary Clinton, it’s pretty simple: say anything to get elected, even if it’s a problematic term like radical Islamism:

Hillary Clinton used the term “radical Islamism” on Monday, marking the first time she has used the controversial phrase and signaling a break from President Barack Obama’s stance on it. She went on to stress that using the much-debated term for terrorism isn’t the point.

“Look, I think Trump, as usual is obsessed with name calling and from my perspective, it matters what we do, not what we say. It mattered that we got bin Laden, not the name we called him,” she said on TODAY on Monday.

“But if he is somehow suggesting I don’t call this for what it is, he hasn’t been listening. I have clearly said that we face terrorist enemies who use Islam to justify slaughtering innocent people. And, to me, radical jihadism, radical Islamism, I think they mean the same thing. I’m happy to say either, but that’s not the point.”

Luckily for Hillary, her supporters are brainwashed cult followers incapable of seeing the reality that terrorists and jihadists are great tools for neoliberal hawks like Hillary Clinton when they are slaughtering innocent people in non-aligned countries, like Libya and Syria.

Also, radical Islamism is just fine when it’s funding a significant part of her campaign for president.

Radical Islamic regimes like Saudi Arabia should remember that Hillary is a serial liar, so they shouldn’t be too upset when she shovels a pile of bullshit like this:

The third area that demands attention is preventing radicalization and countering efforts by ISIS and other international terrorist networks to recruit in the United States and Europe. For starters, it is long past time for the Saudis, the Qataris and the Kuwaitis and others to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations. And they should stop supporting radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path towards extremism. We also have to use all our capabilities to counter jihadist propaganda online. This is something that I spend a lot of time on at the State Department.

In a response that quickly got deleted and has been disavowed as a hack, the crown prince allegedly stated the Saudis have funded 20% of Hillary’s campaign:

Jordan’s official news agency said on Tuesday that it was hacked when, over the weekend, a story briefly appeared on its website that said Saudi Arabia is a major funder of Hillary Clinton’s campaign to become the next president of the United States.

On Sunday a report appeared on the Petra News Agency website that included what were described as exclusive comments from Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The comments included a claim that Riyadh has provided 20 percent of the total funding to the prospective Democratic candidate’s campaign.

The report did not remain on the website for long, although the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs later re-published an Arabic version of it, which quoted Prince Mohammed as having said Saudi Arabia had provided with “full enthusiasm” an undisclosed amount of money to Clinton.

“Saudi Arabia always has sponsored both Republican and Democratic Party of America and in America current election also provide with full enthusiasm 20 percent of the cost of Hillary Clinton’s election even though some events in the country don’t have a positive look to support the king of a woman (sic) for presidency,” the report quoted Prince Mohammed as having said.

On Monday a spokesperson for American public relations firm the Podesta Group contacted MEE to say that they work with the Saudi Royal Court and to request a correction to our earlier story that said the Jordanian news agency had deleted the quotes from Prince Mohammed.

Hillary should be careful not to bite the jihadist hand that feeds her and her sycophants like Tony Podesta, brother to John Podesta, who is paid to do damage control for the Saudis. This article is from last year, but is very relevant to current events:

New evidence shows that wealthy Saudi Arabian interests continue to invest heavily in getting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton elected president. And Clinton’s ties with one of the world’s most brutal regimes may run deeper than anyone had imagined.

According to a new report from award-winning investigative journalist Michael Isikoff, the Saudi government has quietly handed a lucrative new “public relations” contract to Washington, DC lobbying outfit the Podesta Group. At least $200,000 has already changed hands.

The problem? The company is owned by top Clinton fundraiser Tony Podesta and the contract comes at a time when the Saudi government is facing international scrutiny over airstrikes in Yemen and a crackdown on Saudi political opponents.

When Hillary tries to talk tough on radical Islam, those who haven’t been lobotomized into supporting her should know she is full of shit. Hillary Clinton is fucking bankrolled by these murderous bastards who use undue pressure to get the UN to drop them from the murderous bastard list they deserve to be on:

The United Nations Secretary General excised the Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen from an annual UN register of children’s rights violators, after the middle-eastern country and its coalition partners threatened to cut off crucial funding to the world body.

Ban Ki-Moon said the removal of Saudi Arabia from the list was “one of the most painful and difficult decisions” he has had to make as Secretary General, describing the pressure the Arab nation had exerted on the UN as “unacceptable”.

His admission came after the coalition – which comprises the Saudis, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Senegal and Sudan – was cut from the appendix of the UN’s annual Children and Armed Conflict report, to the dismay of human rights groups.

The appendix lists those countries that have violated children’s rights over the preceding 12 months. UN Investigators found that the Saudi coalition was to blame for the deaths of more than half of the 510 children killed in the conflict in Yemen last year.

So Democrats, before attending the next vigil, consider that in a few months you will be voting for a lying sociopath funded by jihadist child killers who sponsor terrorists like the ones who attacked us on 9/11, yet still are protected from exposure by powerful, treasonous forces within our own government.

Advertisements

About William Skink

I'm a poet and political cynic living and writing in Montana. You can contact me here: willskink at yahoo dot com
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Dear Dupes with Candles: Hillary is Funded by Radical Islam

  1. petetalbot says:

    “Dupes with Candles.” Nice, Skink.

    Like

    • Matthew Koehler says:

      Do you read the posts, Talbot, or just comment on headlines?

      P.S. Dupe = a victim of deception.

      Like

      • Pete Talbot says:

        I attended the vigil on the UM campus, Koehler. A somber affair. Maybe you should contact the LGBT community and tell them they’re “dupes” for remembering their deceased brothers and sisters.

        Like

        • Matthew Koehler says:

          I never called anyone a “dupe” Talbot. I simply provided a definition. Also, I’m pretty much just responding to your snarky comments with the same type of snark you direct towards others here…including using last names in a somewhat demeaning way. Got that, Talbot?

          I don’t agree with everything written on this blog, nor every single word in a headline; however, as I’ve said before I learn a lot from the writings of Skink and JC. And I can’t really say that about your writings, because they are so clearly just partisan and have the over-arching goal of providing cover for Democratic Party politicians.

          Like

    • Pete Talbot says:

      I think I’m entitled to a little snark here, Koehler. Recent posts seem to lead with “Pete Talbot” this or “Pete Talbot” that or “Missoula elitist Pete Talbot” or “Pete can go fuck himself.”

      I’m not completely enamored with Democratic Party politics, although I do believe that background on the process, like my coverage of the state convention, is interesting to some people. I also think that there are campaigns out there that are worth fighting for — Juneau v. Zinke, for example. How about you?

      The only time I ever visit this site is when I see a ping back over at ID. Now I’m pretty much completely done and have relegated this site to the Piece of Mind scrap heap. I mean, really, comments that the Orlando mass shooting is a false flag? C’mon, now.

      Like

      • why lie Pete? the post you made your pimping comment didn’t reference anything you wrote, so no ping back. I certainly don’t need you writing anything to continue the pace of 4-5 posts a week. I maintain that even when you guys have your dry spells.

        I see your blog host is allowing comments again from the pariahs, including Larry. have fun with that.

        Like

  2. steve kelly says:

    Pedal to the metal. Well done Mr. Skink. Let’s not forget Hillary’s friends at Goldman Sachs. And, The Middle East for $200: Why has ISIS and the alphabet soup of “moderate” proxy-terrorists we fund directly and indirectly via Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-Arab states ever attack Israel?

    Great Game II. Tag, Democrats, you’re it.

    Like

  3. Big Swede says:

    Who wore it better?

    ?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

    Like

  4. Pete, here’s a link you can read instead to better educate yourself. I got it from Moyers, who asks “How did the Democratic Party wind up representing the predators instead of the poor?” have any answers to that question, Talbot? link.

    Like

    • petetalbot says:

      An excellent article, Skink. Moyers almost always gets it right. Wasserman-Shultz has to go — at the DNC and in Congress. You’ve got no argument with me on this.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s