Sponsors of Islamists invest into Hillary

As I've been keeping watching the election race, I've been coming to understanding that Mrs. Clinton is the most admirable as a woman of character and a nimble politician. This person is out of any legal or moral rules. She should be a hard-boiled egg so that she could manage to gain support of either Jewish tycoons (Rockefeller, Soros), or Muslim zealots (Fetullah Gulen's followers (http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/22/followers-of-a-mysterious-turkish-islamic-cleric-have-donated-heavily-to-hillarys-campaign-and-family-charity/)).

She is so convincing that an obedient herd of voters have been praising her effusively, but taking no notice of unscrupulous actions of the future U.S. President. Also at first glance such citizens' and non-citizens' willingness to donate millions of dollars to Clinton's presidential race resembles sect or mass hypnosis.

It is noteworthy that in spite her vast political experience Hillary is far short of charisma of Joseph Di Mambro or Jim Jones, the leader of the People's Temple. That is why Americans are save from mass suicides and signing over all their possessions to Mrs. Clinton. However there was a surge among influential organizations and corporations in love for HIV-positive persons, poor and disaster-affected people, as soon as it became known for certain that Clinton once again would run for the presidency. Notably that not only such American organizations as Friends of Saudi Arabia, Monsanto and ExxonMobile, but also foreign citizens occurred to be among such soft-hearted givers.

According to the Wall Street Journal, in 2014 among those who made donations to the Clinton Foundation were United Arab Emirates, a first-time donor, Qatari government committee preparing for the 2022 soccer World Cup, Oman, Canadian government agency and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (http://www.wsj.com/articles/foreign-government-gifts-to-clinton-foundation-on-the-rise-1424223031). This is a remarkable list. Thus, it is known that the State Department issued rather unfavourable human rights reports about the UAE and Oman. Qatar was also black-booked by the human rights activists because of over 1,000 migrant workers have already died during the 2022 World Cup preparations. The forgoing Canadian agency has been promoting the Keystone XL pipeline's construction in spite of environmentalists' and some Congressmen's harsh attacks (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/18/increase-in-foreign-donations-to-clinton-foundation-raises-ethical-questions.html).

With regard to Saudi Arabia, this country has been a repeat donor since the foundation's founding. Also it has a long history of cooperation with Hillary Clinton. It's no coincidence that George W. Bush calls her 'his sister-in-law'.



According to a report published in the Intercept (https://theintercept.com/2016/02/22/saudi-christmas-present), Clinton made weapons transfers to Saudi Arabia a "top priority".

In released by the State Department emails concerned the recent scandal Hillary celebrates heartily 'not a bad Christmas present'. The present had occurred to be the sale of over 80 Boeing manufactured (another one of the most generous sponsors of the Clintons Foundation) F-15 jets. Those very fighters Saudis used during airstrikes in Yemen, when they hit facilities of Doctors Without Borders, a wedding hall, a center for the blind, and also killed journalists and ambulance drivers.



In 2012 the Saudi king expressed his satisfactions with such effective cooperation by $ a half a million present (https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2013-21264.pdf). This price is beyond the reach of reason and good manners (the majority of gifts from foreign establishment have been assessed at $ 450-650). However, they didn't forget to make a "Non-acceptance would cause embarrassment to donor and U.S. Government" note.



Upon the whole during Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, the State Department granted increases in arms exports to 17 out of 20 countries sponsoring the Clintons Foundation. Difference for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia totaled 97%, Qatar – 1482%, Oman – 221%, the UAE – 1005%.



An Algerian case is an illustrative sample of this tried and tested simple scheme. In 2010 Clinton criticized Algeria for violations of democratic freedoms and corruption in the country. In the same year the Algerian government donated $ 500,000 to the Clintons Foundation 'assist with earthquake relief in Haiti'. The next year the State Department conferred Algeria a one-year increase in military export authorizations, including almost 50,000 items classified as chemical and biological agents and associated equipment. Such items never were authorized for export to Algeria before (http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187).

In view of this situation, Clinton's support of a 9/11 bill has been ever more reasoned (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/ex-sen-graham-calls-saudi-arabia-threat-u-s-revealing-article-1.2604613). In fact, Hillary together with other politicians has publicly voiced that Saudi Arabia has not only been sponsoring international terrorists. But it IS a terrorist country itself having a straight-line responsibility for mass murders of thousands of innocent victims. The after 9/11 State Department's logic suggests that Saudi Arabia should become a number-one candidate for the next "Democratic" Spring.

Does the Saudi king bother about it? He hardly does. It is just another hint that it's about time to make another donation for HIV infected gopher, for the reduced to indigence by the Occupy-movement or for the Mars' gardening, in other words, into the Mrs. Presidential Nominee's pockets.

Technically the Supreme Court officially says people can give unlimited money for political campaign donations. Foreigners aren't forbidden doing that either. However, the moral dilemma about the correctness of TAKING this money arises. For sure a sponsor presumes on the proper response of a beneficiary. As well, politicians enter into an unwritten agreement, while accepting a 'present'. Formally we've become accustomed to call it lobbying. In practice this is a legalized corruption. It turns out that any lawlessness or crimes against humanity could be justified with charity purpose.

In her previous career Mrs. Clinton had been a dab hand at such agreements. President's services are much multifarious and more expensive than Secretary of State's ones, of course. Therefore, a new post will grant Clinton greater opportunities of working out money of Saudis and other 'philanthropists' by turning a blind eye to barbaric ways of things in countries, religious zealotry and open financing of Islamic extremists.