Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
marcus

Zionism's influence over Western politics

Recommended Posts

It's no secret that Western politics, especially when it comes to foreign policy, is heavily influenced by Zionist bankrollers.

Throughout this thread, I will add more information on the Zionist lobby's grip over Canadian and European politics as well.

This control is certainly true when it comes to the U.S. There are countless Israeli/Zionist lobby groups and agenda driven, so-called think tanks, backed by billionaires (Like Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban) who are using their billions to control who gets to be a politician and what kind of ideas are acceptable to be discussed when it comes to foreign policy.

(Update, Van Hollen has won 53% of the votes)

At the moment, there is an interesting senate race happening in Maryland.



LINK TO PHOTO

This is the brave face of the real American people shaking the foundation of the rich and powerful Zionist hold on the US politics --

Congresswoman Donna Edwards is running for the US Senate in Maryland and she has dared to defy the power of the Israeli Fifth Column inside the US --AIPAC and its supporters --over her conscience and politics --as a result Haim Saban --the rich Zionist bosom buddy of Hillary Clinton who joined force with George and his wife Amal Clooney to raise even more millions for her --has just allotted 100,000 dollars for a last minute blitz to defeat Ms Edwards in her race against a garden variety white man and of course devout pro-Israel candidate Chris Van Hollen --


The phenomenon now gathering around Bernie Sanders is much deeper and much wider and it has reached a critical mass that can no longer be purchased, silenced, intimidated, or corrupted by rich Zionists like Haim Saban or certified idiots like George Clooney --this grassroots foundation of a far more progressive politics informs the BDS movement and there is very little that Hillary Clinton, Haim Saban, or the New York Times can do to change that demographic fact in order to sustain in power the racist apartheid settler colony of Israel and enable it to continue to steal the rest of Palestine, murder more Palestinians, and systematically destabilize the Arab and Muslim world --

To learn how the Israeli lobby and Haim Saban in particular are ganging up against Congresswoman Edwards go here:
mondoweiss.net/2016/04/donna-edwardss-campaign-unsettles-the-israel-lobby-inside-the-democratic-party/

To learn more specifically about Haim Saban's determination to defeat Congresswoman Edwards go here:
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/25/pro-israel-billionaire-haim-saban-drops-100000-against-donna-edwards-in-maryland-senate-race/

To learn more about Congresswoman Edwards' own extraordinary story go here:
http://www.thenation.com/article/weve-had-1-black-woman-senator-in-227-years-donna-edwards-is-running-to-change-that/

Edited by marcus
added photo link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Throughout this thread, I will add more information on the Zionist lobby's grip over Canadian and European politics as well.

But until that happens, let's focus on the United States because that was the real intention anyway. AIPAC is an American lobby group, and it can operate just like any other special interest group in the USA. Campaign financing apparently is more effective than terrorism.

Israel enjoys widespread support from various demographic groups in the USA...far beyond Israeli Americans/Jews:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/27/strong-support-for-israel-in-u-s-cuts-across-religious-lines/

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But until that happens, let's focus on the United States because that was the real intention anyway.

This shouldn't be about how sensitive you get when U.S.' role and place is pointed out. Zionism has substantial power over the most powerful military in the world. This is why it stands out the most. Without the power over U.S., there would be no $3+ billion a year of military weapons donated to Israel to brutalize Palestinians. Without the power over U.S., Israel would be in international court, battling resolutions after resolutions and international sanctions would be applied on Israel at a faster pace.

Campaign financing apparently is more effective than terrorism.

Campaign financing allows the State of Israel to continue its terrorism.

Israel enjoys widespread support from various demographic groups in the USA...far beyond Israeli Americans/Jews:

With their money and their long established place in American politics and the millions the Zionist lobby pours into manufacturing the consent of Americans, what do you expect.

But then again, despite the heavy marketing by the Zionist lobby and the heavily influenced mainstream media and the successful censorship of the opposing viewpoint, Pew Forum did another survey a few years back and:

Americans overall were fairly evenly divided as to whether the U.S. should support Israel over the Palestinians: 35% agreed, while 38% disagreed, with 27% expressing no opinion. If anything, slightly more Americans believe that the U.S. should not support Israel over the Palestinians than believe that it should.

I love these Pew Forum surveys, like this one which compares U.S. Jews and Israeli Jews:

But far more American than Israeli Jews say “leading an ethical and moral life” (69% vs. 47%) and “working for justice and equality” (56% vs. 27%) are vital to being Jewish.

Edited by marcus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is that the...errr...Zionists...control the media, government and education across the globe...tentacles of Zionist influence snaking their way into everything.

Is that correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is that the...errr...Zionists...control the media, government and education across the globe...tentacles of Zionist influence snaking their way into everything.

Is that correct?

Yet another Jews are horrible people thread, as if we didn't already have enough of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This shouldn't be about how sensitive you get when U.S.' role and place is pointed out. Zionism has substantial power over the most powerful military in the world. This is why it stands out the most. Without the power over U.S., there would be no $3+ billion a year of military weapons donated to Israel to brutalize Palestinians. Without the power over U.S., Israel would be in international court, battling resolutions after resolutions and international sanctions would be applied on Israel at a faster pace.

Still waiting for posts about the "Zionists" controlling other "western politics". The U.S. provides humanitarian, military, and economic aid to many nations, not just Israel. Afghanistan receives more than Israel recently, so please explain how the Afghans have taken over U.S. media and politics.

Israel/USA have not ratified the ICC, so good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another Jews are horrible people thread, as if we didn't already have enough of them.

Well, if "Zionists" are the bad Jews...who are the good Jews? So many questions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another Jews are horrible people thread

Jews are not horrible people. Some people are horrible people.

There are many Jews who are against the selfish, immoral and criminal behaviour of the Zionist industry and their actions against Palestinians.

I'm sorry that every time I respond to you, I have to burst your narrow view that everything must be black and white and us vs them, but some of the leading activists against Zionism, the treatment of Palestinians and U.S.' role are Jewish.

Edited by marcus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jews are not horrible people. Some people are horrible people.

There are many Jews who are against the selfish, immoral and criminal behaviour of the Zionist industry and their actions against Palestinians.

So 1% of Jews are good? And the rest are evil? Is that pretty much your belief?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 1% of Jews are good? And the rest are evil? Is that pretty much your belief?

The word evil is intellectually lazy.

When the overwhelming majority of Germans supported their government's actions against the Jews, homosexuals and the disabled, did that make Germans 'evil'?

I know you're trying to bait and push the label of anti-semitism, but it's not going to work. This is not about a person's religion or ethnicity.

Just because some, like yourself, support bombing campaigns in the middle east, discrimination against a certain religion and the violation of human rights, it doesn't make you 'evil'. It's a sign of lazy thinking, closed-mindedness, and ignorance. Those are usually the basis for the fear and bigotry some people develop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed....we've already seen this movie...several times.

Cabaret...right this way your table's waiting.

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But until that happens, let's focus on the United States because that was the real intention anyway. AIPAC is an American lobby group, and it can operate just like any other special interest group in the USA. Campaign financing apparently is more effective than terrorism.

Israel enjoys widespread support from various demographic groups in the USA...far beyond Israeli Americans/Jews:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/27/strong-support-for-israel-in-u-s-cuts-across-religious-lines/

He's well aware that Iran's lobby group is larger than AIPAC's and is funding Hilary Clinton's campaign. Lol his script doesn't allow him to discuss that or even attempt to explain how the drivel he put up is even remotely close to the

pathetic heading.

At this point not that you've noticed the same few are starting threads with nothing at all that even matches the title of their threads. Its just an excuse to get the usual anti Zionist canards into the title list so everytime someone

opens the forum list they see the slur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's well aware that Iran's lobby group is larger than AIPAC's and is funding Hilary Clinton's campaign.

Wow. Pure fantasy.

Where do you get your bizarre information from? Really. Share some citation.

Clinton has the one-issue Israeli billionaire, Saban, bankrolling her campaign. This is why she came out to be the most hawkish of all politicians at AIPAC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons Hudson Jones I consider you a joke right down to the attempt to deflect and try change the subject on Hilary, and her Iranian connections is because you are predictable, oh so damn predictable-doesn't take much to get to expend yourself does it Moe:

Oh go on, knock yourself out:

Hillary Clinton's Big Benefactor Has Trade Links with Iran

By Rory Ross On 4/18/15 at 6:15 AM

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/24/hillary-clinton-runs-white-house-and-row-over-ukrainian-benefactors-trade-322253.html

http://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-abroad/newsweek-hillary-clintons-big-benefactor-has-trade-links-with-iran-386749.html

Clinton Foundation Received Millions from Saudis, Qatar, Iran

http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/clinton-foundation-received-millions-saudis-qatar-iran#

http://acdemocracy.org/hillary-iran-and-the-clinton-foundation/

Senator Hillary Clinton Takes Money from Pro-Regime Iranians

By Jim Kouri, CPP

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11649.htm

Oh but wait Hudson make a couple of halal blt's sit down and read this one straight from the "Hudson" Institute...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-rj-brodsky/the-hillary-clinton-email_1_b_8086766.html

"The release of another batch of Hillary Clinton emails, courtesy of the State Department, provides an opportunity to glimpse inside the formation of the Obama administration’s approach to Iran in the early days of his presidency. Several interesting emails in particular shed some light on the important role a pro-Iranian lobbying group played in shaping U.S. policy. In fact, given the smear merchants who constantly berate the “Jewish lobby” as being all-powerful in Washington, it turns out that the Iran lobby has been far more influential during the Obama presidency and that they’ve had the ear of key policymakers in the administration. As Hillary Clinton’s emails demonstrate, a 10-page plan sent to her by four key members of The Iran Project provided the blueprint for America’s strategy with Iran.

Perhaps no one has taken a deeper dive into the Iran lobby than Lee Smith, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and senior editor of The Weekly Standard. In a series of articles he penned in his Tablet Magazine column, “Agents of Influence” in 2010, he explored the dueling Iran lobbies in detail, half a year after the protest movement in Iran was crushed by the regime. In “Iran’s Man in Washington,” Smith explored Flynt Leverett and his wife, Hillary Mann Leverett, whose main claim to fame rested on Flynt’s access to the hard-line elements of the regime in Tehran and the couple’s invention of a “grand bargain“ offered by Iran in 2003. Smith explains that Flynt “was lionized by liberals for his opposition to the Bush administration’s Iran policy.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now of course Hudson Jones knows nothing of the following:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-rj-brodsky/the-hillary-clinton-email_1_b_8086766.html

" Toward a New Policy on Iran"

In December 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Under-Secretary of State William Burns met with Heintz, Luers, Pickering, and Wisner—four of the nine key leaders of The Iran Project. As Hillary Clinton’s emails demonstrate, Pickering emailed her their 10-page plan that “provides fuller detail on the ideas we discussed” on December 22, 2010. Entitled, “Toward a New Policy on Iran,” it provided the outline for U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic. Indeed, most of the features contained in the plan are recognizable looking back at U.S. diplomacy since that time. It is, in essence, a document of America’s surrender from the Middle East and acquiescence in Iran’s dominance in the region. This policy prescription would set the table to discuss the terms of that surrender.

“We propose that you urge the President to instruct you to open a direct relationship with Iran,” their 2010 policy paper states. “The burden rests on the U.S. to convince an uncertain Iranian leadership to come out of its shell.” That required written assurances that the Obama administration would not seek a policy of regime change. Mr. Obama sent Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei a letter early in his first term and many more followed between either Khamenei or President Rouhani after his 2013 election.

To start off on the right foot with Iran, President Obama “must find a way to communicate directly with the Supreme Leader a U.S. desire to open official talks” and it should be conducted through a personal emissary he appoints to deliver oral messages. According to Israel’s biggest-selling daily newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, Barack Obama dispatched a personal emissary to a series of secret meetings in the late summer and autumn of 2012 to meet with “Iranian officials led by a personal representative of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.” Obama’s emissary was his special adviser, Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and close friend of Mr. Obama, born in Shiraz, Iran, to American parents. The paper described her as “a key figure in secret contacts the White House is conducting with the Iranian regime.”

What Obama’s emissary should call for “in a respectful tone” is mutual recognition of the other’s legitimate interests in the area. That means before any discussions would commence, the U.S. would have to recognize as legitimate, Iran’s reach into Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, to the Mediterranean Sea. In other words, the United States should sign up to legitimize the export of the Islamic Republic’s revolution, a central raison d’être of the regime that emerged after the 1979 revolution.

A thaw in relations must precede progress on the nuclear deal, this Iran lobby argued, because one of the consequences of continuing with the current policy “will be the missed opportunity to engage Iran in a long tem constructive regional strategy.” Indeed, with Iran acting as America’s partner in the Middle East, there will be an opportunity to help establish “a regional security structure aimed at giving Iran and the Gulf states a greater sense of stability.” This would allow the U.S. and Iran “to develop together approaches to... eventually weaken Iran’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah.” This, of course, is akin to discussing fire safety measures with the neighborhood’s leading arsonist.

Therefore, the U.S. should immediately redeem Iran, end its isolation, and cooperate with the regime in Tehran on other issues of mutual interest before discussing the nuclear program directly: “A U.S. offer to cooperate with Iran as an equal partner on one or more non-nuclear issues will set the stage for [sic] more fruitful discussion of the nuclear issue. The U.S. will improve markedly chances to get Iran to deal seriously with the nuclear issues by starting with an offer to cooperate on other problems in the region.” That is precisely what the Obama administration has been at pains to avoid saying publicly—that the U.S. has acted as Iran’s air force in Iraq in an effort to rollback the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or ISIS."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the man behind the Iran lobby:

http://usatransnationalreport.org/iran-lobby/

"The Trailblazers: Namazi & Nemazee

The Iran lobby of today appears to have its origins in the work of two individuals. One of those individuals is Baquer Namazi, who heads a central and critical Iranian non-governmental organization (NGO). Namazi’s son, Siamak, co-founded the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC) with Trita Parsi, who was a consultant to Republican Congressman Bob Ney of Ohio.

The other individual is Hassan Namazee, who was a major political fundraiser, especially (but not exclusively) for Democrats. He is now serving a prison sentence after admitting guilt in committing bank fraud.

Baquer Namazi and Hamyaran – Corruption and Influence through NGOs and the United Nations

In 1998, elements within the Iranian government, Iranian NGO community, and international organizations (including the United Nations) formed the NGO Hamyaran. It was conceived as, and operates as, an “umbrella” NGO for all other Iranian state-connected NGOs.

As one source explains:

“In addition to monitoring and controlling the Iran’s NGOs, Hamyaran is charged with channeling all contacts and relations of the NGOs with the international organizations and the UN. Under the supervision of the government, Hamyaran is also charged with creating communication channels with the Iranians living in the US.”

In a word, Hamyaran is Tehran’s organization to police and propagate the pro-Iranian (and thus pro-Mullah) message within the United States, and more broadly to the West. It does this under the auspices of the United Nations.

Since Hamyaran’s founding in 1998 by Dr. Hossein Malek-Afzali, a high ranking Iranian government official who at one time served in President Ahmadinejad’s cabinet, the NGO has been co-led by Malek Afzali and Baquer Namazi.

◾Like Malek-Afzali, Baquer Namazi is closely tied to the government in Tehran. Baquer was previously the governor of the province of Khuzestan, in addition to holding multiple other high level positions in the government. He has also held positions with the United Nations, including being a Member of the Advisory Panel of U.N. Center for Regional Development, Nagoya.
◾Namazi’s son, Siamak, founded the International Association of Iranian Managers (I-AIM). The organization is dedicated to recruiting high-powered “Iranian elites” in the United States.
◾Siamak’s partner in I-AIM, Ali Mostashari, was a strategic advisor to the Assistant Secretary General and Director of the Regional Bureau for Africa at the United Nations Development Program. He has been accused by reporters of directing U.N. funds into Iran for his own benefit and the benefit of the ruling Mullahs.
◾Siamak Namazi, with Republican consultant Trita Parsi, founded the National Iranian-American Council. It is arguably the primary lobbying arm of Tehran in Washington, D.C.

Like many of the Obama administration’s other scandals, it is clear from the facts above that the United Nations was used to supersede American law and sovereignty. Furthermore, in keeping with the trends of Obama scandals, several tax-exempt NGOs were central to the plan. This points to an inept, if not complicit, I.R.S.

Hassan Nemazee & Iranian- American PAC (IAPAC): Democrat Fundraiser Extraordinaire

If Baquer Namazi, his son Siamak, and their associates cemented the relationship between the Iran lobby and United Nations, Hassan Nemazee was the Iran lobby’s man in the Democrat Party. Before admitting to bank fraud in 2010, Nemazee was a star fundraiser for top Democrats.

◾In 2008, Nemazee served as one of Hillary Clinton’s national fundraising chairmen when she was running against Barack Obama in the Democrat primary.
◾Nemazee was eventually credited by the Obama campaign with helping raise $500,000, following Clinton’s defeat in the primary. He donated an additional $50,000 to Obama’s inauguration committee.
◾Also in 2008, Nemazee donated $9,200 to Biden for President Inc.
◾In 2007, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was the featured guest speaker at IAPAC’s annual New York City reception.
◾In 2006, Senator Chuck Schumer asked Nemazee to serve as finance chairman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Nemazee raised $119 million, helping to retake the Senate for Democrats and installing Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader.
◾In 2004, Nemazee raised $500,000 for Democrat nominee (and current Secretary of State) John Kerry. Kerry, of course, was the lynchpin in securing the Iranian nuclear deal.
◾In 2000, Nemazee donated $50,000 to the Gore-Lieberman Recount Committee.

Nemazee’s influence was not limited exclusively to the Democrat Party, and neither is the Iran lobby’s influence in general. He and his partner, Alan Quasha had a history of giving to Republicans, too.
◾Before joining with the Clintons, Nemazee gave to Republican senators, including: Jesse Helms (R-NC), Sam Brownback (R-KS), and Alfonse D’Amato (R-NY).
◾Nemazee was represented in his fraud case by attorney Marc Mukasey, son of former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007.
◾In the 1980s, Namazee’s business partner, Alan Quasha, provided George W. Bush a spot on the board of his oil company, Harken Energy.
◾Quasha is a decidedly bipartisan donor: he gave to Bush and Gore in 2000, to Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, and Barack Obama and Chris Dodd in 2008.

Hassan Nemazee was on the board of the Iranian-American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) until 2009. Public disclosures of IAPAC highlight the bi-partisan nature of their enterprise; from 2008-2014, it gave significantly to Republicans and Democrats.
◾2014 Total Spent: $87,668 Democrats: 63% Republicans: 37%
◾2012 Total Spent: $88,264 Democrats: 59% Republicans: 41%
◾2010 Total Spent: $67,609 Democrats: 46% Republicans: 38%
◾2008 Total Spent: $395,852 Democrats: 52% Republicans: 48%
◾2006 Total Spent: $263,579 Democrats: 58% Republicans: 42%
◾2004 Total Spent: $224,871 Democrats: 42% Republicans: 58%

Source: OpenSecrets.org

Kind of makes a mockery of this Zionists control the US doesn't it Hudson?

Oh but go on tell em how the above is all part of a Jewish conspiracy. Lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh co me now Hudson still wanna play with me...

source: http://usatransnationalreport.org/iran-lobby/

"NIAC has approximately 5,000 dues paying members, and access to tens of thousands of additional fellow travelers. The below profiles some of

NIAC’s most accomplished associates.

◾Trita Parsi – In addition to the information above, Trita Parsi has courted the leading presidential advisors, Republican and Democrat, including those to George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama. In 2003, Trita had Congressman Ney present a “grand bargain” to Karl Rove from the Iranian government. Parsi is a practical VIP in the Obama White House, reportedly consulting with Valerie Jarrett and advising both the State Department and the CIA.

◾Reza Marashi – A former employee of AB Consulting, Marashi found employment with the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University, which functions as a think tank for the Pentagon. Later he worked for the Office of Iranian Affairs at the U.S. Department of State “as a desk officer overseeing Iran democracy and human-rights programs.”

◾Sahar Nowrouzzadeh – A top advisor to Obama on Iran policy, Nowrouzzadeh is National Security Council director for Iran at the White House. Prior to this position, she worked at the State Department and Department of Defense.

Of course, NIAC propagandists like Marashi and Nowrouzzadeh had a more than friendly audience in the Obama administration: they had a White House willing to finish their work for them. The whole history of the administration showcases Obama’s and Valerie Jarrett’s infatuation with Iran.

◾Prior to the 2008 election, the Obama team dispatched former ambassador William G. Miller to Iran, informing the Mullahs that they would get a better deal once Obama was in office.

◾Obama ignored the revolutionary Green Movement in 2009, and let the Iranian government kill and imprison the reform-minded protestors.

◾Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State at the time of the Green Movement’s uprising, was advised by Trita Parsi not to support the protesters.

◾John Kerry’s son-in-law’s best man at his daughter’s wedding is the son of Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, the Iranian’s main negotiator in nuclear talks.

Minutes from a 2007 NIAC Board of Directors meeting make it clear that NIAC was in contact with and supportive of Hassan Nemazee’s lobbying efforts. From the minutes:

“Goli Ameri initiative and the creation of PAAIA with Hassan Nemazee and others… Trita mentioned key Silicon Valley’s IA’s as having contributed… and expressed admiration for Goli Ameri’s fundraising ability… Kami wondered whether we could ask PAAIA to join us in the ‘stop the war’ cause.”

Finally, as if it was written in the stars that the Obama administration would usher in an Iranian nuclear regime, Valerie Jarret was born in Shiraz, Iran, in a hospital named after Hassan Nemazee’s father."

Clinton like Obama and Kerry and Biden was bought out by Iran years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the only time I am going to address the fantasy you are trying to spread. I don't have time for your make belief world.

You've shared a lot of links from a lot of questionable web sites. Nowhere you have proven the false information you tried to spread that Iran has bought Clinton. I mean, just look at this information you have given as your "SMOKING GUN", by showing how an Iranian-American lobby group (which we'll pretend is connected to the Iranian regime) has donated to politics:

Public disclosures of IAPAC highlight the bi-partisan nature of their enterprise; from 2008-2014, it gave significantly to Republicans and Democrats.

  • 2014 Total Spent: $87,668 Democrats: 63% Republicans: 37%

Compared that to the MILLIONS given to both Democrats and Republicans at different levels and it shows the pure fantasy you're trying to spread.

Here is Hillary's Israeli Firster bankroller, Saban's contribution in just one year:

Saban and his wife, Cheryl, are Hillary Clinton’s top financial backers, having given $2,046,600 to support her political campaigns and at least $10 million more to the Clinton Foundation, on whose board Cheryl Saban sits.

Really?

Check out the conspiracy theories here, from Saban himself:

An extensive New Yorker profile of Saban recalls how Saban publicly described his “three ways to be influential in American politics” in 2009. One was political donations. Another was establishing think tanks (he founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in 2002). And the third was controlling media outlets.

Pro-Israel? YOU BETCHA! Controlling Politics? OOOOOH YEAH!

The New York Times reported in 2009 that Saban was apparently part of a scheme before the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress in which Saban would threaten then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi that he would withhold donations if Pelosi didn’t make then-Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., chair of the House Intelligence Committee. (In return, according to the Times report, which was based on telephone calls intercepted by the National Security Agency, Harman would lobby the Bush administration for leniency for two pro-Israel lobbyists under investigation for espionage. Harman denied ever speaking to the Justice Department about the case, but did not address whether she contacted any White House officials.)

What does this billionaire who controls Hillary Clinton think, as according to himself?

“I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.”

On top of that, and Sheldon Adelson, the Republican bankroller, you also have the countless Pro-Israel lobby groups. Here is a chart showing Pro-Israel donation to both the democrats and republicans, which gives you a pretty good idea of the influence they can buy.

Top Contributors, 2015-2016

(Move your cursor over the chart to see dollar amounts.) Contributor Amount Center for Middle East Peace $2,153,000 JStreetPAC $843,971 NorPAC $729,750 Florida Congressional Cmte $148,000 National Action Cmte $126,425 Desert Caucus $120,000 Joint Action Cmte for Political Affairs $104,271 Citizens Organized PAC $80,500 Republican Jewish Coalition $77,000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn those rich Jews, eh Hudson Jones! They're in charge of the whole political process and all the media!

Oh, er, I meant Zionists, yeah, Zionists, of course! (wink-wink, nudge-nudge)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hudson Jones denial and attempt to make Clinton out to be a stooge of a rich Jew is hilarious.

So far he relies on an article from the Washington Post which supposedly presents her 20 top donors; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/19/the-top-20-donors-who-have-given-the-most-to-support-hillary-clintons-political-runs/

Oh well look for the Jew names says Hudson. Lol. That proves the Jews control her. Lol.

Uh no.

source: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/apr/20/reince-priebus/hillary-clinton-took-money-kings-four-countries-go/

Clinton Foundation

Not only Republicans are raising questions about whether the Clinton Foundation is taking millions of dollars a year from governments and other donors that want political influence. The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Politico and CBS News have run stories about the questions, with a Journal analysis noting that the number of governments contributing to the foundation in 2014 appeared to have doubled from the previous year.

Responding to Priebus’ claim, the foundation emailed us a statement saying: "Like other global charities, the Clinton Foundation receives support from individuals, organizations and governments from all over the world because the foundation's programs improve the lives of millions of people around the globe."

The charity, originally named the William J. Clinton Foundation, was launched in 2001 by former President Bill Clinton. Its aim is to partner with government and non-government organizations to tackle issues such as AIDS and poverty. The foundation has received millions of dollars from foreign governments, as PolitiFact National found in February 2015 when it rated that claim by a conservative group as True.

When Hillary Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, under President Barack Obama, the foundation agreed to disclose its donors at the request of the White House. When she left the Cabinet post, in February 2013, the foundation became the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, with Hillary Clinton taking an active role in fundraising.

Clinton resigned from the foundation’s board just before announcing her candidacy. And a few days later, the foundation announced it would modify its policies while she is a candidate for president, limiting which governments can give directly to the foundation.

An important note: Candidates for office are prohibited by law from accepting campaign contributions from foreign governments, but foundations have no such restriction.

Here’s what we know about the four countries cited by Priebus:

Saudi Arabia

The kingdom gave between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation between the time the foundation was created through 2014, and some portion of the funds was contributed in 2014, according to the foundation’s searchable database.

(The database only reports ranges of the total amounts given and does not provide a breakdown by year, except that it notes which donors made a contribution in 2014.)

According to a February 2015 news article by the Washington Post, Saudi Arabia was among some foreign governments that had been supporting the foundation before Clinton was appointed secretary of state, did not give while she was in office and then resumed giving.

Saudi Arabia has long been regarded by the United States as a friend and a "strong partner in regional security and counterterrorism efforts," according to the State Department.

Oman

The Sultanate of Oman gave the foundation between $1 million and $5 million through 2014, including contributions given in 2014, according to the foundation database.

The U.S. and Oman have been parties to a military cooperation agreement since 1980. Oman "plays an important role in helping the United States realize its regional stability goals" in the Middle East, the State Department says.

Morocco

Four days before Clinton announced her run, Politico reported that the foundation was accepting at least $1 million from a Moroccan government-owned company to hold a high-profile conference in May 2015 in Marrakech with the king of Morocco.

The article noted that in 2011, Clinton’s State Department had accused the Moroccan government of "arbitrary arrests and corruption in all branches of government," but that when she announced the conference in September 2014, she praised Morocco as "a vital hub for economic and cultural exchange."

The U.S. regards Morocco as a "strong partner in counterterrorism efforts," according to the State Department.

Yemen

Neither the Post nor the Politico articles, which were cited to us by Priebus’ office, reported any donations to the foundation from Yemen. And a spokesman for the foundation told us the country has never been a donor.

Yemen borders Saudi Arabia and Oman, but unlike those countries and Morocco, is not a monarchy. American drones have been conducting strikes in Yemen since 2009. On April 14, 2015, the al-Qaida terrorist group announced that one of its top spokesmen for its branch in Yemen had been killed the previous day by an American drone strike.

Our rating

Priebus said Clinton took "money from kings of Saudi Arabia and Morocco and Oman and Yemen."

The monarchies of Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Oman have contributed to the Clinton Foundation, but Yemen, which does not have a king, has not.

And although Priebus’ claim was made during a discussion of the foundation as well as contributions to political candidates, his phrasing could have left the impression that Clinton herself, rather than the foundation, received the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh come on Hudson finish the Jews own Hilary crap. Because I've only started to expose your bigoted nonsense with proof how full of it these threads are.

Jew money. Yah you tell them Hudson. Hilary never took anything but Jew money.

Lol.

What a friggin joke you boys are.

Go on deny away Hudson deny away:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article24782695.html

Four oil-rich Arab nations, all with histories of philanthropy to United Nations and Middle Eastern causes, have donated vastly more money to the Clinton Foundation than they have to most other large private charities involved in the kinds of global work championed by the Clinton family.

Since 2001, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates gave as much as $40 million to the Clinton Foundation. In contrast, six similar non-governmental global charities collected no money from those same four Middle Eastern countries; the International Committee of the Red Cross was given $6.82 million. Since 2001, these global foundations have raised a staggering $40 billion to $50 billion to fund their humanitarian work.

The existence of foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation has been well-documented in the media. What hasn’t been revealed, however, is the disparity in donations by these four nations, all of which have been criticized by the State Department over the years for a spate of issues ranging from the mistreatment of women to stoking ethnic discord in the flammable Middle East.

Moreover, the level of Arab support for the Clinton Foundation, which occurred during the time Hillary Clinton was a U.S. senator, was seeking the Democratic nomination for president against Barack Obama, and was serving as secretary of state, fuels questions about the reasons for the donations. Were they solely to support the foundation’s causes, or were they designed to curry favor with the ex-president and with a potential future president?

Mideast nations favor contributions to Clinton Foundation

Between 2001 and 2014 Middle Eastern countries gave $18 million to $50 million to the Clinton Foundation, accounting for 1.4 to 4 percent of contributions over the period. In contrast, the same nations gave about $6.82 million to the International Committee for the Red Cross, accounting for less than 1 percent of the $11.2 billion in contributions the organization received.

Saudi Arabia

$10 million to $25 million

Qatar

$1 million to $5 million

Oman

$1 million to $5 million

UAE

$1 million to $5 million

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article24782695.html#storylink=cpy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting when Hudson was quoting the top 20 fundraisers for Hilary from the Washington Post he forgot this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

"The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.

Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.

The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.

The new disclosures, provided in response to questions from The Washington Post, make clear that the 2008 agreement did not prohibit foreign countries with interests before the U.S. government from giving money to the charity closely linked to the secretary of state.

In one instance, foundation officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government.

The money was given to assist with earthquake relief in Haiti, the foundation said. At the time, Algeria, which has sought a closer relationship with Washington, was spending heavily to lobby the State Department on human rights issues.

While the foundation has disclosed foreign-government donors for years, it has not previously detailed the donations

that were accepted during Clinton’s four-year stint at the State Department."

Now since Hudson Jones things the Washington Post is quoteable, hey now how did he miss the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...