Warning: Breitbart source! Clinton Cash: Khizr Khan’s Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration, Email Scandals Together
Edited to include source warning~
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/01/clinton-cash-...
"Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that the mainstream media and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been using to criticize Donald J. Trump, has deep ties to the government of Saudi Arabia—and to international Islamist investors through his own law firm. In addition to those ties to the wealthy Islamist nation, Khan also has ties to controversial immigration programs that wealthy foreigners can use to essentially buy their way into the United States—and has deep ties to the “Clinton Cash” narrative through the Clinton Foundation."
This is a huge jigsaw puzzle with so many moving parts! I wonder just how many people world-wide are connected to the Clinton Foundation.
Comments
These people are soulless
As Michael Jackson says: "What about us?"
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buCdGwH2Efc]
Beware the bullshit factories.
Wait til Donald finds out.
Hoooo boy - that should be entertaining.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
So, what about this source? There is quite a bit in this story,
details that seem to be important, but then ... Breitbart news ...?
https://www.euronews.com/live
Breitbart
Thank you for your question. I do indeed question this source, and I can't find another for the story at this time. But over these past few months, everything seems to be turned upside down, sources that are "reliable" have become Clinton mouthpieces, and sources I wouldn't even have looked at are now reporting things that we don't hear elsewhere that sometimes are correct. I don't know where this one fits. I should have included a "warning" in the title, and I will do that right now.
But here is just another very odd tale from The Hill, with a decided anti-Clinton slant, after months of being like all of the other mainstream media sites. If the first story I posted is true, then it fits with this one--the Clintons again using someone (ally or foe) for political gain.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/289932-khize...
"Politicians like Hillary Clinton see him only a demographic, a dispensable political pawn to be scooted around an electoral map, the way generals used to move armies across giant maps of the lands they were invading.
But instead of liberating Europe from evil fascists, politicians like Hillary Clinton use their long, worn croupier rakes to move their pawns about with the singular goal of advancing their own personal political careers.
To her, Capt. Khan is not a just soldier who died defending his country in a foreign land. First and foremost, to her, he is a Muslim of Pakistani heritage and therefore is a perfect political pawn for just the right situation."
Breitbart as well
My soul aches and feels terrible, but I too visit and read Breitbart now during the past few months. Guess what, they actually have more truthful articles and information then MSM sites (which are Clinton mouthpieces or propaganda sites). Many times they have breaking information or news and its appears eventually MSM has to pick it up because of the exposure.
The world is turning upside down, and I am not sure where to sit
I look at the stuff people post from there, but I don't know
what to believe and what not to believe.
I'll just go with 'they're all liars'. And that includes the infamous NYT and the WP
EDIT: wrong pronoun
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
NYT and WP are full-bore Cliintonistas.
NYT had a big article the other day exposing Trump's campaign manager as having ties to Ukraine that supposedly prove Trump loves Putin and Russia.
I commented that I was looking forward to Part 2 where they expose Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta for his ownership of a lobbying firm that lobbies for Putin and Russia as well as the shady dealings Podesta had with Russia involving American technology transfers and the $35 million that ended up with a Podesta-linked company.
I'm still waiting for Part 2.
I got a feeling that you'll be waiting for quite some time.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
You are right, they are all liars
I try to read numerous sources, but now days the more liberal sites make more ill than the conservative ones. Because both are terrible, they both support/spin their narrative and candidates- sickening. What ever happen to the Free press???
The Hill - ouch!
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
I only ask, because I am always forgetful and confused
which site is supposedly conservative, right-wingish libertarian and which one is not. It's one of those things which always makes me insecure in my judgments, either because I am forgetful or because I don't understand something or because I don't recognize what is meant behind the smooth words.
I remembered that Breitbart was considered by progressives and leftists as conservative. But then I read the piece and I find a lot of detail information in there, which I can't believe are "made up", but seem proof for a couple of things that I clearly would consider "revealing" with regards to the Clinton Foundation and Kahn's role.
I had read the other hill piece before. Now I don't know if The Hill has a clear ideological bent. Considering that Markos wrote for them I kind of wondered...
That Hill piece also made me wonder, but I can't say I disagree with everything what they wrote there, but then some of it I consider a bit too much.
It's very confusing how people write things today they would never have written a couple of months or a year ago. It's as confusing as to understand why people endorse someone they hadn't supported a while ago.
Thanks for your response.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Well, the truth can appear very different
when seen from different viewpoints. And heaven knows we've got plenty of viewpoints to choose from these days. Rather than accepting any one of them, or any one ideological stance as being definitive, I try to seek information from as broad a spectrum as possible. including foreign websites (that have an English edition). Sic Semper Tyrannus
For example, I can read both Counterpunch and The American Conservative, without necessarily being convinced by either of them, and then go to Der Spiegel for a third opinion. RT and Sputnik as well. Or Breitbart, or MailOnline, to see what the hoi polloi is reading. You just need to be careful about fully believing any of it.
native
thx. native, we are close then in our reading habits
though I really have my limits as to how much I can absorb, retain and understand. I wished I had something to believe in, but I don't. What the heck, tomorrow I cut off my internet connection. I just want to see if it has a good effect on me or not. Wish me luck.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Good luck.
I'd be well advised to do the same.
native
Look at Fox Business News.
With their reports of [real] news and exposure of 3rd party candidates. hoodathunkit?
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
The Foundation
has tentacles throughout DC and that is why many suggest it will never see the light of day.
Infowars.com reports:
“There is enough for her and the entire government to be brought down,” he revealed. “People do not realize how enormous this whole situation actually is.”
http://www.infowars.com/fbi-source-clinton-foundation-can-bring-down-ent...
Another good resource on the foundation is here:
http://www.thompsontimeline.com/category/clinton-foundation/
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Charles Ortel
has done a lot of investigation on the Clinton Foundation. There is some interesting info here, and also in the included video:
http://usawatchdog.com/clinton-foundation-is-robin-hood-in-reverse-charl...
"Pharmaceuticals for supposedly fighting HIV Aids. If this were a well-run charity, you would provide a detailed breakdown of what pharmaceuticals by type and at what price. There is none of that disclosure. You don’t know if that pharmaceutical number is completely made up or not. You have no way of telling, and the auditors have never done their work. This is why I say this is a text book case study in global charity fraud. It needs to be exposed as such.”
"Their authorized tax exempt purpose, stated in their application dated 23 December 2007, was just supposed to be Presidential archival research facility in Little Rock. They never have been authorized as far as I can tell from the public filings . . . they have never been authorized to fight HIV Aids, fight climate change, convene meetings in New York and set up these various initiatives. None of them has been validly authorized, which means they have been raising money with materially false and misleading public filings. They have been doing it using the mail, using the Internet and using telephones, all of which is a federal crime.”
I understand the IRS is investigating the Foundation now. But how have they escaped attention until now? Everything they do is blatant, they don't care who knows what they are up to. That's the most scary of all, IMO.