Trump’s Senior Communications Advisor, Jason Miller, states: “The fact a major Clinton Foundation donor was denied entry into the U.S. over ties to the terrorist group Hezbollah is deeply troubling, especially when this individual had access to top aides at Hillary Clinton’s State Department.”
Miller went on to say that the Clinton Foundation should be shut down in light of the Hizballah jihadist link.
It’s becoming increasingly challenging to keep up with the staggering volume of public scandals surrounding Hillary Clinton — including calls for her to be jailed (even from the mother of a Benghazi victim). It is remarkable to witness such a character actually running for the presidency during a full-scale jihad against the United States that Clinton not only refuses to admit exists, but also accepts funding for her campaign from a highly questionable donor who appears to be on the other side of that jihad.
“Clinton Foundation donor denied entry to US on terrorism claims”, By Marisa Schultz, August 28, 2016:
A Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire who donated millions to Clinton-family nonprofits was denied a visa to enter the United States last year on terrorism-related grounds, according to a new report.
Gilbert Chagoury, who donated millions to the Clinton Foundation and in 2009 pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative, was denied entry last summer amid a review of his ties in Lebanon to Hezbollah, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday.
The Trump campaign quickly renewed its call for a shutdown of the Clinton Foundation.
“The fact a major Clinton Foundation donor was denied entry into the US over ties to the terrorist group Hezbollah is deeply troubling, especially when this individual had access to top aides at Hillary Clinton’s State Department,” Trump spokesman Jason Miller said Sunday, calling for the release of Clinton’s schedules and the shutdown of the charity.
The Trump team also released a new Web ad Sunday accusing the Clinton Foundation of being a “slush fund” that “sold access to the State Department.”
“Hillary Clinton’s corruption has been exposed again,” the ad says.
Chagoury, who owns Africa’s largest construction company, had unique access to the State Department, Hillary Clinton’s e-mails revealed.
The billionaire was on the Department of Homeland Security’s no-fly list in 2010 and was pulled off a plane. He’s now on the “selectee” list that allows him to fly with extra scrutiny. Chagoury has denied any support for the terrorist group.
Clinton maintains she never took action as secretary of state because of any donations to the foundation. The Clintons have announced they will stop accepting foundation donations from foreign interests if Clinton wins the White House.
Meanwhile, new e-mails show a top Clinton Foundation official, Doug Band, handpicked mega donors to attend a State Department lunch with then-Chinese President Hu Jintao in January 2011, ABC News reported.
Band e-mailed Clinton aide Huma Abedin in December 2010 suggesting names of Clinton Foundation donors to attend the high-profile event: Bob McCann, the then-president of wealth management at UBS; Dr. Judith Rodin, the president of The Rockefeller Foundation; and Hikmet Ersek, the CEO of Western Union.
He asked if one guest could be seated by Vice President Joe Biden. “I’ll ask,” Abedin replied
It wasn’t clear if the special favor for Clinton donors resulted in their attendance at the luncheon.’…

miriamrove says
She is a bigger nightmare than her old boss. M
Angemon says
She’s as honest, candid and well-mannered as she is healthy:
Champ says
Very interesting! Thank you for posting this video, Angemon.
nicu says
she will be like Merkel !
she killed Ghaddafi !
Shane says
Merkel will be her role model in how to deal with Islamic terrorism, not that she will say there is a link between Islam and terrorism.
Walter Sieruk says
Hillary Clinton was and is so extremely corrupt and unethical that she received large “donations” from higher up “business executives”, many from foreign Islamic countries, to the Clinton Foundation and in return Hillary used her political “know how” to grant them “political favors. ” In other words, Hillary took in bribes. Now she lies as always to hide her corruption and unethical behavior. All her many awful character flaws she has some extreme gall to want to be President. In addition, the Bible informs its reader that only a wicked person accepts bribes, Proverbs 17:23. So the United States does not need, at all, a corrupt, unethical, wicked and pathological liar of a politician as President.
Mike says
Really?. Hillary has been under almost continuous investigation since whitewater and all they can come up with is innuendo and conspiracy theories which unfortunately people believe. Its true that if you repeat lies often enough people start to believe you. I suspect that Trump knows that and is why he continues to repeat his birther lies and ISIS founding lies.
Trump blatantly lies every day on the campaign trail and you fault Hillary for some mistakes about Benghazi and just made up stuff people come up with? The government has spent millions upon millions investigating her and has come up with nothing or some pretty weak things.
Really if she is such an mastermind that she can cover her tracks with so many people just waiting to crush her, I totally want her working for me.
don vito says
Do some research mike, in so doing you’ll find out that the Clinton ’08 campaign was the father and author of the “birther lies”. Or don’t.
Mike says
From factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/was-hillary-clinton-the-original-birther/
“It is certainly interesting, and perhaps historically and politically relevant, that “birther” advocacy may have originated with supporters of Hillary Clinton — especially since many view it as an exclusively right-wing movement. But whether those theories were advocated by Clinton and/or her campaign or simply by Clinton “supporters” is an important distinction. Candidates are expected to be held accountable for the actions of their campaigns. Neither Cruz nor Trump, whose campaign did not respond to our request for backup material, provides any compelling evidence that either Clinton or her campaign had anything to do with starting the so-called birther movement.”
But Trump continued this for years despite all evidence pointing it out to be false. Although Clinton could have been the mastermind behind this, it just doesn’t seem reasonable that she is such a successful crook.
don vito says
Thank you mike, that was where it began, dhmmicrats making up lies about their political enemies, in the ’08 campaign.
Mike says
No. I left the republican party after the millions spent by kenneth star and the republicans and the ridiculous impeachment hearings.
don vito says
Oh well mike, I guess you’re happy with your candidate. We did high lite, where the birth lie began. Clinton did perjure himself, lost his right to practice law, for five years I think. The truth came out through Starr’s investigation. The Clintons are expensive.
Champ says
Wake up!
Hillary Clinton is a CRIMINAL …
Mike says
Just repeating it doesn’t make it true. It does however contribute to this tribal us vs them mentality and divisiveness in american politics that is really bad for our country.
gravenimage says
Mike, do you believe that violent Jihad is divisive? Why or why not?
Mike says
I don’t know if I understand the question. Does jihad cause disagreement or hostility between people?. Yes, When any group of people suffer an attack from another group of people, that’s a divisive act.
Trying to understand other people is not a divisive act in my book, but attacking is.
gravenimage says
I am asking if you actually care about the Jihad threat.
Champ says
Mike wrote:
“…and divisiveness in american politics that is really bad for our country.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coming from “Mike” that’s rather amusing, considering the tremendous amount of “divisiveness” he alone has demonstrated from the get-go.
Own a mirror “Mike”?
BTW, no way will I *ever* vote for Hillary “Criminal” Clinton!
Mike says
have I been divisive? I really don’t know how I have been. Please point out what you object to because I want to learn. I have tried to be respectful even though I have different opinions than you. Isn’t this what politics should be about?
Champ says
Please don’t play innocent or stupid “Mike”, in your *first* comment to Walter you wrote this:
“Trump blatantly lies every day on the campaign trail” …
You can dish it out about Trump, but no one dare state the truth about Hillary.
C’mon this is but one example of your “divisiveness” on this thread by demonizing Trump. Oh, but Clinton gets a pass? Got it.
Seems you can recognize “divisiveness” in everyone but yourself.
Mike says
Fair enough. That was an unfounded accusation. Where I come from that is just common knowledge.
Champ says
“Where I come from that is just common knowledge.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where I come from that is just common knowledge that Hillary is a Criminal.
Mike says
Hillary hasn’t been convicted of anything despite the millions upon millions spent investigating her over dozens of years. How can you say she is a criminal? Isn’t our court system supposed to judge that?
I see all these apparently blatant lies get generated like she faked the news conference, obama’s the founder of ISIS, Obama was born in Kenya. and on and on and on and I worry that people are sabotaging our very democracy. Sometimes it comes from the left too like how trump is in the pocket of Putin. This is not right.
Spreading falsehoods is hurtful and I worry our democracy is getting traded for youtube subscriptions and ratings points.
Champ says
Mike says
August 30, 2016 at 6:36 pm
Hillary hasn’t been convicted of anything despite the millions upon millions spent investigating her over dozens of years. How can you say she is a criminal? Isn’t our court system supposed to judge that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Moot point …
Hillary Clinton seems to think that she is above the law, and lying has *worked* for her thus far. But give it some time, and her crimes will catch up to her, sooner, or later.
And ‘prophet’ muhammad was never “convicted” of any crimes either, but he was probably the most notorious lying criminal who ever lived.
Overall it doesn’t matter if Hillary’s never been “convicted” of any crimes, she’s still a lying criminal–so your point is moot, and it doesn’t carry any real weight.
Mike says
You have prejudged her and deemed her guilty despite what the courts say.
She has been proven innocent time and time and time again. But still you assume
she is a crook.
Trump has been proven to lie under oath.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/438916/does-donald-trump-lie-under-oath
Champ says
Hillary *is* guilty …wake up!
“It takes Bill Whittle 93 seconds to show Hillary Clinton guilty of violating three separate Federal Statutes. It takes another three minutes to explain why she and Obama simply DO NOT CARE.”
Champ says
Mike wrote:
“She has been proven innocent time and time and time again.”
“Mike” is in denial and he will believe anything.
And …
“But still you assume she is a crook.”
The **facts** are stacked-up against Hillary, so I did not “assume” a thing about her …
“Breaking down the facts of the email scandal / Watch Jeanine Pirro on Justice With Judge Jeanine and Opening Statement.”
Mike says
There are a shitload of “facts”. The congress and the FBI have looked at these facts 24/7 for months and come up with very little.
How can you just make a statement that she is a crook and the facts are against her when you as a citizen have paid millions of dollars to professionals to determine if the facts line up against her and they have said “No”?
Are you that intelligent that you can do the work of a full time FBI team in your spare time? I just dont understand that thinking.
Walter Sieruk says
To Mike, Trump might lie once in a while but Hillary Clinton is a outright chronic liar..This Hillary had proven time and time by how one false words of pathological lying . For example ,
Hillary is such a blatant outright liar that she actually said the when her left the plane in the 1990’s in Bosnia she and the other people with her had to duck and keep their “heads down” when they left the plane because terrorists were shooting at them all. What she assumed is that no one would bother to check her story out. After her story was researched and was discovered the Hillary was lying. After everyone found out about her lie, Hillary made a public statement that the story she spoke was untrue. Hillary then added what she said “was a mistake.” Many people thought she might come and say the true for once as say that the fictional story “was a lie.” Hillary wasn’t even honest enough to say that to hide her real lying character she called in “a mistake.” The real mistakes were that she lied and then lied by not coming and say that it was a lie. What liar. Hillary would be an affront to the Office of the President of the United States. Hillary is very dishonest; she has proven by her own words and action that she has no ethics and no honor.
Champ says
“Hillary would be an affront to the Office of the President of the United States.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hear, hear, Walter!
Mike says
I remember this. seems like a pretty innocuous lie compared to the numerous times trump has lied under oath.
http://www.newsweek.com/mr-speaker-stop-trump-let-gop-lose-election-489797
This Bosnia thing this was a result of people just digging and digging for dirt on her. You have to go back to the 90’s to find something.
I just see no comparison between the two alternatives.
BillarysBribe16 says
If it were not for Congress, we never would have discovered HRC’s illegal server.
Which means we never would have derived the Truth of what happened in Benghazi.
We never would have learned of the CIA Annex 1 mile away running weapons to Western Syria and ISIS.
We never would have learned of the email sent to Chelsea @ 11:43 PM where HRC admits ISIS was the culprit — or that HRC lied to Gold Star families about a “disparaging YouTube Video”.
Most importantly, we never would have found the emails exposing the Clinton “Foundation” and its function as a personal slush fund (10% to Charity).
We learned today of dozens more recovered emails she attempted to delete that were indeed “Work-Related”.
When Wiki exposes the entire Clinton Cabal come October — we will face the largest constitutional crisis since the Civil War — and you’re worried about $10 MIL in congressional investigations?
I’m worried that a $2 BILLION Slush Fund exposed our nation’s greatest secrets just so two career criminal politicians could enrich themselves.
If you want civil debate — come armed with facts — otherwise, head to your safe space cause it won’t be here on this board.
Mike says
The multi millions that congress has spent investigating her has come up with just trivial stuff.
Powell had an email server like hers.
So she got confused about what was going on in the days around Benghazi. Everybody was confused. The congress investigation came up with nothing.
Powell and the bushes had charities they ran.
There has been no concerted democratic effort trying to dig up dirt on the republicans over decades. Their behavior is just shameful.
You just assume its a slush fund because you have prejudged her as guilty. That’s the power of continuous conspiracy theory generation from the right. It’s just not right.
Walter Sieruk says
Hillary Clinton is a desperate attempt to distract the American voters attention away from her own reckless E-Mail folly of putting the security of the United States in jeopardy is now hurling baseless accusations of “racism” at Donald Trump . Furthermore, how much outlandish and even outrageous gall Hillary Clinton has that she even lied about Colin Powell to hide and cover-up her own extreme reckless incompetence in which she put the national security of America in jeopardy with her awful judgement and terrible folly about her E-mail folly. The lying Hillary actually tried to blame Powell for giving her bad advice about how to handle the E-mails. First, Colin Powell said her statement about him giving her poor advice is a “total lie’ and he also said “Don’t try to pin this one on me” Hillary is so much of a small person and a chronic lair that she attempted to blame Powell for her own fool judgment by lying about him. She tried to “pass the buck” What a sinister lying character she is. Yet she still wants to be President. What Nerve. Given that Hillary Clinton has a long history of lying and Colin Powell does not. Who is any sensible, rational person going to believe? Second , even if and that is a large “If” Powell really did give Hillary bad advice about the E-mails , and of course he did not, Hillary is still old enough to be able to think and reason things out for herself and then reject bad advice .If given to her. Did she mentally “short circuit” ? In short, the United States does not need a pathological liar as President. Likewise, America does not need someone in the Office of the White House who is was awful judgement and is mentally unstable who might “short circuit” as President
Brian Ozzy says
You already have someone in the White-house that has a proven track record of “awful judgement and is an inveterate liar and has been destroying the USA for the last 8 years.
August West says
“It is remarkable to witness such a character actually running for the presidency during a full-scale jihad against the United States”
What is even more remarkable is that the “media”, the entire Democrat Party, the Republican Establishment, the Supreme Court (via Ginsberg), and many international world leaders are totally committed to helping her get elected using any method necessary. It is remarkable that the FBI can not seem to find any reason to recommend DOJ indictment. It is remarkable that Congress does not appoint a special prosecutor. We have had multiple scandals of the magnitude of Watergate and Iran/Contra within the space of weeks.
During all of this the following global events have happened:
Supposed NATO allies (Turkey) is bombing US Kurdish allies.
Iran is trying to push the US out of the Persian Gulf with daily naval aggression.
Russia is using Iranian air force bases to launch bombing runs into Syria.
Iran is openly deploying Russian surface to air missiles at nuclear research sites.
Hezbollah is expanding their presence and capability inside of the North and South American continents.
“during a full-scale jihad against the United States Clinton not only refuses to admit exists, but also accepts funding for her campaign from a highly questionable donor who appears to be on the other side of that jihad.”
Now we know that she is directly financially motivated to specifically support Islamic Jihad.
It *IS* remarkable.
What is more remarkable, however, is that I am not in the least bit surprised to read this, and none of the entities listed above will change their support for her.
Wellington says
Hillary Clinton is disgusting. She’s a monumental liar (the late William Safire, writing in The New York Times of all places, called her a “congenital liar” twenty years ago this very year), thoroughly corrupt (examples being Whitewater, Castle Grande and the Clinton Foundation), a massive incompetent (examples being her handling of health care initiatives back in 1993-94, Benghazi and her private e-mail server) and one who behind the scenes treats people like those in the Secret Service and the American military with undisguised contempt, as noted many times by people in the Secret Service and the American military. She also has deplorable taste in clothing as evidenced time and time again by those horrible Mao-like “costumes” she wears (excuse the digression here into mere sartorial matters but I mention it as just one more example of how this awful person gets nothing right).
But she is not the main problem here. Rather, the main problem is all the millions upon millions of American voters (and some illegals too who will vote come this November—–count on this) who don’t give a damn about these many character flaws of this wretched woman. Yes, look to these rubes for the main problem, for they surely are a problem of the first dimension. Easily so.
Thus, it could be accurately asserted that Hillary is the tip of a very, very destructive iceberg. Easily so.
Janice says
I would go so far as to say, it is not incompetence. It is deliberate! And Treason!
Janice says
Just to be clear I’m talking about
Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Mike says
Come on. Hezbollah was spelled correctly in the post. If you are going to conspiracy theory, at least get the spelling right.
Robert Spencer says
Apparently you are unaware that Hizballah means “Party of Allah,” and that “Hizballah” is a far more accurate rendering of the meaning of the name than is “Hezbollah.”
Mike says
Are you saying that you are the person that determines the spelling of Hezbollah? Can I be the person to determine the spelling of Republikan and Demokrat? A “k” is a much better representation of the sound of the c in the word. Or do I just appear stupid?
Wellington says
Why, pray tell, Mike, is a ‘k’ a much better representation of the sound of the ‘c’ in “Republican” and “Democrat” since ‘c’ can have in the English language either an s (soft) sound or a k (hard) sound?
You are in over your head, Mike, and not just with consonantal sounds but by way of your silly and stupid accusation in your 6:11 P.M. post attributing conspiracy theory to JW.
You’re either a leftist or a Muzzie. Whichever, you’re a loser.
Mike says
The letter “k” is always hard while “c” can be hard or soft. My point is that standardized spelling is good and changing it just doesn’t make sense.
So all leftists or Muslims are losers? Is the intention of this site to be an echo chamber for Trump supporters? Is that why you are name calling to drive me away?
Wellington says
Changing spelling for an accurate reason, as Spencer pointed out, has merit. By contrast, your example had no merit. You know this or should know it.
Respecting leftists and Muslims, yes, all are losers, only the degree varies. Rather as all fascists, anarchists and Marxists are losers.
And no one is driving you away. You’re just being criticized but, ah so typical, you interpret this as being driven away. Spout all the nonsense you want here at JW. No one is driving you away. The fact that you have posted here on this thread three times serves as ipso facto evidence of this, and so you have made yet another error. I bet you make a lot of errors, including engaging in a significant amount of self-pity, as already demonstrated by you.
And you are a leftist or a Muzzie, now aren’t you?
Mike says
So Wellington. Are you saying that calling people losers, Muzzies,leftists, and saying I engage in self-pity is the way to invite people to an open discussion? Are saying that your language is inviting? Is that your argument? The reason I continue posting is to engage with some people I absolutely disagree with and try to figure out where they come from. It’s kinda unpleasant though to be called names and I wish you would stop.
Why do you feel a need to label people and ideas?
gravenimage says
Arabic does not have short vowels. You regularly see this Jihad terror outfit referred to as Hezbollah, Hizballah, and Hizb’allah. Given that this is the “Party of Allah”, the last two renderings are most accurate.
Mike says
I didn’t realize the reason for the alternate spellings. Learn something new every day. I never saw the Hizballah spelling before though and It was jarring to me.
Jay Boo says
What’s in a name.
ISIS, ISIL or Daesh.
Politically Correct France got caught whey they admitted using Daesh instead using ISIS because — MUSLIMS hate the phrase Islamic State.
— (because it correctly labels ISIS as Islamic. )
http://theweek.com/speedreads/446139/france-says-name-isis-offensive-call-daesh-instead
———————————–
But oh no, no, no BACK PEDAL TIME
New Reason invented
Brave World leaders including Justin Trudeau have taken to calling ISIS “Daesh,” supposedly because it is a word.
— the Islamic State hates.
http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/08/29/trudeau-government-now-refers-to-isis-as-daesh/#.V8Ue0YVFyZ8
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/123909/world-leaders-have-taken-to-calling-isis-daesh-a-word-the-islamic-state-hates
LB says
This Mike guy is who we’re dealing with when it comes to leftist Hillary supporters — they are so blinded to the point that they refuse to believe their own eyes!
Alright, let me try to explain with basic algebra:
***************************************************
Obama 1 = the biggest debt (over $20 trillion, for which he is solely responsible for over half of that sum) & unemployment rate USA has ever had in its history.
Obama 2 = importation of thousands of unvetted blow-upy, shoot-upy, stabby muslims every day.
Obama 3 = destabilization of ME and aiding “rebel freedom fighting” groups, which eventually evolve into branches of ISIS or Al Qaeda.
Obama 1 + Obama 2 Obama 3 = Obama = TOTAL DISASTER!!!
Hillary = Obama (exact same leftist policy) = the end of Western Civilization.
************************************************
Mike — unless you’re not a muslim troll — you should really wake up fast. No need to vote for Trump, but if you have a single functional brain cell, you will NOT vote for Hillary!
Mike says
Thank you for the intelligent comment.
Point 1. If you remember the 2008 disaster came under bush’s watch. Not Obama’s. Obama had to clean up the mess. If you remember under clinton 1 the united states was actually running a surplus!
Point 2. I disagree that muslim immigration is a bad thing. I think when a muslim receives asylum in the us, it certainly would deradicalize him and discourage him from Jihad. Leaving him to be bombed in syria is bad for us.
point 3. We can argue what destabilized the middle east. I would argue that it was bush’s invasion of iraq that did it. Post victory egypt for example agreed to privatization of state owned businesses and budget cuts in exchange for the US absolving egypt of debts. When the state run social hospitals and safety nets left, Private islamic organizations came in to fill the gap. Just like textbook republicain policy. Remember the thousand points of light speeches? As a result the strength of islamic militants have grown.
Champ says
Mike says
August 29, 2016 at 6:11 pm
Come on. Hezbollah was spelled correctly in the post. If you are going to conspiracy theory, at least get the spelling right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This witless remark certainly has defined “Mike” and he disengenuous reasons for being here on Jihad Watch. Very telling indeed.
gravenimage says
Trump campaign: Shut down Clinton Foundation over Hizballah link
……………………….
Sounds good to me.
billybob says
Has there been a thorough audit done on the Clinton Foundation recently? If so, what did it conclude? If not, why not? Anybody know when the last audit was performed, and what, if anything, was discovered?
As I asked myself these questions, I began to do some research. After reading a glowing report from the Clinton Foundation itself ( http://2015.clintonfoundation.org/ ) that made me feel bad for the unkind thoughts I had about the Clintons, I came across this report that put it all in perspective…
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/27/exclusive-clinton-foundation-auditor-has-troubled-regulatory-history/
It seems it all goes back to – where else? Little Rock, Arkansas “where President Clinton chose the Little Rock, Arkansas office of BKD in 2001 during construction of his presidential library there. Even then there were signs of conflicts of interest as BKD was also the auditor for the construction company’s parent company. In addition, the parent company’s chief financial officer also served on BKD’s official management committee.”
“Nevertheless, the Clintons kept BKD and retained it after the foundation dramatically altered its mission to fight global problems and its assets reached $200 million.”
“The Wall Street expert who has examined the foundation’s reporting in depth, said using a small, under-resourced accounting firm “strikes me as a long pattern of gross negligence and willful malfeasance on the part of the trustees.”
In 2010 alone, the first year of the restatement, the foundation operated programs in 27 different countries, and reported $138 million in gifts and contributions, according to its tax return.
The foundation’s audits have been done by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC), one of the nation’s largest accounting and auditing firms, since 2013. But Ortel said the PWC audits rely on the potentially flawed earlier audits.
“Audits build on themselves. You can’t have BKD screw up October 23, 1997 through December 31, 2009 and then Pricewaterhouse says ‘well we’ll take BKD’s work and move forward.’ You can’t do that. But that’s what they did,” Ortel told TheDCNF.”
I got to thinking how control of such a fund can be a powerful tool in the hands of somebody who is corrupt. Just imagine you control a third of a billion dollars in assets, what people would do for you if you should choose to shower a little largess upon them. For sure, at a minimum you will have people sucking up to you wherever you go. Then in these far off 3rd world countries where these programs are implemented, it should be a piece of cake to siphon off funds here and there whenever the spirit moves you.
In summary, money is power, whether that money is held by a corporation, a trust, or even a charity. Power attracts more money. Wealth begets wealth and more power. Plenty of incentive there for Hillary to solicit donations for her wonderful charity from her contacts through the State Department.
Mike says
Yes. The laundry list of scandals and incriminations is just amazing and there is no way we can debate them all here. Neither you nor I can know for certain what is going on. But there is a huge difference between an appearance of wrongdoing and actual wrongdoing.
The article suspects that because BKD has had some problems, they are corrupt now. BKD is a large accounting firm with thousands of clients and $500Million in revenue. The article implies that large companies shouldn’t use small companies as accountants? Are you against small business? Are all their clients corrupt? Are you saying they should be shut down? I see this article as partisan stirring up possibility of wrongdoing. It is so easy to create possibilities of wrongdoing and people have been doing it to the clintons since forever and with so little actual convictions.
Meanwhile trump supporters excuse trump from withholding his tax returns.
Your statements like “. Then in these far off 3rd world countries where these programs are implemented, it should be a piece of cake to siphon off funds here and there whenever the spirit moves you.” Is just making stuff up. Yes it could happen, but did it happen? Is she corrupt or would she have the ability to be corrupt. There’s a big difference.
We have a system where the appearance of wrongdoing is investigated and judged called the judicial system. The american way is to assume people are innocent until proven guilty in a court. It’s just wrong to imply guilt by association.
Mark Swan says
This system You are crowing about, the DOJ is controlled by a corrupt administration that
will do what ever is needed to keep its desired candidate viable. That you should know.
le mouron rouge says
Another Hillary moment.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8iaJTC5jk?rel=0&w=560&h=315%5D
Cecilia Ellis says
Le mouron rouge, this video is amazing, Not that we should in the least be surprised. Another in a long line of deceptions . . .
le mouron rouge says
Cecilia,
Amen!
Here is another example.
TWA Flight 800 – July 17, 1996
The “Teflon Twins” Billary Clinton. Another example of “The Evil Duo” in action.
Jack Cahill has spent the better part of 20 years trying to expose “The Evil Duo” for their part in the cover-up in the explosion of TWA 800.
Occam’s Razor – https://explorable.com/occams-razor-
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/08/twa_800_my_improbable_lunch_with_the_chairman_of_the_ntsb.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/twa_800_what_the_cia_did_to_witness_571_mike_wire.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/jack_cashills_twa_800_the_court_battle_continues.html
9.The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders
10.and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved 11.Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,
12.In order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
– 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 (ESV)
billybob says
That was interesting. Clearly something going on there.
Mike says
Look at the video yourself and pause it yourself. I can make out hillary in his poor camera work.
https://youtu.be/kHAlX9a_dfA?t=7m35s
Heres another person who must be in on the conspiracy.
https://youtu.be/omca4o3Mafo
Seriously think how difficult it would be to pull off a stunt like that. Wow. She must have a seriously genius organization.
Do you people really think that is credible?
Jay Boo says
Mike
Three long decades of stink from this repulsive creature Hillary and you claim you barely detect the odor.
Who is Hillary?
Here is a clue to her mindset.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/video-robert-spencer-on-the-islamic-republic-of-irans-war-against-the-us#comment-1511495
le mouron rouge says
Mike,
There are many people on this site who are earnestly seeking after the truth and then there are those who prefer to argue for no other reason than to be a lover of words.
It appears that you are accusing the person who created this Video of fraud, why then, haven’t you gone directly to the source with your accusation? Challenge the source not the messenger.
I have tried to verify the content, using the original Video and snipping the Cell Phones in question – admittedly the picture is not ideal, however, after enlarging the picture it “does appear” that the background is different.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/08/the_battle_for_americas_mind.html
“I love mankind; it’s people I can’t stand.”
– Charles M. Schulz
Mike says
What you say is true. I should challenge the source of course. But I feel that the people who spread things that seem clearly false are just as culpable as the original source.
But I think people understand that. Reasonable people understand that spreading rumors is just wrong. So the person who posted this must really think this theory reasonable. I am just desperately trying to understand this.
le mouron rouge says
Mike,
You say: “Reasonable people understand that spreading rumors is just wrong.”
How about a bold faced lie? Is that acceptable? Or, is it, as the Qur’an teaches, ok to lie in certain circumstances. http://thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx
Obama deliberately misquoted the Qur’an, Sura 5, Verse 32 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1yImZrHH0k – (1:02-10 minute mark) stating that the holy Qur’an teaches:
“that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.”
What the Qur’an actually states in Sura 5 Verse 32 is:
YUSUFALI: On that account: We ordained “for the Children of Israel” that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. (Emphasis added)
PICKTHAL: For that cause We decreed “for the Children of Israel” that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth. (Emphasis added)
SHAKIR: For this reason did We prescribe “to the children of Israel” that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land. (Emphasis added)
I ask you, who is being addressed in that verse? Does that verse actually teach that Muslims are peaceful people?
If you agree with Obama, than how do you explain the next verse:
Verse 33 continues:
Yusufali: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
Pickthal: The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;
Shakir: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
Hmmm, what is Verse 33 teaching?
Based on an accurate translation and quote of the Qur’an, Sura 5, Verse 32, would a “reasonable” person agree with Obama or would the logical conclusion be, that he deliberately lied and is spreading rumors?
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.”
– Jeremiah 17:9-10 (KJV)
Mike says
Allow me to rephrase your argument to make sure I understand it.
I say reasonable people know it’s not right to spread lies.
Obama misquotes the Koran and therefore lies about how dangerous Islam is.
Therefore Obama is endangering our nation.
Fair enough. But reasonable people disagree about how dangerous Islam is. I find it
hard to think that reasonable people can disagree about whether a nationally televised
policy speech was faked.
I believe that Obama is basically a good guy therefore I just think he is mistaken. It appears
you believe he is lying and intrinsically evil. That is what fascinates me because no matter how
hard I look I see mostly weird unfounded accusations against him. Like he was born in kenya
and like he was lying in this case. That is an unfounded accusation. It could be the case, but
there’s no compelling evidence of it.
I happen to think that radical Islam is a danger. But I also think radical Christianity is a danger too. There are just many more radical Muslims than Christians currently.
gravenimage says
Mike wrote:
I happen to think that radical Islam is a danger. But I also think radical Christianity is a danger too. There are just many more radical Muslims than Christians currently.
……………………..
This is just witless false moral equivalence. There is no tradition of violent Jihad in Christianity. There are no Christians trying to impose theocratic law.
Mike says
There clearly is a tradition of violent Christianity. The crusades is just an example. and there have been violent Christians too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/03/the_10_worst_examples_of_christian_or_far_right_terrorism_partner/
I am not saying that they are equivalent except in the sense that I believe that strict adherence to
ancient teachings is going to lead to trouble no matter what.
gravenimage says
Good God–the Crusades were an attempt to fight back against Jihad. I suppose any efforts we make to defend against Jihad must be considered “violent Christianity”, as well.
And while I am *no* fan of the misnamed Branch Davidians, the implication that their purpose was slaughtering unbelievers is simply mistaken.
Further, this was a splinter sect of a splinter sect. There was never any mainstream Christian support for Koresh’s group.
Would that this were true of Jihadists in Islam.
Mark Swan says
Christianity is by far the world’s largest religion, with an estimated 2.2 billion adherents, nearly a third (31 percent) of all people on Earth. Islam is second, with 1.6 billion adherents, or 23 percent of the global population.
UNCLE VLADDI says
Heeeyyyy, that *might* even qualify as “treason!” Aiding and abetting or something!
😉
Les says
What is clear to everyone but the lamestreet media and Lieberals is that Hillary is running for president to benefit herself and her family and the United States government is up for sale
Mike says
How is that clear when the clinton foundation itself publishes the list of donors and the approximate amount they donated when they are not required to do. Indeed the bush foundation doesn’t do it. Is there any evidence of wrongdoing or are you just speculating?
carol says
Mike
Why pretend you’re living in a vaccuum? Read books like “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer or “Partners in Crime: The Clintons Scheme to Monetize the White House” and “Scorched Earth”. There has been unprecedented self-aggrandizement by these two. Bill had a big hand in deregulation as he skipped out the White House door and this led to the 2008 crash – but a couple that left the White House claiming to be broke became very, very rich from bank speaking engagements within the first year out of office (watch Dick Morris videos) Listen to people like Christopher Hitchens “…she and her husband have never met a foreign political donor that they don’t like and haven’t taken from”. Ask why Huma Abedin, a woman with Muslim Brotherhood connections, has been behind Hillary’s shoulder for years? Listen to Larry Nichols and what he has to say about the good old days in Alabama. America will lose a great deal of stature if there’s a photo op for Bill, Hillary, Huma and Weiner in the White House.
Mike says
I wouldn’t say I’m living in a vacuum, but I think I’ve been living in a different echo chamber than you.
I ask you to ask yourself if what you believe about the clintons is based on fact, or on things that could be fact. Sure the Clintons made a lot of money on speaking engagements, but that’s common. Yes Clinton deregulated the banks, but if you remember, that was clinton doing something the GOP wanted: deregulation. I see that as an movement towards cooperation with the other party. Bill Clinton was elected as a conservative democrat. Liberal Democrats never would have agreed to the welfare changes he brought about with the republicans.
As for Huma’s connections with the muslim brotherhood. Really is that something that is proved to be, or something that could be?
KATHLALEENA says
” MIKE” must be a Gubmint employee or simply a TROLL who works for the evil minded Killery. When ya gonna get paid”MIKE”?
Mike says
You know really I’m not a government employee and I don’t work for Hillary and I’m not a troll in the sense that I’m just saying outlandish things to rile people up.
I am just genuinely interested in hearing the other side. Because when one sticks within the echo chamber of our beliefs you just get closed minded and that’s bad for you and bad for america. I’m trying to be open minded.
I do agree on the basic premise that radical islam is a really dangerous thing. So I think I’m on board with basic tenants of this website.
gravenimage says
I do agree on the basic premise that radical islam is a really dangerous thing.
……………………
Well–apart from the fact that there is nothing “radical” about Jihad–that is good to hear.
Mike says
This could be a core difference in opinion that we have. What percentage of Muslims do you believe are for violent jihad. I believe it’s a trivially small percentage and should be characterized as a radical point of view. However it’s much much greater than radical Christians. Perhaps if you believe that it is not a radical point of view, you would see that percentage as what 1%, 10% ?
gravenimage says
Jihad is mainstream Islam–there is nothing whatsoever “radical” about it.
Moreover, the idea that those Muslims not currently waging violent Jihad must perforce be opposed to it is quite mistaken. There is the Islamic tenet of “Fard Kalifa”, whereby if some members of the Ummah are waging violent Jihad, things are covered.
Further, many Muslims support violent Jihad though Zakat–funding–or through Da’wa.
The goal of Jihad is the imposition of Shari’ah law. More than half of Muslims in the United States support Shari’ah. The idea that this is “1%” or even “10%” is just absurd.
Here’s just one poll:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/
And this is in the US–polls in Europe, and in Dar-al-Islam itself, are significantly *more* alarming:
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx
There is a clear majority of Muslims supporting Shari’ah law even in Europe. In much of the Muslim world, a significant percentage of Muslims support violent Jihad.
Mike says
Those numbers are more than I thought.
But how can you say that jihad is mainstream Islam when the own stats and polls you site consistently show much less than half support jihad.
That’s not mainstream.
Mark Swan says
Any hate group which has come out of centuries of the same
beliefs, that hangs onto the source of what is behind that
hate, should not be taken lightly…but it is exactly the fact that
many don’t seem to take it serious enough on the whole, for what
It is…just because someone does not display openly what they
have to base their beliefs on…does not mean they will not, at the
very least be empathetic with others who act on it.
These moderate Muslims seem to exist, so We observe this,
do We feel anyone who can read and has read the Quran
and is ok with it, can be something other than Muslim.
Do We expect anyone who is not a Muslim, but has read the
Quran, to understand, how someone who knows what is in the
Quran, can keep Saying they are Muslim.
In this age of Islam spreading aggressively, are we going to hope
moderate Muslims, can water down the very essence of Islam which
is about control plane and simple…are we to think the big players
in this are naive and vulnerable, or maybe ok with this—what.
They have been building-up to this time for many decades…they can
work any system better than its originators, they are very effective.
This is a supremacist Ideology…do We expect them to accept equality.
All their ingenuous determined efforts are very real and very wide-spread.
Do We feel these Muslim folks just need a clear view of
the good life, and when they realize how wonderful a good life
Is, these beliefs, based on the Quran will just go away.
The rest of this world cannot be on hold…how long do We have to give Them
to make this reformation, after many centuries of the same belief of hate.
Should the words good and Muslim be used together…read the Quran.
Do these exist…if so, let them cast off this hate group membership.
Let them join the free World and help…that is what they could do.
Many beliefs are part of humanity…yet humanity can not accept the Quran.
Whom then do we liken the Muslim Brotherhood to be.
Many have considered them Moderate Muslims.
They are not.
le mouron rouge says
Mario,
Far too much time and effort has been wasted on “mik-eeee.”
Move on. “mik-eeee” was here as an agitator, in the mold of a “community organizer.”
Now, “mik-eeee” is dust in the wind.
Mike says
I’m not a community organizer.
What do you mean I’m an agitator? I guess I am because I am questioning your beliefs and mine.
Why would you say that and why would you want me to go. Do you not want to be challenged?
gravenimage says
Actually, many of these stats do indeed show over half of Muslims supporting violent Jihad. But a number need not be over 50% to be quite mainstream, in any case.
Anyone not alarmed by these figures is either not paying attention or else is actually in sympathy with the Jihad.
Mark Swan says
gravenimage You are absolutely correct, the way I see this, is, He’s not the least concerned with Islam’s intent, the damage it has already caused and will continue to cause, in fact He doesn’t seem to want it brought-up. And surely does not want a President elected that will make waves.
Mike says
You say the damage caused…
I had a discussion with a pro gun guy who pointed out that cars kill far more people than guns in a year and he used this as an argument that there should be no gun limitations.
Radical islamic terrorism has killed far less people than car accidents.
That is not to say that radical islamic terrorism isn’t a huge problem. It fucks me over every time I go to the airport. But is that the terrorism, or our response to it?
gravenimage says
Mike wrote:
The pew research on islamic fundumentalism say that muslems that support jihad are a minority.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/22/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/
………………………………
You do realize that even if numbers are that low that that means that the number of Muslims in the US who justify violence against American Infidels make up the population of a medium-sized city?
gravenimage says
Mike wrote:
Radical islamic terrorism has killed far less people than car accidents.
………………………….
There was a time when falling off ladders caused more deaths of Jews than did the Nazis. That was true until it wasn’t.
The fact is that violent Jihad in the West is *mushrooming*.
More:
That is not to say that radical islamic terrorism isn’t a huge problem. It fucks me over every time I go to the airport. But is that the terrorism, or our response to it?
………………………….
Do you really believe that the only impact of Jihad terror is your having to take your shoes off at the airport and having to use 3 oz packages of toothpaste–and this is–what? Overreaction by the “filthy Infidels”?
Did you miss the horror of 9/11? Lockerbie? The attack on Domodedovo International Airport in Moscow? The bombing at Brussels Airport?
Mike says
You say that violent islamic jihad is mushrooming. I don’t know if I agree with that. When the Russia invaded afghanistan in the 80’s, The US supported jihad against the USSR. Perhaps our perceptions of the dangers of jihad has changed, Has the percentage of muslims who support violent jihad against non islamists changed? I don’t know. Perhaps the focus of the jihad has switched from just israel to the US. Do you have stats about the growth of sympathy of jihad in the islamic world?
For me it sucked when we as the west spent so much money and effort in response to those 20 some terrorists on 9/11. Those fuckers goal was to strike fear into us and you know what? They succeeded. That makes me mad. The trivial minority was able to cost the US government BILLIONS. And we fell for it because we were terrorized. This is EXACTLY what they wanted. Every time I take off my shoes or raise my arms in the multimillion dollar airport booths I’m ashamed that the US is afraid of those radicals.
Perhaps the better response was to not be afraid. Use our money and intelligence to hunt them down and kill them but we should not change our way of life because of them. Love the muslims that denounce the terrorists. Take the high ground. Be more moral than the jihadists. Denounce torture. Be godly.
And again, in the grand scheme of things, the effect of islamic terrorism currently is trivial. But growing. But I firmly believe if we engage in hateful war against muslims, We are no better than them and doing EXACTLY what those fucker jihadists want. Invading Iran is exactly what they wanted.
gravenimage says
I think you’re right, Mark.
gravenimage says
Mike wrote:
You say that violent islamic jihad is mushrooming. I don’t know if I agree with that.
……………………………….
There have been over 29,000 cases of violent Jihad just since 9/11. In the past fifteen years, Muslims have bombed airports and train stations, mass molested and raped Westerners at celebrations and at pools, and have beheaded Infidels in the streets.
There was *nothing* like this going on in the West until recently, with the growing Muslim population in the West. This is not opinion; it is simple fact.
More:
When the Russia invaded afghanistan in the 80’s, The US supported jihad against the USSR. Perhaps our perceptions of the dangers of jihad has changed
……………………………….
We rightly understood the Soviet Union to be a threat, but understood very little about Jihad at the time, since we had not directly experienced it for so long.
More:
Has the percentage of muslims who support violent jihad against non islamists changed? I don’t know.
……………………………….
As the Muslim population of any country grows, so does violent Jihad and calls for the imposition of Shari’ah. When the population is below 1%, there is not apt to be much violence. As it grows from 5% to 10%, Jihad grows exponentially. We’ve seen this all over the world. Many European nations now have between 5% and 10% Muslim population.
Here’s an excellent article on the subject by Dr. Peter Hammond in FrontPage Magazine:
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30675
More:
Perhaps the focus of the jihad has switched from just israel to the US. Do you have stats about the growth of sympathy of jihad in the islamic world?
……………………………….
Islam is growing in confidence–there are many reasons for this. Unearned oil wealth and a weak response from the Western world among them–but perhaps foremost is the foolish practice of allowing increased Muslim immigration.
Most Muslims simply did not have direct access to Infidel populations in the West; now, increasingly, they do.
More:
For me it sucked when we as the west spent so much money and effort in response to those 20 some terrorists on 9/11.
……………………………….
How *dare* we have attempted to defend against Jihad? Bad dhimmis…
More:
Those fuckers goal was to strike fear into us and you know what? They succeeded. That makes me mad. The trivial minority was able to cost the US government BILLIONS. And we fell for it because we were terrorized. This is EXACTLY what they wanted. Every time I take off my shoes or raise my arms in the multimillion dollar airport booths I’m ashamed that the US is afraid of those radicals.
……………………………….
Ah–see, the “real” problem is not Muslims attempting to blow up our airplanes, but the inconvenience of taking off one’s shoes at the airport. Note that Mike appears to have no actual problem with the Shoe-bomber or the “Magnificent 19” of 9/11.
More:
Perhaps the better response was to not be afraid. Use our money and intelligence to hunt them down and kill them but we should not change our way of life because of them.
……………………………….
The idea that protecting against Jihad is “fear” is grotesque.
More:
Love the muslims that denounce the terrorists.
……………………………….
And those would be…who, exactly? Most Muslim “denunciations of terror” tend to whitewash or justify Jihad while characterizing attempts to *defend* against Jihad terror by the US or Israel as “terrorism”.
More:
Take the high ground. Be more moral than the jihadists. Denounce torture. Be godly.
……………………………….
We are *already* taking the high ground–and always have.
Anyone who does not believe we hold the moral high ground against Jihad terror, which targets civilians, shoppers, schools, hospitals, and children is a moral idiot.
More:
And again, in the grand scheme of things, the effect of islamic terrorism currently is trivial.
……………………………….
Uh huh. Tell the growing numbers of victims of Islam that.
There was a time when Fascism was “trivial”, as well–until it wasn’t.
More:
But growing.
……………………………….
Well, this makes no sense. Mike said at the beginning of *this very post* that he did not know if he agrees that it was. Has he changed his mind in the course of a few paragraphs?
More:
But I firmly believe if we engage in hateful war against muslims, We are no better than them and doing EXACTLY what those fucker jihadists want. Invading Iran is exactly what they wanted.
……………………………….
Ah, yes–if we defend against savagery, we must be savages ourselves. What crap.
Also, note the idea that defense against our being murdered is “hateful”.
And where did the bit about “invading Iran” come from? Like his claim that I was calling for “carpet bombing” earlier on this thread, this is just something he’s just made up–certainly, it is not anything I have ever said.
Mike says
You say
“Islam is growing in confidence–there are many reasons for this. Unearned oil wealth and a weak response from the Western world among them–but perhaps foremost is the foolish practice of allowing increased Muslim immigration.”
There are so many undefined terms here that we can’t discuss this. what do you mean by “growing in confidence?” I have no idea how america’s change in immigration policies have fostered ISIS. I dont know what you mean. It makes no sense to me.
————————
You say.
Ah–see, the “real” problem is not Muslims attempting to blow up our airplanes, but the inconvenience of taking off one’s shoes at the airport.
No, muslims attempting to blow up our airplanes is a real problem, but by taking an action out of fear is giving them power.
The shoe bomber did nothing. I object to your characterization of me as not having a problem with terrorism. I disagree with you on the best way to fight terrorism, not on the intrinsic evilness of islamic extremism. Please stop making personal attacks on me.
—-
you say.
“We have already taken the high ground.”
I disagree with you on that. Torture and jail without any kind of trial is not taking the high ground. Yes, Obama is more apt on taking the high ground than trump. (based on Trump’s “We must torture the families of terrorists” statement). But taking the high ground is what we need to do.
—-
I seriously dont understand a lot of what you say. You say things like
“yes–if we defend against savagery, we must be savages ourselves. What crap.
Also, note the idea that defense against our being murdered is “hateful”.”
Of course we should defend ourselves, but the question is “what is the best way to defend ourselves?” I don’t believe that stopping muslim immigration is the best way. I don’t believe that having deportation forces to hunt down and evict illegal immigrants is the best way. I highly suspect that drone strikes are not the best way.
common sense says
As soon as Mike waffles unable to explain away his contradictions like a good Dem he plays the “radical christian’ card. The KKK is Hillary’s ‘mentor and friend’ and she accepted donations for the california chapter of the KKK
Jihadists are the subject here hence ‘jihad watch’, attempting to change the subject shows your desperation and false narrative and lack of knowledge regarding Islam and what its goal is.
One of the goals of Islam is to use people just like Mike to try to get us off point or confuse us. Won’t work. Either a useful idiot for the left or an Islamist would say the things Mike says.
Mike says
Are we all just Shiites and Sunnis now?
More and more of our politics resembles the core sectarian conflict in the Middle East between these two branches of Islam, and that is not good. Because whether you’re talking about Shiites and Sunnis — or Iranians and Saudis, Israelis and Palestinians, Turks and Kurds — a simple binary rule dominates their politics: “I am strong, why should I compromise? I am weak, how can I compromise?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/opinion/win-lose-but-no-compromise.html
gravenimage says
Absurd. American and Western politics can become contentious because the stakes are so high, but the idea that Democrats and Republicans are slaughtering each other over sectarian differences as are the savage Sunni and Shia Muslims is just grotesque calumny.
Mike says
Republicans and democrats are “figuratively” slaughtering each other. Look at how many personal attacks on me and Hillery on this post because I happen to disagree with the you. That is not right. I hate this polarization that has been happening in american politics. That is not the way to a strong America. People need to maintain open minds and trust that other Americans are actually good people.
That is why I came here. To the “enemy” camp to find out what is going on. It just sucks that all you on this website are written off as “racists” and Hillary is written off as a crook and liar. It shouldn’t be war between us. We have different points of view and need to learn from each other, not just ignore each other. How can we govern this country with this much animosity?
gravenimage says
Mike wrote:
Republicans and democrats are “figuratively” slaughtering each other. Look at how many personal attacks on me and Hillery on this post because I happen to disagree with the you. That is not right.
………………………….
I don’t believe that anyone here has “slaughtered” you, nor that you have murdered me by disagreeing with me.
Sharp disagreement is *very* different from murder.
gravenimage says
Mike wrote:
I got to believe that totally makes sence. If you are going to kill someone, you better kill that person and all of his friends or else those friends are going to regain their strength and get you eventually.
I mean if we decide to participate in the islamists jihad, we better be prepared to kill all of them and their friends and families. That is just a horrendous prospect.
…………………………
The idea that defending ourselves against Jihad means committing genocide is simply ludicrous. The fact is that the free West has never comported herself that way, nor does she need to.
Moreover, the idea that practices of genocidal warlords are the most successful and practical approaches is dispelled by the most casual glance at history. Were this the case, then we never would have been able to defeat Fascism.
Mike says
By 1950 the idea of fascism was absolutely gone except possibly for a small minority of people hiding in the rubble. Are you suggesting that an equivalent outcome of our war against violent islamic extremism is to have nobody be muslim except a small minority hiding in the rubble? I think we can do better against the jihadists.
Defending ourselves against jihad means targeting the jihadists. That means targeted strikes and increased intelligence against the jihadists. Not the muslims. Lets make the 70% of muslims that denounce jihad our friends. and not just group them together with the assholes.
gravenimage says
Yet more from Mike:
By 1950 the idea of fascism was absolutely gone except possibly for a small minority of people hiding in the rubble. Are you suggesting that an equivalent outcome of our war against violent islamic extremism is to have nobody be muslim except a small minority hiding in the rubble? I think we can do better against the jihadists.
……………………………….
Where to start? It was Mike himself who was nattering on about warlords and genocide, and how this barbaric approach “totally makes sence (sic)” And yet now he is supposedly fretting that Anti-Jihadists are calling for genocide against Muslims.
He is either completely irrational, or else is just, in classic troll behavior, throwing anything at the wall hoping it will stick.
The idea that wanting Muslims to stop murdering us is a call for genocide is simply calumny.
More:
Defending ourselves against jihad means targeting the jihadists. That means targeted strikes and increased intelligence against the jihadists. Not the muslims.
……………………………….
The idea that Jihadists are not Muslims is ridiculous. Jihad is mainstream Islam. In fact, the “Prophet” Muhammed himself was a Jihadist, and said that nothing equaled waging violent Jihad in piety.
More:
Lets make the 70% of muslims that denounce jihad our friends. and not just group them together with the assholes.
……………………………….
Again, this figure is absurd. No pious Muslim can reject Jihad.
The idea that Jihadists are just “assholes” rather than devout Muslims acting in the name of Islam is ludicrous.
Mike says
I am simply tired of you just calling my ideas names instead of actually addressing what I say. You say “No pious muslim can reject jihad” is in direct contradiction to the pew stats that you yourself site that say that 70% of muslims are against jihad.
I really request that you stop saying what I’m doing as “nattering” and trolling. Are you so blindly angry that you can’t see how insulting it is? America needs civil discourse.
DefenderofIslm says
Hillary will win the election. Tump is view by many black asian and Hispanics as than racist bigot. Many white view him as than big mouth racist bigot who doesnot know how to run than business many of his hotels went bankruptcy. He know nothing about how the government work.
gravenimage says
“Words of wisdom” from someone unable to spell not just the name of the candidate in question, but even the name of his own foul creed….
Champ says
LOL!! 😀
Mark Swan says
Yep the result of an education in Islam, really shows, DefenderofIslm.
gravenimage says
🙂
Jay Boo says
Popcorn is Racist
It turns from brown to white.
Hillary is very apologetic about this.
don vito says
Oh yes Trump knows how gov works, greasing their palms with money. Trump has said that’s what he has done as a businessman.
Wellington says
“He know nothing about how the government works.”
Uh, in case you haven’t noticed, the government is not working now. Rather it is working against the American people, for instance wasting billions upon billions of dollars yearly, not securing our southern border, and bringing in so-called Syrian refugees who are, in effect, invaders.
gravenimage says
That’s just how “DefenderofIslm” likes it…
Mark Swan says
Absolutely True Both of You, Wellington and gravenimage.
Mike says
Because the government doesn’t do what YOU want, doesn’t mean the government isn’t working.
We have a democracy. Just because there are specific policy issues that you are in a minority in doesn’t mean the government isn’t working.
Lioness says
The Clinton Foundation must be the largest fraud in American history, equal that to Bernie Madoff’s. The funds are a piggy bank for the Clintons to finance a lavish lifestyle, buy and sell influence and seize power. It is an epitome of corruption that are the envy of drug lords and dictators in the most corrupt places in the world. How on earth this in not investigated in the US, a country that suppose to have law and order and a strong investigational arm? If this “foundation” was tied to a Republican, is there a chance that it would not be investigated up and down and arrests made?
Mark Swan says
Lioness it surely seems why the Establishment wants to line-up against Mr. Trump the way they have, they don’t want anyone to disturb this.
Jay Boo says
A lifetime of debauchery takes a toll on the human body.
Look at that face.
When Hillary insisted on posing for Playboy Magazine, Hugh Hefner suddenly stopped publishing nudes.
Mark Swan says
Caught Me off Guard—Good One Jay Boo—made me smile.
duh swami says
The first woman President will continue her good works, on steroids…You can depend on it…If SOS was good the Presidency will bring even more rewards…
Dexter L. Wilson says
Lest we forget, Huma Abedin, the Right hand of Hillary belonged to a questionable Muslim group whose mother advocates Sharia for the world.
Dexter L. Wilson says
I neglected to mention what her mother advocating Sharia means to women, slavery, wife beating, and subservients to men. Remember according to women who have escaped Islam that lying, or taqiya to the unbeliever is not a maybe but is a must. So here we have a lying candidate for president who has an employee whose mother advocates sharia and her daughter a strong Muslim who follows the Muslim tenets of the faith. I still have not figured out why Americans can even suggest supporting this presidential candidate. What does it take to wake up Americans, a two by four across the forehead?
Mike says
Because the solution that Trump supports:
Carpet bombing, torture, and segregation are the exact wrong thing to decrease Islamic fundamentalism.
Using intelligence. humanity, and keeping the moral high ground is.
gravenimage says
Isolating Islam is the only thing that has *ever* worked. The West was relatively safe from the depredations of Islam from about two hundred until about fifty years ago.
Inviting hordes of these savage barbarians into our own civilized nations is *anything* but indicative of the moral high ground, as the growing epidemic of Muslim rape and murder in Europe and the rest of the West amply shows.
Mark Swan says
Mike, read the Quran, You decide how You feel about the dark writing.
You can find Mr. Spencers Books and writings very enlightening, and important.
You could Try just reading here and learning what Islam is about, first, before taking on a
opinion of any kind, after learning what Islam intends, you should find it very concerning.
Mike says
I am not ever going to call myself qualified in interpreting the Koran. Instead of looking at the koran and trying to interpret medieval scriptures, I choose to let the experts do it.
Some experts who call themselves muslims say that they should enter in violent jihad against the unbelievers. According to pew research, thats about 30% of the people.
Other experts who call themselves muslims decry that point of view. That’s about 70%.
I’m sitting here and thinking. “How do I make the 30% smaller and 70% bigger”
I really dont think it’s by screwing over the 70% by not letting them in here. If I let someone in the 30% in here he might be moved to go into the 70%. The odds are in my favor that if I let some random muslim in here, in the long run, things are going to be better for me.
Mike says
You say that “Isolating islam is the only thing that ever worked” What do you mean by that? can you give an example?
I have to believe that this video
https://youtu.be/2RB4yWmzG-4
does much more to counter islamic violence than this image
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20160820-brother-of-syrian-boy-in-iconic-photo-dies-from-wounds-in-bomb-blast.ece
gravenimage says
Mike wrote:
I am not ever going to call myself qualified in interpreting the Koran. Instead of looking at the koran and trying to interpret medieval scriptures, I choose to let the experts do it.
………………………………
The Qur’an is not that difficult to understand–its calls for violence are quite overt.
More:
Some experts who call themselves muslims say that they should enter in violent jihad against the unbelievers. According to pew research, thats about 30% of the people.
Other experts who call themselves muslims decry that point of view. That’s about 70%.
………………………………
Actually, this is incorrect. The idea that 70% of Muslims *reject* violent Jihad is just wrong. One of the only groups of Muslims to do so is the Ahmadi splinter group, whom orthodox Muslims do not consider to be Muslims at all, and whom they regularly oppress and murder.
More:
I’m sitting here and thinking. “How do I make the 30% smaller and 70% bigger”
………………………………
Firstly, your figures are way off–70% of Muslims do not reject violent Jihad. Then the idea that you, as a despised ‘filthy Infidel’, can effect Muslims to change their view of their own faith is absurd. In fact, Muslim clerics regularly sneer at Infidels who want to tell people that Islam is a peaceful creed.
More:
I really dont think it’s by screwing over the 70% by not letting them in here. If I let someone in the 30% in here he might be moved to go into the 70%.
………………………………
Where to start? Firstly, the idea that unless we allow unfettered Muslim immigration into our civilized countries that we are “screwing over” Muslims is ridiculous.
More dangerous is the idea that Jihadists are going to be so grateful that we are allowing them unfettered access to their victims that they will abjure violent Jihad is absurd. When has this ever happened?
In fact, it is *not* happening. Instead, robbery, rape, and murder of Infidels by Muslims is skyrocketing across the West, especially in Europe, which has let in floods of military-age Muslim invaders.
More:
The odds are in my favor that if I let some random muslim in here, in the long run, things are going to be better for me.
………………………………
Well, this is just insane. Are things “better” for the rape victims in Cologne and the victims of Jihad in Paris, Brussels, Nice, and so many other parts of the West? I think not, unless you believe we deserve to be murdered by Muslims.
More:
I have to believe that this video
https://youtu.be/2RB4yWmzG-4
does much more to counter islamic violence than this image
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20160820-brother-of-syrian-boy-in-iconic-photo-dies-from-wounds-in-bomb-blast.ece
………………………………
Neither one of these stories “counters Islamic violence”. The first video is about charitable Infidels welcoming Mohammedans into Canada; the second story is about violence and chaos in Dar-al-Islam. Inviting those who adhere to the same creed that incites this violence into our own civilized nations just gives Muslims a chance to wage violent Jihad against us in our own lands.
Mike says
First I think there are a LOT of muslims that think that terrorism is in the name of islam is just wrong. This is borne out in the pew studies that you yourself site… about 70%
As an atheist I perhaps see the whole argument of “Is islam a naturally violent religion?” differently than you. To me the argument is exactly like arguing if unicorns have 1 foot horns or 3 foot horns. Do people who believe in unicorns believe in 3 foot horns or 1 foot horns? Are the scriptures clear?
To me it makes no sense to argue that because there is no evidence that unicorns exist. To you as (presumably) a christian, I don’t understand how it really matters what the koran says because it is patently obvious that muhammad was not the prophet of god. How can you possibly know what those unicorn believers are possibly thinking? It’s all based on false premises and makes no sense. It’s fruitless to try to see logic in the clearly illogical.
The only thing you can do is to ask people what they believe. The stats that you yourself site are that 70% of muslims are against violent jihad. WTF, are you arguing that those 70% are wrong?
Finally, take a person who believes in this false world view called islam. Who knows what that person’s logic is. The very fact that they believe in islam is evidence that they don’t think straight. Given that these guys don’t think straight, the best I can do is to get them on my side. To do that I tell them that I love them (which I do) and want to help them (which I think we should) and to keep a high moral ground. I dont give a fuck what that kids religion is, the fact that us adults did that to him is just shameful.
gravenimage says
Mike wrote:
First I think there are a LOT of muslims that think that terrorism is in the name of islam is just wrong. This is borne out in the pew studies that you yourself site (sic)… about 70%
…………………………….
Actually, there is nothing in Pew findings that suggest that 70% of Muslims reject such a key tenet of their faith.
More:
As an atheist I perhaps see the whole argument of “Is islam a naturally violent religion?” differently than you.
…………………………….
Actually, I have said nothing about my beliefs–or lack of same–here.
There are many Agnostics and Atheists here at Jihad Watch, including some of the most respected contributors and posters. Major contributor Hugh Fitzgerald himself is an Atheist.
More:
To me the argument is exactly like arguing if unicorns have 1 foot horns or 3 foot horns. Do people who believe in unicorns believe in 3 foot horns or 1 foot horns? Are the scriptures clear?
To me it makes no sense to argue that because there is no evidence that unicorns exist. To you as (presumably) a christian, I don’t understand how it really matters what the koran says because it is patently obvious that muhammad was not the prophet of god…
…………………………….
The idea that only people of faith have reason to be concerned about violent Jihad is just ludicrous. Islam is a threat to *all* unbelievers, including Atheists. Here are just two stories:
“Bangladesh: Muslims hack to death fourth atheist blogger”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/08/bangladesh-muslims-hack-to-death-fourth-atheist-blogger
“Muslim cleric calls for genocide of Jews and atheists”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/04/muslim-cleric-calls-for-genocide-of-jews-and-atheists
There are many, many more.
*Of course* what the Qur’an has to say is important–not because I or anyone else here believes its contents to be true, but because *Muslims do*.
This would be like saying that free people should not have had any interest in Mein Kampf or the other beliefs of Nazis since they were not Fascists.
This is obviously absurd; we have to care because in both cases violence is directed against us on the basis of these beliefs.
More:
This would be like saying that How can you possibly know what those unicorn believers are possibly thinking? It’s all based on false premises and makes no sense. It’s fruitless to try to see logic in the clearly illogical.
…………………………….
Islam is illogical–but it is not without goals. We may rightly consider those goals–demanding submission to Islam and imposing brutal Shari’ah law–to be illogical, but that does not mean that Muslims pursuing these goals will not violently effect us.
In the same way, the “Thousand Year Reich” and the supposed supremacy of the “Aryan” people was also illogical–that didn’t make the victims of Fascism any less dead.
More:
The only thing you can do is to ask people what they believe. The stats that you yourself site are that 70% of muslims are against violent jihad. WTF, are you arguing that those 70% are wrong?
…………………………….
Again, the claim that 70% of Muslims categorically reject violent Jihad is wrong, and is *not* backed up by the Pew polls.
Moreover, even if this *were* the case, this would still mean that we are inviting in hundreds of thousands of Muslim who *do* support violent Jihad.
For instance, Germany let in over one million Muslim “refugees” last year–that means that they now have more than 333,000 Muslims who support the conquest and slaughter of unbelievers.
How could that *not* be of concern?
More:
Finally, take a person who believes in this false world view called islam. Who knows what that person’s logic is. The very fact that they believe in islam is evidence that they don’t think straight. Given that these guys don’t think straight, the best I can do is to get them on my side.
…………………………….
How would you get people who “don’t think straight” on your side? Especially given that a central tenet of that ‘not thinking straight’ is hatred of the “filthy Infidels”?
More:
To do that I tell them that I love them (which I do) and want to help them (which I think we should) and to keep a high moral ground.
…………………………….
We *already* have the moral high ground. Infidels are not blowing up hospitals and schools, nor are we beheading Muslims in the street.
In what way, exactly, does Mike consider bloody Jihad more moral than the actions of our own civilized societies?
More:
I dont give a fuck what that kids religion is, the fact that us adults did that to him is just shameful.
…………………………….
What “kid” is Mike referring to? Is he just ranting now without reference of any kind?
Mike says
I’m not saying that only people of faith have a concern about jihad. As an atheist I am concerned about violent jihad. ButI think you’ve missed my point entirely. I’m saying that you as a non-believer have no ability to say what the believers believe in or what they should believe in. How can you say what it’s goals are when this belief is intrinsically unknowable because it’s based on no facts.
Are jihadists a danger? Yes.
Is the best way to combat them by bombing? No.
Should we stop immigration of muslims? No.
And I think we shouldn’t stop muslim immigration because I don’t think that jihadists are a danger, but because I think the best way of combating jihadists is by showing more love and compassion than them.
gravenimage says
Mike wrote:
You say that “Isolating islam is the only thing that ever worked” What do you mean by that? can you give an example?
………………………
Have you never read history? Throughout the Middle Ages, Islam repeatedly attacked Europe, eventually conquering Spain, Portugal, parts of southern France and southern Italy, Sicily, Greece, and the Balkans.
Slowly, Infidels there were able to reclaim their lands and drive out the Muslim invaders. There were major turning point battles at Lepanto and the Gates of Vienna.
The fledgling United Statesin the early 19th century was unable to afford to pay tribute to the Barbary Pirates, and so Muslims regularly seized our ships and enslaved our crews. We decided to fight back, forming a navy and rescuing our seamen.
This inspired Britain and then France to join with us–soon, the Mediterranean Sea was completely free for international navigation, which had not been the case for *a thousand years*.
Not long after this, Greece freed herself from centuries under Muslim conquest with Western help; the Balkans followed.
Finally, the West was free from Muslim conquest. There has been a flowering of invention, art, and trade over this period.
Of course, Islam still showed its ugliness–this was the period of the savage Armenian Genocide–really, a genocide against all non-Muslims remaining in the Ottoman Empire and its successors. There were between one and two million victims, and just a tiny remnant of non-Muslims remain there today.
But the West itself was largely free of such barbarism.
But beginning a few decades ago we forgot what a threat Islam has been–something Western Infidels understood for centuries. We began actually inviting in ravening Muslims.
This has been accelerating more and more–until most nations in Europe have a growing and increasingly violent Muslim population. Britain is about 5% Muslim; France 8%. These are figure from before the flood of Muslim invaders entering Europe in growing hordes since late last year.
Jihad terror had been growing there in the years since 9/11–the Madrid Train bombings, 7/7, the Charlie Hebdo massacre–but in the past year has *mushroomed*, including the mass rapes on New Year’s Eve in Cologne and many other European cities; the attacks on Paris, Brussels, and Nice; and now the increasing knife and machete murders in the streets.
The above is the barest outline, but the lessons of history are clear; when we had most isolated Islam from the civilized world–from, as I noted, about two hundred years ago until a few decades ago–we were safest from the depredations of Islam. In fact, we were largely entirely free of direct experience with Muslim savagery.
Not so now–now, we are inviting the barbarians within our gates, and have the horrifying mounting body count to prove it.
carol says
mike says:
Using intelligence. humanity, and keeping the moral high ground is [the thing to ‘decrease Islamic Fundamentalism’]
You just keep powdering your butt Mike because they may be coming for it soon! Or have you noticed the unwanted attention that Islamists are rewarding countries with that have opened their big, trusting hearts e.g. Sweden, Germany, England, France etc.?
Mike says
come on “powdering your butt?” what does that mean? I’m attempting to be civil here.
I believe that the reason that France has been screwed by the islamists is not because they are letting everybody in, but because France has traditionally had a much harder line against muslims that the US. I just don’t want want us to fall into the mutual hate trap.
Really, when you ban burkinis on the beach you are just giving the muslims an excuse to hate you and radical preachers talking points.
Champ says
Really, when you ban burkinis on the beach you are just giving the muslims an excuse to hate you and radical preachers talking points.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nah, they already hate us …the unholy quran demands it!
Mike says
The pew polls say that the vast majority of muslims don’t hate us. Some silly rule that is addressed towards them is just giving them an excuse to hate us.
Mike says
Remember the bible also says we need to stone female adulterers. All of it is just stuff some dude wrote many many of years ago that has very little applicability to today.
common sense says
ISIS and all Jihadist’s want Hillary Clinton to be the next POTUS.
ISIS (just one extreme jihadist group) says it has their ‘soldiers’ among the refugee population to attack America and Europe and our security forces have confirmed that threat. The attacks are plain to see in Europe with growing ferocity.
@ Mike- don’t think for second that this is untrue and that somehow Hillary has your back, you defending her non-existent honesty is laughable. If you vote for her you are ignoring the real threat we face and are either stupid, insane or full of crap. Most likely a mixture of all three.
Right now Hillary is innocent until proven guilty and you believe James Comey when he said the FBI was unable to recommend indictment do to “intent” but that Hillary Clintons handling of confidential. Information was “extremely reckless”. Ignorant in my book if she indeed did not lie about that. But she did lie James Comey directly contradicted her statements the the congressional hearing.
So, if James Comey’s word is good enough for you to excuse Hillary and vote for her as POTUS then the FBI’s word should also be good enough for you regarding Jihadisits entering this country among the refugee population.
And Trump does not lie he “just talks past his constituents” at times.
Further- what happened to Seth Conrad Rich? John Ashe? Sean Lucas?
What about Huma Abedin being involved with a racist Islamic news letter. Do you know any of these things? Do you know anything about the people listed that were killed or allegedly had accidents?
Mike I think people like you only see what you want to see and you buy ‘one size fits all’ hook, line and sinker like. A communist who freed from his chains did not know what to do at first.
Your first act as a free man should be to vote for Trump unless you want Jihadists spilling over into America. No Lie!