How Hillary led the State Department in breaking
all historical records for arming the World's
#1 most oppressive regime in terms of women's rights
While also breaking records in accepting huge sums of
money for her Foundation from the same regime.
More info below about how "ordinary" Saudi women are treated
|What would you think if it were Iran or
Syria or China whose top leaders' daughters were under house
arrest in wretched conditions, being denied food, for over
a decade? But those are not the countries carrying out this
Welcome to one of the world's most brutal regimes, one shamefully mislabeled as "moderate" — the U.S.-backed Saudi dictatorship.
Yet no one, possibly other than the Bush family,
has been so tied to let alone so financially intimate with this
regime, than the Clintons
The Washington Post rated as "accurate"
the essence of this Human Rights comparison.
Shamefully called "moderate" the U.S.-backed Saudi regime
is among if not the world's most brutal regime: "
Above graphic still lowballs Saudi repression since it gives the false impression at bottom that the Saudi regime "doesn't" crucify. Their draconian laws do allow for the beheaded bodies of the executed to be Crucified (after head is gruesomely sewn back) and displayed in public.
It hasn't "always been this way." Not this extreme. While Saudi human rights abuses and U.S. complicity in them have been here for a long time, Hillary Clinton took it to new levels, in at least two disturbing ways.
Recall Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State was 2009-2013. As headlines noted, in October 2010, Hillary's "State Department notified Congress" of its intention to make literally the biggest sale of armaments in U.S. history — an estimated $60.5 billion [that's $60,000,000,000 to] the extremely repressive dictatorship ("Kingdom") of Saudi Arabia, a jihadi-backing regime that is the most fundamentalist country in the world. The package represents a considerable [enhancement] in the offensive capability of the Saudi armed forces." and included attack planes, offensive military helicopters, and "bunker-buster" bombs.
This wasn't "business as usual" (which would have been bad enough; a candidate seeking our votes should do better than "as usual") but more sinister and worse than business as usual: as noted, this was the largest military sale in U.S. history
By early 2016, thanks to Hillary's push in 2010, just the concluded weapons sales to date alone were "triple the $16 billion in [arms] sales under the George W Bush administration." as the UK Guardian reported. The latest member of the Al Saud ruling family autocracy, King Salman, appointed his own 30 year old son to be both "Defence" minister and deputy Crown Prince at the same time, and led the war on the region's most impoverished country, Yemen. Clinton helped sell "more advanced weaponry to Saudi leaders than any" previous administration, the reporter noting:
"And that means one thing: an emboldened Saudi Arabia will contribute to more war and instability in the Middle East" risking that "America will be drawn into more conflict."
And for whom? To whom was this truly massive amount of arms being sent? To one of the world's most brutal and repressive regimes, the Al-Saud family dictatorship (so hated is it that, fearful of being overthrow by its own military, the sections are separated out and compartmentalized). This is a regime which represses men and Sunni Muslims but has it particular oppressive modes against Shia Muslims, Christians (let alone Jews) and women — even Royal Family women as noted here; imagine the fate of "lower-level" ordinary women? ( See add link here beheading of woman in a public parking lot!).
And recall that all this particular Obama administration enormous weapons sale was sent to Congress by Hillary's State Department
Don't let anyone tell you to blame this on Bush: while negotiations started in the last year of the Bush administration, it was Hillary's State Department, a full three years later and almost two years (a full 1 and 3/4 years) since Hillary's taking the reigns of power in January 2009.
Secondly, the Clintons received tens of millions of dollars in donations from the most repressive countries in the Middle East, the brutal autocratic family dynastic dictatorships (the so-called "monarchies") holding an iron grip on those countries oil resources and on the lives of their inhabitants.
UK's Guardian commented that this deal could "lock" the U.S. into backing the brutal Saudi regime for another "20 years", commenting that:
"Questions about democracy, freedoms and human rights in [Saudi Arabia] clearly have a lower priority" for Washington, reaching a new low following the record-shattering arms sale to the Al-Saudi family dictatorship which Hillary pushed through her State Department.A "lower priority" than this military "wedding" to the Saudis, who far from being "moderate" are the Middle Easts's most reactionary and totalitarian country in terms of human rights and democracy; what women have been able to do in Iran for so long that it's taken for granted — to drive a car — is still illegal in Saudi Arabia where women aren't allowed to drive.
Same with voting rights for women: Here too the oil-rich but extremist, pro-jihadist "Wahabi" ideological version of Islam of the Saudi dictatorship, again makes Iran look (far) more moderate by comparison. In Saudi Arabia, women can't vote in national elections but can only vote locally — and even that was a "gift" given them by the Saudi regime, only a few years ago!
Would this be acceptable "progress" if it were, say, Iran? Of course not! Women have been "allowed to", make that, exercising their right to vote in Iran for years. Iran if not "enlightened" to put it mildly, yet so extreme is the autocracy in Saudi Arabia whom Hillary has pushed to new levels of coziness with the U.S. and to getting new levels of lethal armaments from us, makes Iran look moderate by comparison.
Even if there wasn't a third morally bankrupt action or set of
actions (that is, a "quid pro quo" or any other direct or indirect
coordination between the first two items — huge sums of money for the Clinton
Foundation on the one hand, giving an undeserved "respectability" to
these brutal regimes, and particularly nice treatment in the
forms of out-sized, world-record-breaking, weapons sales
to these dictatorships, these two regressive and reactionary foreign
policy actions and "personal foundation" actions alone, taken in
isolation and in and of themselves, represent the worst; no wonder
right-wing neocon after neocon, they've been flocking to Hillary: she is
well to the hawkish warmongering right of Donald Trump, which is
saying quite a lot.
Besides being put in a semi-stravation rations
situation the above mentioned four
Saudi princesses, daughters of the late King/dictator, live in what
kind of a house under house arrest? Opulent? Or average? Not even
"average", it's filled with leaking pipes and even mold (see
left picture), this
screenshot from a UK channel which ran a story after the princesses
were able to secretly contact the British TV station and speak and
be interviewed...and send a few photos:
More on Four Princesses under house arrest for 15 years (External News site)
How are gay men treated? When a prince beat his sexual "man-servant" to death in the UK, a rare conviction took place (video footage from hotel elevator helped) and was sentenced to Life in prison with a minimum of 20 years required, but after serving just 3 years he was allowed to be flown back to Saudi Arabia back to his royal family, with a "promise" they will keep him jailed for at least 20 years
How are men in general treated? If you're a blogger like Raif Badawi, who say anything critical of the Saudi government, you can get convicted of "insulting Islam through electronic channels" sentenced to 600(!) lashes of whipping on your back, have that increased to 1,000 lashes plus 10 years in prison, and have the first "round" of 50 lashes carried out, then be returned to rot in jail, despite broad international outrcy. See [add link here] "treatment of Muslims" section.Good background: http://www.inquisitr.com/1786181/did-king-abdullah-hold-his-daughters-captive-for-talking-about-womens-rights/
"We, along with our mother, have always been vocal all our lives about poverty, women's rights and other causes that are dear to our hearts. We often discussed them with our father. It did not sit well with him and his sons, Mitab and Abdel Aziz, and their entourage. We have been the targets ever since."
In a non-swing states, always vote your values in any
election; but this election...now you know the facts:
Hillary in so many ways is not the "Lesser Evil" but
the Greater Evil in past acts, and even more clearly,
Hillary is the Greater Danger (Trump would be a more opposed,
weaker, thus less dangerous — less able to do damage — president)
Fight for a last-minute miracle President Jill..
A DT Presidency would increase progressive activism
With Hillary, most Media would spin for her, many Americans would
Go back to sleep, as in 90s, when Clintons gave us NAFTA & slashed aid to single moms
Today it would mean also:
$trillions on wars: devastation, death & more terrorism through Iraq-War style repeats
After reviewing this, we hope you'll agree that "even"
in swing states too, vote for the Greater Good:
Dr. Jill Stein for President!
At worst, we'll get a weaker "Lesser Evil" president in DT flooded with opposition
And at Best? After all the huge Surprises (Bernie going so far, DT nomination, latest HRC health problems) we've seen?
At best? We'll get a deeply progressive
President Dr. Jill Stein!