Saturday, September 17, 2016
What You May NOT KNOW About Hillary’s ‘Experience’
One of the justifications people have used to support Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump is that she has experience.
Many people are understandably concerned about this year’s presidential election. Some are saying the two chief candidates are the worst available choices in decades. It's often said that elections are not so much about voting for who you favor, but more about voting against who you disfavor. In other words, voting for the lessor of two evils.
Some have decided to boycott the election altogether. This is a copout and negates the individual from participating in discussions, as they have opted out of the process. Not making a decision, is making a decision.
One of the justifications people have used to support Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump is she has experience. Just because someone has “experience,” does that mean they deserve to be the most powerful person in the world? Also, one has to evaluate their “experience,” to determine if what they have previously done merits greater responsibility, and reward.
One of the flashpoint issues of the day is terrorism. First off, since Trump has not served in public office, his “experience” with terrorism cannot be evaluated. Yet, he has made his views regarding terror quite clear.
Hillary, on the other hand, has significant experience, which includes serving as Secretary of State from 2009 – 2013.
One of the official duties in the job description of Secretary of State is “ensures the protection of the US Government to American citizens, property and interests in foreign countries.”
In March 2016 an American, Taylor Force, was murdered by a terrorist while he was visiting Israel. His killer, Basar Masalha, who was killed during the attack, was a member of Hamas. Masalha was praised as a “martyr” by the official PA newspaper Al-Hayat Al Jidada. PA President Mahmoud Abbas was asked to publically condemn the murder. He refused, which is tantamount to implicit support.
What’s the connection between Force’s murder and Hillary Clinton?
Starting in 2003, when a “soldier of Allah” commits murder, or another act of terror his crime provides him with a place of honor. It also entitles him to be paid a salary. The more heinous the crime, the greater the salary. If the murderer dies, or is killed while committing his crime, he becomes known as a “shahid,” or martyr. In this case his family is awarded the financial compensation. Palestinian murderers and/or their families in some cases collect as much as $3,500 per month, which is five times greater than the average family income.
Aside from Hamas, the terrorist can be from numerous groups, including Fatah, the political party of PA President Mahmoud Abbas.
The Palestinian Authority allocates roughly 6% of its budget to reward murderers. Since the Palestinian government is providing compensation, it can easily be defined as state-sponsored terrorism. Yet where are the demands to halt this despicable policy?
While world leaders turn a blind eye to this ‘official’ sanctioning of murder, the same world leaders are often heard roundly criticizing Israel for construction in areas that have long been understood as being part of Israel. Such voices have included Hillary Clinton. While there may be disagreement that said construction is in an acceptable area, how can leader deserving of respect focus on construction, while ignoring outright murder?
Yet, there is more to this story. The Palestinian Authority receives over $1.3 billion aid money from around the world. (2014 figures) The single largest source is the United States which provides $400 million annually. The EU, Saudi Arabia, and UK are second, third, and fourth, respectively in annual support.
This means that during the years 2009 - 2013 while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she was part of an ongoing U.S. policy of being the majority financial supporter for a government which promotes and rewards murderers of civilians, including Americans. She did nothing to criticize, impede or prevent said policy, which remains ongoing….
What’s the takeaway from this?
Indeed it is true that Hillary Clinton has “experience.” The question begs is the knowledge of and financial support for ongoing murder of innocent lives (which includes Americans) the type of “experience” that justifies electing her president?
The question is, what will Americans say?