Leaked Speech: Hillary Concerned that ‘Jihadists’ Might Enter With ‘Legitimate Refugees’

According to a private speech, the contents for which were released by the infamous WikiLeaks, Hillary Clinton showed concern that “jihadists” might enter other countries with “legitimate refugees” because of a lack of comprehensive vetting.

This is telling, considering that Hillary Clinton wants to accept some 65,000 Syrian refugees every year and has discounted any concern about vetting processes.

“So I think you’re right to have gone to the places that you visited because there’s a discussion going on now across the region to try to see where there might be common ground to deal with the threat posed by extremism, and particularly with Syria, which has everyone quite worried, Jordan because it’s on their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they can’t possibly vet all those refugees,” she said at a 2013 private speech before the Jewish United Fund Of Metropolitan Chicago.

“So they don’t know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees. Turkey for the same reason.”

Even though she’s talking about the Middle East, the same principle applies here. She has no problem accepting in our country 65,000 Syrian refugees – whom she admits might be mixed in with jihadists.

Trending: Saul Alinsky Dedicated His Book ‘Rules for Radicals’ to LUCIFER

Breitbart pointed out that in December of last year, she said at a campaign event in Minneapolis that “rigorous vetting” already takes place while the refugees are still overseas:

“We also have to be vigilant in screening and vetting refugees from Syria, guided by the best judgment of our security and diplomatic professionals. Rigorous vetting already takes place while these refugees are still overseas, and it’s a process that historically takes 18 to 24 months.”

But just a few years prior, she said that the vetting process was a concern, such that terrorists could easily enter a foreign country by intermingling with legitimate refugees. This must be a case of her “private” position versus her “public” position.

Oh, and she got paid $400,000 for that 2013 speech.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend