Democratic National Convention Rocked By DNC Chair Wasserman’s Resignation on Day One: What A Way to Start the Show

Well, God bless Wikileaks. Once again Julian Assange’s renown hacker-sleuth team has outed some serious rottenness in our government, this time by way of showing the world what DNC staffers were emailing each other about candidate Bernie Sanders all this past year, while the still vigorous 70-something was working his ass off all over the country, building a movement, with every intention of becoming the presumptive democratic nominee. If Bernie Sanders is not at this moment one of the most bitter men in modern politics [ rivaling even the bitterness of Ted Cruz ] then he should be. Because he got CHEATED on a scale that’s pretty breathtaking. I would compare what the DNC did to Bernie as like unto a prominent national bank stealing from it’s own top depositors, while assuring them that their funds are indeed FDIC insured. It’s JUST NOT SUPPOSED to HAPPEN.

Cited: Lingering bitterness from the heated primary campaign between Clinton and Sanders erupted after more than 19,000 Democratic National Committee emails, leaked on Friday, confirmed Sanders’ frequent charge that the party played favorites in the race.

DNC chair Debra Wasserman Schultz has been implicated, and she is to resign. She has also been pulled as a keynote speaker at this week’s DNC Convention.

Even though I am neither a socialist, nor a Sanders supporter [ I’m with #Trump all the way ] it’s been amazing to watch Bernie build a national coalition which is almost large enough to rival Trump’s, putting to shame the actual paltry number of people who really support Hillary Clinton and plan to vote for her.  When Hillary holds a rally and less than 500 people show up, that SHOULD be news in and of itself. It’s a telltale litmus test that she has no real groundswell of support.

But since we all know that @CNN and @MSNBC are mostly dedicated to getting her elected, while suppressing all support for Donald Trump, no one has bothered to report this important ACTUAL real news to the American people, who urgently need to know about it. By contrast, Bernie Sanders rallies have drawn crowds of young people 20,000 to 30,000 strong – literally hundreds of times the number of attendees that Hillary rallies draw. It got so bad by late last year and this winter news cameramen refused to pan the crowds at any Hillary rally – keeping their cameras squarely fixed on her as she spoke. That’s because there WERE NO CROWDS in attendance. Go looking online anywhere on the internet and see if you can locate photos of Hillary Clinton speaking to more than a few hundred people. You won’t find them because they do not exist. Fascinating fact, huh?

But you would never have known any of this to read excerpts from several DNC staff emails. One staffer stated in an email, which was included in the DNC Wikileaks dump:

“This story is silly. Bernie Sanders will never be president.” – DNC staff email excerpt from the Wikileaks dump

So, just how bad is it? The Wikileaks dump is a jaw-dropper. Many many very ugly truths were brought to light, including animal abuse to raise money for DNC coffers, homophobia, and more. Follow the links below. Full list courtesy of The Gateway Pundit website:

“The hacked emails revealed the DNC’s hatred for Bernie Sanders and his movement. The documents reveal the party’s hidden ties with the liberal media. The emails reveal the heights of dishonesty of the party infrastructure.

Here’s a list of a few of the most shocking emails released by Wikileaks.
The list was compiled thanks to the work of Reddit Bernie Sander supporters and Donald Trump supporters: 

Hat Tip Steve A.

DNC member killing horses for insurance money.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/578
DNC making fun of black womans name.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17942
DNC telling each other, “I love you too. no homo.”
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/425
DNC requesting a pull an MSNBC commentary segment.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6107
DNC controlling the narrative with time released stories.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12450
DNC conspiring to create false Trump information and release with Reuters.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7102
DNC Hillary supporters infiltrated Sanders campaign.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4776
DNC members going to complain to Morning Joe producers about his mentioning of a “rigged system.”
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8806
DNC discussing their relationship with NBC/MSNBC/CNN and how to get better treatment.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13762
Super PAC paying young voters to push back online Sanders supporters. Paid shills.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351

Below are several screenshots of some DNC email segments. One phrase that stood out in the first image was “planted the story” – confirming what news bloggers like me have long held, that media outlets “pepper” their internet news sites and news broadcasts with certain types of stories when they want to BEND public opinion and perception in a certain way. The phrase “planted the story” confirms this fact.

Bernie’s personal religious beliefs were also discussed:

So one can imagine, as rabid as Bernie’s coalition is, that they have now taken to the streets of Philadelphia in numbers. It’s a motley crew of #BLM protestors, #SEIU employees, #GREENParty people, mom and pop uber-liberals, college students, college drop-outs, PINK party women and girls, neo-Black Panthers and just about every other non-conservative and very angry liberal political group who wants to take over the country and create a full fledged socialist revolution which would make Fidel Castro proud. Here are some photos from the front lines:

Why Electing Hillary and Bill Clinton Will Help the Cause of One World Government, Advance Radical Islam and Assist the Bilderberg Group’s Global Crime Cabal

I’ve observed Hillary Clinton’s public career for more than 30 years. I was in my late twenties when her “political star” was rising in Arkansas. I was in my mid thirties when she and Bill finally made it to the White House as their legacy of hidden crimes, still wreaking,  was transported from Arkansas to Washington DC.  The feature length film embedded in this essay was banned by Hillary from appearing in American movie theatres. You deserve to see it and know why. I would suggest readers download the video, as the film will most likely be yanked off of YouTube within weeks of my having penned this essay. If you want to know the truth about the Clintons, this is where you begin. Download the video to your HD for posterity. It won’t be around online for long.

Lucky for me, I’m NOT one of the minions of bedazzled young 20 and 30-something feminists who believe that Hillary Clinton can do no wrong, who are so enamored of her en masse as a female presidential candidate, that for all practical purposes, these throngs are literally BLIND to their trail of deceit, duplicity, lies, mysterious deaths, bribery, pay-offs, coverups and more which lie about as detritus along the trail the Clintons have clawed in their 35 year rise to power in American politics.

Hillary Clinton has made much of her present uber-feminist status as one of the first women in America to ever get this far running for the highest office in the land. I find it repugnant that she has taken so many millions of dollars from the Sauds, well known for their genetically entrenched abuse of their own women, which rivals and surpasses what Hitler did to the Jews during World War Two. Never has a group of women been so mistreated, butchered, oppressed and brutalized more than the women who have had the extreme misfortune to be born into Islamic countries. There is absolutely NO justification for Hillary Clinton’s accepting of large sums of money from these barbaric nations. None. She’s not a feminist. She’s a blatant opportunist, a manipulator of American young people who USES feminism to aggregate votes from naive young American women who are dazzled by Hillary’s celebrity status, while woefully uneducated about the facts. Hillary is using blood money from these Saudi princes who brutalize their own women in private and in public, those who bare their children. No feminist I have ever known would dare to be affiliated with such barbarity and abject cruelty. But Hillary has no problem with it.

Younger voters deserve to know the truth about the #Clintons. They also deserve to know WHY the #MSM [ mainstream media] won’t broadcast the facts you are about to learn. Our media in America is now 95% owned by Illuminati-connected elites, corporate interests who annually attend the Bilderberg Meeting. These heads of media, publishing, news broadcasting, radio, and the press have been hand selected for many decades by founding Luciferian Bilderberg members to foster, advance and publish news which leans in the direction that the Bilderberg Group desires.

Stop and think about the convenient marriage of two evils which is brewing between secret society Luciferians of the globalist Bilderberg Cabal – and their convenient partners in crime: the radical Imams, Wahabbi Saudi princes, ISIS, Hezbollah and other Islamic Jihad groups who are literally willing to murder every living soul on earth who will not convert to Islam. Do you see the bigger picture which is emerging? Do you now understand how high the stakes are in this presidential election?

Did you notice the word Luciferian in that sentence? That was not a typo. The bond which unites the members and family dynasties who form the core of the Bilderberg Group is their shared belief that Lucifer is the true God of our realm, and that he and he alone should be worshipped. Their despise of Christians is open and well documented. They share this despise of western Christendom in tandem with global Jihadic Islam, whose goal is a worldwide religious caliphate, whose Q’uran teaches that anyone who is NOT a Muslim must either be converted or killed. Most liberals have no idea whatsoever what is actually taught in the Q’uran, thus they tend to be accepting and very lenient toward “moderate” peaceful Muslims living in their midst.

Western societies are making a grave mistake to turn a blind eye to the actual teachings of the Q’uran. “Moderate” Muslims are those persons in Islamic societies who stand by watching while gay men are tossed off of rooftops to their deaths in Islamic countries, who watch the routine beheadings of their neighbors, without protest, who watch public whippings and other brutalities enacted toward their neighbors with no outcry. Why? They fear for their own lives should they speak out. That’s fascism. It has not one thing to do with ‘religion’. It is the misuse and perversion of the concept of religion in order to brutalize and utterly dominate a population of people, who have no civil rights, and no means of recourse for their individual or collective grievances under Sharia Law.

Saudi Arabia beheads, on average, about 400 of it’s own citizens per month. Saudi Arabia has also given Hillary and Bill Clinton and their “Clinton Foundation” over 150 million dollars in donations over recent decades. It personally makes my skin crawl, as a woman, as a lesbian, as an American, and as a Christian, that the woman who is the presumptive democratic nominee for president is not only fully endorsed by a Luciferian organization {The Bilderberg Group} but her presidential campaign is financed by Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive, brutal, viciously violent misogynistic fascist governments on earth.

You’ll note I have discussed both the Bilderberg Group and Jihadic Islam. Both belief systems share a common objective: a globally governed borderless world, with prior national identities and governmental sovereignties all scrubbed away. The Bilderberg people want to go even further: they want to erase all gender identities until they are blurred beyond recognition, they desire a global socialist super-state governed by themselves, acting in secret through the UN and their annual meetings to replace all former national sovereignties with a superseding unified one world government [ new world order ] over the world population. They also want the world populace to be RFID micro-chipped with all their vital personal, genetic, financial and medical data encoded such that if anyone misbehaves their “chip is turned” off, ostracizing them from the internet, from their own bank accounts, from any ability to receive medical care, literally cast out of the world community as refuse.

This horrific concept of Luciferian /Islamic one world government is discussed at length in the Christian Book of Revelations. It makes it much easier for the casual observer to understand why “all things Islam” are being pushed so hard and promoted with such deft “political correctness” by the Obama White House, and why Obama is pushing as hard as he can for the election of Hillary Clinton as his successor. Both Hillary and Obama are handled by lifelong Muslims with connections to the infamous radical Jihadist club “the Muslim Brotherhood” – and both are bonified members of the Bilderberg Group. Step back for a moment and try to get a glimpse of the bigger picture here.

Strange Bedfellows Are Merging to Advance the Cause of One World Government

It benefits the Bilderberg people GREATLY to stand quietly by while Jihadic Islam wages war on the West, eroding and effacing every Christian institution into oblivion. The Jihadists are simply making it easier for the men and women of the Bilderberg cabal to do their work of collapsing western civilization from the inside-out, without ever firing a shot. The Jihadists do all the plotting, conniving, usurping, killing and effacing for the Bilderberg people, while they stand about sipping cocktails, looking at child porn and commenting on fashion.

I’m not being dramatic when I state that the soul of a free America is at stake here, that our Christian way of life, our personal civil liberties, our uniquely American constitutional form of government is at risk when we continue, decade after decade, to elect public officials who more and more openly advocate the dissolution of national borders, the submergence of national identity, and the acceptance of foreign forms of governance which have no place on American shores. We no more need Sharia Law being allowed in corners of America here and there, than we need Ebola injections. Both are equally deadly and toxic to the health of the nation.

An uber-left wing fascist socialist global super-state such as that desired by Bilderberg members flies in the face of every human right we hold dear in the American Constitution, thus they have been hell bent on destroying American national sovereignty for many decades. Hillary Clinton and her husband have been groomed by the members of this secret society for decades to hold public office and continue the Left’s slow march to the oblivion of our national sovereignty. Hillary and Bill are members of this “globalism at all costs” club and her election as president would bode ill for our country and our collective future as free Americans living in a constitutional republic. I really need for America’s young people to fully understand the gravity of what’s at stake in this election. I want you to watch this movie from start to finish and I want you to share it.

Tags: American politics 2016, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, ISIS, radical Islamic Jihad, global caliphate dream ISIS, misogyny Saudi Arabia, radical Islam, Luciferian clubs secret societies, Bilderberg global crime cabal, global left-wing fascism, socialism, RFID-chipped world populace, false feminism, Club of Rome, Council on Foreign Relations, Book of Revelations, western Christianity, Christendom, civil rights, American Constitution, Muslim Brotherhood in White House, Luciferian globalism

Bill and Hillary Clinton Sold Uranium Rich US Ranch Lands to Russia While She Was Acting Secretary of State

Are you a Hillary Clinton supporter? If you are, there’s a #BlacklistedNewsReport you need to know about. Once you know about it, you might be forced to re-assess your support of this woman. It’s a crying shame that no US mainstream news outlet will touch this story. That ought not to be. But the same oligarchic octopus of about 6 corporations, controlled by the Bilderberg Agenda, own every news outlet in the nation. THAT’s why you are not hearing this story on the CBS Evening News, or NBC or ABC, etc. Please please please share this report. Thank you. – Author, Screenshots News Blog

The story has to do with American ranch land, precious metals and mineral resources that lie within it, and the covert selling of American ranch lands to Russia, so that Russia can mine the uranium ore that is located on these lands. Sound far-fetched? Be sitting down. You’ll want to follow the links below, but for the sake of expediency, I have also re-posted the in-depth report revealing this awful, criminal land deal below, as I wanted to archive it on my own news blog, in case the report gets yanked off the NYT website as the November 2016 presidential election draws closer.

If you think it’s appropriate for a sitting US government high official, such as the Secretary of State, to find a covert way to sell off precious US assets which would be vital to US national security interests during times of war, to a foreign nation, like RUSSIA, for example – and have her husband accept millions upon million of dollars in donations to their [dubious ] foundation in return for the sale – then by all means, Hillary Clinton is your girl. But if learning about this deal makes your skin crawl, and you are both outraged and determined that something like this should never happen again, and that the wheels of justice should begin to turn AT ONCE to bring the Clintons under indictment, then you might just be a real, red blooded American, who loves their country, and doesn’t want to see it sold off to Russia or China right out from underneath our patriotic feet.

Why hasn’t a Grand Jury been convened to investigate this deal, and others like it, where monies flowed into the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State? What else did she coordinate with foreign nations which was a blatant conflict of interest to American national security? Don’t people usually go to prison for doing things like this while holding high office?

Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover of American Ranch Lands

Clinton Foundation took massive payoffs, promised Hammond Ranch and other publicly owned lands to Russians along with one-fifth of our uranium ore

======Re-posted from The New York Times ==========

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

A Uranium One sign that points to a 35,000-acre ranch owned by John Christensen, near the town of Gillette, Wyo. Uranium One has the mining rights to Mr. Christensen’s property. Credit Matthew Staver for The New York Times

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Frank Giustra, right, a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton, left. Credit Joaquin Sarmiento/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” he added.

Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover

Uranium investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s office was involved in approving a Russian bid for mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States.

Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.

When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today’s. The Obama administration was seeking to “reset” strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.

Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.

“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.”

A Seat at the Table

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

Ian Telfer was chairman of Uranium One and made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. Credit Galit Rodan/Bloomberg, via Getty Images

If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007.

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared.

Still, the company’s story was hardly front-page news in the United States — until early 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

(In a statement issued after this article appeared online, Mr. Giustra said he was “extremely proud” of his charitable work with Mr. Clinton, and he urged the media to focus on poverty, health care and “the real challenges of the world.”)

Though the 2008 article quoted the former head of Kazatomprom, Moukhtar Dzhakishev, as saying that the deal required government approval and was discussed at a dinner with the president, Mr. Giustra insisted that it was a private transaction, with no need for Mr. Clinton’s influence with Kazakh officials. He described his relationship with Mr. Clinton as motivated solely by a shared interest in philanthropy.

As if to underscore the point, five months later Mr. Giustra held a fund-raiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in the natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 million. The star-studded gala, at a conference center in Toronto, featured performances by Elton John and Shakira and celebrities like Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Robin Williams encouraging contributions from the many so-called F.O.F.s — Friends of Frank — in attendance, among them Mr. Telfer. In all, the evening generated $16 million in pledges, according to an article in The Globe and Mail.

“None of this would have been possible if Frank Giustra didn’t have a remarkable combination of caring and modesty, of vision and energy and iron determination,” Mr. Clinton told those gathered, adding: “I love this guy, and you should, too.”

But what had been a string of successes was about to hit a speed bump.

Bill Clinton met with Vladimir V. Putin in Moscow in 2010. Credit Mikhail Metzel/Associated Press

Arrest and Progress

By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr. Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom, had just been arrested on charges that he illegally sold uranium deposits to foreign companies, including at least some of those won by Mr. Giustra’s UrAsia and now owned by Uranium One.

Publicly, the company tried to reassure shareholders. Its chief executive, Jean Nortier, issued a confident statement calling the situation a “complete misunderstanding.” He also contradicted Mr. Giustra’s contention that the uranium deal had not required government blessing. “When you do a transaction in Kazakhstan, you need the government’s approval,” he said, adding that UrAsia had indeed received that approval.

But privately, Uranium One officials were worried they could lose their joint mining ventures. American diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks also reflect concerns that Mr. Dzhakishev’s arrest was part of a Russian power play for control of Kazakh uranium assets.

At the time, Russia was already eying a stake in Uranium One, Rosatom company documents show. Rosatom officials say they were seeking to acquire mines around the world because Russia lacks sufficient domestic reserves to meet its own industry needs.

It was against this backdrop that the Vancouver-based Uranium One pressed the American Embassy in Kazakhstan, as well as Canadian diplomats, to take up its cause with Kazakh officials, according to the American cables.

“We want more than a statement to the press,” Paul Clarke, a Uranium One executive vice president, told the embassy’s energy officer on June 10, the officer reported in a cable. “That is simply chitchat.” What the company needed, Mr. Clarke said, was official written confirmation that the licenses were valid.

The American Embassy ultimately reported to the secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton. Though the Clarke cable was copied to her, it was given wide circulation, and it is unclear if she would have read it; the Clinton campaign did not address questions about the cable.

Among the Donors to the Clinton Foundation

Frank Giustra
$31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more
He built a company that later merged with Uranium One.
Ian Telfer
$2.35 million
Mining investor who was chairman of Uranium One when an arm of the Russian government, Rosatom, acquired it.
Paul Reynolds
$1 million to $5 million
Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger. Later helped raise $260 million for the company.
Frank Holmes
$250,000 to $500,000
Chief Executive of U.S. Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011.
Neil Woodyer
$50,000 to $100,000
Adviser to Uranium One. Founded Endeavour Mining with Mr. Giustra.
GMP Securities Ltd.
Donating portion of profits
Worked on debt issue that raised $260 million for Uranium One.

What is clear is that the embassy acted, with the cables showing that the energy officer met with Kazakh officials to discuss the issue on June 10 and 11.

Three days later, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom completed a deal for 17 percent of Uranium One. And within a year, the Russian government substantially upped the ante, with a generous offer to shareholders that would give it a 51 percent controlling stake. But first, Uranium One had to get the American government to sign off on the deal.

The Power to Say No

When a company controlled by the Chinese government sought a 51 percent stake in a tiny Nevada gold mining operation in 2009, it set off a secretive review process in Washington, where officials raised concerns primarily about the mine’s proximity to a military installation, but also about the potential for minerals at the site, including uranium, to come under Chinese control. The officials killed the deal.

Such is the power of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The committee comprises some of the most powerful members of the cabinet, including the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state. They are charged with reviewing any deal that could result in foreign control of an American business or asset deemed important to national security.

The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation; the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.

Instead, it concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources. While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves, according to Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.”

“The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking about it,” said Mr. Katusa, who explores the implications of the Uranium One deal in his book. “It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.”

President Putin during a meeting with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko, in December 2007. Credit Dmitry Astakhov/Ria Novosti, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

When ARMZ, an arm of Rosatom, took its first 17 percent stake in Uranium One in 2009, the two parties signed an agreement, found in securities filings, to seek the foreign investment committee’s review. But it was the 2010 deal, giving the Russians a controlling 51 percent stake, that set off alarm bells. Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern. Two more began pushing legislation to kill the deal.

Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, where Uranium One’s largest American operation was, wrote to President Obama, saying the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.”

“Equally alarming,” Mr. Barrasso added, “this sale gives ARMZ a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.”

Uranium One’s shareholders were also alarmed, and were “afraid of Rosatom as a Russian state giant,” Sergei Novikov, a company spokesman, recalled in an interview. He said Rosatom’s chief, Mr. Kiriyenko, sought to reassure Uranium One investors, promising that Rosatom would not break up the company and would keep the same management, including Mr. Telfer, the chairman. Another Rosatom official said publicly that it did not intend to increase its investment beyond 51 percent, and that it envisioned keeping Uranium One a public company

American nuclear officials, too, seemed eager to assuage fears. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote to Mr. Barrasso assuring him that American uranium would be preserved for domestic use, regardless of who owned it.

“In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the export of uranium for use as reactor fuel,” the letter said.

Still, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.

Undisclosed Donations

Uranium One’s Russian takeover was approved by the United States while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times

Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of state, the White House demanded that she sign a memorandum of understanding placing limits on the activities of her husband’s foundation. To avoid the perception of conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign government donations, the foundation was required to publicly disclose all contributors.

To judge from those disclosures — which list the contributions in ranges rather than precise amounts — the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating.

But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians. With the Russians offering a special dividend, shareholders like Mr. Telfer stood to profit.

His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.

The Clinton campaign left it to the foundation to reply to questions about the Fernwood donations; the foundation did not provide a response.

Mr. Telfer’s undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal: “It wasn’t the goal to buy the Wyoming mines. The goal was to acquire the Kazakh assets, which are very good,” Mr. Novikov, the Rosatom spokesman, said in an interview.

Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One.

The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences.

John Christensen sold the mining rights on his ranch in Wyoming to Uranium One. Credit Matthew Staver for The New York Times

Renaissance Capital analysts talked up Uranium One’s stock, assigning it a “buy” rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was “the best play” in the uranium markets. In addition, Renaissance Capital turned up that same year as a major donor, along with Mr. Giustra and several companies linked to Uranium One or UrAsia, to a small medical charity in Colorado run by a friend of Mr. Giustra’s. In a newsletter to supporters, the friend credited Mr. Giustra with helping get donations from “businesses around the world.”

Renaissance Capital would not comment on the genesis of Mr. Clinton’s speech to an audience that included leading Russian officials, or on whether it was connected to the Rosatom deal. According to a Russian government news service, Mr. Putin personally thanked Mr. Clinton for speaking.

A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?” But whether it actually does is another question. And in this case, there were broader geopolitical pressures that likely came into play as the United States considered whether to approve the Rosatom-Uranium One deal.

Diplomatic Considerations

If doing business with Rosatom was good for those in the Uranium One deal, engaging with Russia was also a priority of the incoming Obama administration, which was hoping for a new era of cooperation as Mr. Putin relinquished the presidency — if only for a term — to Dmitri A. Medvedev.

“The assumption was we could engage Russia to further core U.S. national security interests,” said Mr. McFaul, the former ambassador.

It started out well. The two countries made progress on nuclear proliferation issues, and expanded use of Russian territory to resupply American forces in Afghanistan. Keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon was among the United States’ top priorities, and in June 2010 Russia signed off on a United Nations resolution imposing tough new sanctions on that country.

Two months later, the deal giving ARMZ a controlling stake in Uranium One was submitted to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for review. Because of the secrecy surrounding the process, it is hard to know whether the participants weighed the desire to improve bilateral relations against the potential risks of allowing the Russian government control over the biggest uranium producer in the United States. The deal was ultimately approved in October, following what two people involved in securing the approval said had been a relatively smooth process.

Moukhtar Dzhakishev was arrested in 2009 while the chief of Kazatomprom. Credit Daniel Acker/Bloomberg, via Getty Images

Not all of the committee’s decisions are personally debated by the agency heads themselves; in less controversial cases, deputy or assistant secretaries may sign off. But experts and former committee members say Russia’s interest in Uranium One and its American uranium reserves seemed to warrant attention at the highest levels.

“This deal had generated press, it had captured the attention of Congress and it was strategically important,” said Richard Russell, who served on the committee during the George W. Bush administration. “When I was there invariably any one of those conditions would cause this to get pushed way up the chain, and here you had all three.”

And Mrs. Clinton brought a reputation for hawkishness to the process; as a senator, she was a vocal critic of the committee’s approval of a deal that would have transferred the management of major American seaports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates, and as a presidential candidate she had advocated legislation to strengthen the process.

The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these matters did not rise to the secretary’s level. He would not comment on whether Mrs. Clinton had been briefed on the matter, but he gave The Times a statement from the former assistant secretary assigned to the foreign investment committee at the time, Jose Fernandez. While not addressing the specifics of the Uranium One deal, Mr. Fernandez said, “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”

Mr. Fallon also noted that if any agency had raised national security concerns about the Uranium One deal, it could have taken them directly to the president.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, the State Department’s director of policy planning at the time, said she was unaware of the transaction — or the extent to which it made Russia a dominant uranium supplier. But speaking generally, she urged caution in evaluating its wisdom in hindsight.

“Russia was not a country we took lightly at the time or thought was cuddly,” she said. “But it wasn’t the adversary it is today.”

That renewed adversarial relationship has raised concerns about European dependency on Russian energy resources, including nuclear fuel. The unease reaches beyond diplomatic circles. In Wyoming, where Uranium One equipment is scattered across his 35,000-acre ranch, John Christensen is frustrated that repeated changes in corporate ownership over the years led to French, South African, Canadian and, finally, Russian control over mining rights on his property.

“I hate to see a foreign government own mining rights here in the United States,” he said. “I don’t think that should happen.”

Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.

Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines.

The “no export” assurance given at the time of the Rosatom deal is not the only one that turned out to be less than it seemed. Despite pledges to the contrary, Uranium One was delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange and taken private. As of 2013, Rosatom’s subsidiary, ARMZ, owned 100 percent of it.

Correction: April 23, 2015
An earlier version of this article misstated, in one instance, the surname of a fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is Peter Schweizer, not Schweitzer.An earlier version also incorrectly described the Clinton Foundation’s agreement with the Obama administration regarding foreign-government donations while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state. Under the agreement, the foundation would not accept new donations from foreign governments, though it could seek State Department waivers in specific cases. It was not barred from accepting all foreign-government donations.
Correction: April 30, 2015
An article on Friday about contributions to the Clinton Foundation from people associated with a Canadian uranium-mining company described incorrectly the foundation’s agreement with the Obama administration regarding foreign-government donations while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Under the agreement, the foundation would not accept new donations from foreign governments, though it could seek State Department waivers in specific cases. The foundation was not barred from accepting all foreign-government donations.

Hillary Clinton IS NOT Telling the Truth About Her Emails: FBI Investigation Deepens

Bernie Sanders might be tired of ‘hearing about Hillary Clinton’s damn emails’ but the end of this festering news story is nowhere in sight. Here are some of today’s breaking news developments about the mess, which gets larger by the day:

Inspector General: Clinton emails had intel from most secretive, classified programs

“Fox News exclusively obtained the unclassified letter, sent Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III. It laid out the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies that identified “several dozen” additional classified emails — including specific intelligence known as “special access programs” (SAP).  

That indicates a level of classification beyond even “top secret,” the label previously given to two emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate’s handling of the government’s closely held secrets.

“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels,” said the IG letter to lawmakers with oversight of the intelligence community and State Department. “According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources.”

Hillary Clinton, to be questioned by the FBI in the email scandal

Trump pleads with FBI to go after Clinton for email scandal

If Hillary Clinton is not willing to come clean about what was passing through her email server during her tenure as Secretary of State, how in hell could she be trusted to be above board with the American people on ANY other subject?

She’s not qualified for high office any longer, if she ever was. This woman is corrupt. So is her husband. When the FBI finally opens an investigation into the Clinton family’s non-profit foundations, they are going to find a tangled web of graft and illegal activity, all designed to line the Clintons’ pockets. These investigations are nowhere close to being over. It will only get worse for Mrs. Clinton from this point forward.

If Hillary does manage to get elected, I predict her presidency will go down in history as one of the most scandal ridden corrupt administrations in recent memory. It’s coming, folks. We can choose as a nation to be wise enough as one electorate to collectively change this horrendous outcome in the 2016 race to the White House. We can decide not to put this woman in office. She is not capable of telling the truth on this issue, or any other issue regarding her behavior and character. I know it’s way past time for a woman to hold the highest office in the land. Just not THIS woman.

Tags: Hillary Clinton email scandal, politics 2016, Hillary Clinton, 2016 presidential race

 

Presidential Campaign 2016: Bernie Sanders Addresses Crowds in the Tens of Thousands as Hillary Clinton Addresses Crowds of Uhh, Dozens? Maybe?

Wow. What a significant story a certain odd video clip tells this morning. We’ve all seen the amazing photos of the HUGE stadium crowds that Bernie Sanders addressed in Portland Oregon [ 28,000+] and Los Angeles [ 25,000+]. See photo below.

https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/AUG15-BernieSanders-Portland-Panorama.jpg

Contrast that spectacle [above ] with this morning’s, strange, super-scripted, very sad media appearance by Hillary Clinton at the Iowa State Fair, where one would have to conclude that she [ or her ‘people’] arranged a press appearance so utterly stifled and hidden away, that you might be forced to conclude that Hillary either fears the American People, or secretly holds them in enough contempt that she would only agree to speak in public if she was placed in as small and discreet little shady corner of the Iowa State Fairgrounds as possible.

This press appearance did not look so much like a public appearance, as it did a perfunctory checking off of a more or less distasteful obligation on the campaign trail that Ms. Clinton would just have well skipped, except for how that would have looked.

Imagine That You Ran for President and Nobody Cared

I guess the campaign thinktank has decided that it needs to at least to “appear” as if Hillary is actually running for President, to the casual observer, at least. Just exactly WHAT Ms. Clinton is really doing is anybody’s guess at this point. Her campaign folks must have been given the directive in Iowa to “find shade” at the state fairgrounds first and foremost, rather than “gather crowds”.  In the carefully censored video clip below, you are acutely aware that Ms. Clinton may or may not be speaking to more than  about 50-75 people, as the cameraman is very careful NOT to pan the audience to show you how many people are gathered around. In the background, couples and families can be seen strolling right past the area where Clinton is giving her “email Q&A” forum into the fairgrounds, as if she was no more significant than a road sign.

In the video below, Ms. Clinton is wearing some sort of light blue “tunic” stiff round collared blouse which could not look more out of sync with the year 2015 if she had picked the item out of a time-traveler’s wardrobe personally. The collar on this blouse is so preposterously huge and bizarre it actually looks like a some sort of fabric MOAT sewn around Hillary’s head. Wow. That strangely huge socio-fascist collar is not at all dissimilar to the bizarre “inconspicuous” location where Hillary’s campaign set up on the outskirts of the fairground, far away from the bully pulpit area where all other candidates took questions from the crowds. Hillary continues to keep a psychological MOAT around herself on the campaign trail, something very apparent by the way this ‘meet and greet’ was handled.

I don’t usually pay much attention to political campaigns when the voting day is still a year and half away. But Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign almost seems ‘pretend’ at this point.  She can’t possibly be serious if she has her people go this far out of their way to make sure NO ONE finds Hillary as she steps into a small gathering of about 50 people or so to “meet and greet” and answer questions. It was the dullest campaign moment yet for Ms. Clinton, besides being one of the dowdiest. This lady not only needs to face her “fear and loathing of the American people” issue – which is very real – but she most urgently needs a make-over that will get her personal appearance more in line with the fashions of 2015, not 1948. Hillary’s campaign may or may not even be here in 6 months unless something begins to change in a large way very soon.

HUGE Blowback from CNN Plan to Make a Documentary on Hillary Clinton: Project Cancelled

It would appear that the “marketing of Hillary” as the DNC choice for 2016 by the elites has received a minor setback for the time being.  Now that more of us collectively “get it” and the American populace is becoming sick to death of having our political candidates pre-picked, pre-packaged, pre-marketed and pre-sold to us, irregardless of our own sentiments in the matter, I wonder how these BIG MEDIA outlets like CNN who comply with the mandates of the elites will adjust their Illuminati agenda accordingly?

I honestly believe it has gotten so bad that millions don’t even bother to vote anymore. The MEDIA pre-elect our presidents by sheer aggression. It’s impossible for any presidential candidate to have a fair chance when some of the biggest news outlets in the US offer other candidates [who are clearly pre-chosen by the elites] free air time in the form of lengthy flattering documentaries which are tailor made to mold public opinion and send them on to the White House.

As much as I would love to see a woman commander-in-chief elected in America, I will be damned if I intend to vote for Hillary Clinton.  A vote for Hillary is a vote for the CFR. Hell to the ‘NO’.

Director abandons CNN documentary on Hillary Clinton

By Liana B. Baker and Gabriel Debenedetti

Sept 30 | Mon Sep 30, 2013 8:28pm IST

(Reuters) – Cable news network CNN has canceled a documentary on Hillary Rodham Clinton after the director said pressure from the Clinton camp as well as Republican leaders made it too difficult to complete the film.

A CNN spokeswoman confirmed on Monday that the program would be canceled, saying director “Charles Ferguson has informed us that he is not moving forward with his documentary about Hillary Clinton.”

Political observers widely expect Clinton, whose early polling numbers make her the Democratic frontrunner in the presidential race in 2016. Clinton, the former U.S. Secretary of State, has said she is still considering her options.

In a blog post on the Huffington Post website, Ferguson, who had been tapped by CNN to direct to the film last year, said pressure from Clinton’s aides started as soon as he joined the project. He said he had found it difficult to get anyone to cooperate and speak about Clinton.

“When I approached people for interviews, I discovered that nobody, and I mean nobody, was interested in helping me make this film. Not Democrats, not Republicans – and certainly nobody who works with the Clintons, (who) wants access to the Clintons, or dreams of a position in a Hillary Clinton administration,” Ferguson said in the blog post.

Clinton representatives could not be reached for comment.

Ferguson said he was surprised that “prominent Democrats made it known both to CNN and to me” that they weren’t happy with the project.

Ferguson also cited pushback from the Republican Party. In August, Republican leaders sent letters of protest to both CNN and NBC, complaining that their planned programs amounted to political ads for Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton.

The NBC television network is planning a dramatic miniseries from its entertainment unit, which is separate from its news division. NBC did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday.

Republican leaders had resolved to boycott any 2016 presidential debates sponsored by CNN, which is owned by Time Warner Inc, and NBC, owned by Comcast Corp, if the networks went ahead with the projects.

Ferguson said he was not pressured by CNN to cancel the project, and that the network’s president, Jeff Zucker, had pledged his support behind the film.

“Neither political party wanted the film made. After painful reflection, I decided that I couldn’t make a film of which I would be proud. And so I’m cancelling,” Ferguson said in the blog post.

(Reporting by Liana B. Baker in New York and Gabriel Debenedetti in Washington; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe)

=====

Last but not least …

2016: Hillary Puts a Toe in the Water and Her Face on Vanity Fair

Once upon a time, back in my wild and liberal youth, I admired Hillary Clinton and followed her career with interest. Then I watched a video a few https://i2.wp.com/l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/DzbCv8_UL8HIXxpIkYXmOw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTMwMA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/lifestyles/2013-07-10/15accacb-59fb-425e-ad07-c786f9e55ff2_300_hilaryclinton.jpgyears back where she espoused the wisdom and omnipotence of the Council on Foreign Relations [ the NYC Illuminati think tank which is the defacto brains behind all modern White House policy, whether apparently liberal or conservative in nature ]. Ms. Clinton openly fawned to her audience about why we “should be following the CFR’s lead” on any number of issues du jour. She even went so far as to infer to her audience that the foreign and domestic policy mandates set forth by the CFR indicate “how and what we should be thinking and saying” on any given subject. I was so utterly appalled at this woman standing in front of this audience of intellectuals like a properly trained Illuminati parrot, that I vowed I would never cast any vote which would help to put her in public office.

This sorry spectacle of the new, old, Hillary paying back her Illuminati overlords for throwing her the bone of “Secretary of State” in 2009 made it quite clear to me that any public servant who achieves a high cabinet position in the White House not only has to sell their soul to the company Illuminati store, but they must also earn the right to stay in high office by OBEYING CFR mandates and reiterating same to the public. Hillary is a very smart CFR parrot, granted, but she is a PARROT. Period. That’s how she gets to keep on being the remarkable “Hillary Clinton” – political lasting value on the American scene.

Free and independent populist thinkers and bonafide LEADERS we need and desperately. More well trained, well paid, high profile Illuminati parrots – we don’t.  Nonetheless, Ms. Clinton is now testing the waters of the voting populace to see if a 2016 run for the presidency, otherwise known as a “revenge fuck” to the withering Obama presidency – might in fact, be plausible for her at this point.

I find it interesting that during the same week that news reports have begun to surface that the Obama presidency is not just floundering, but might already be sailing early into the “lame duck” bin, Ms. Clinton and her husband are MAKING THE ROUNDS, all smiles, glossed up, with Ms. Clinton also photo-shopped to pretty well passable on the cover of Vanity Fair.

https://i1.wp.com/images.vanityfair.it/imgs/galleries/news/orizzontale/004375/153319878-10-462097_650x0.jpg

https://i0.wp.com/www.glamour.com/images/inspired/2013/02/hillary-clinton-Hina-Rabbani-Khar-2011-w724.jpg

You can’t help but recall the bitter ravages of early 2008, when a younger, bolder, more free thinking Hillary Clinton just KNEW she had that DNC nomination all tied up with a code pink bow on it. Then came the grinning beautiful man from Chicago, who was taking the DNC by storm. Once Oprah was on board and trotted out a public endorsement, it was all over but the crying.

Irate as the Clintons were at what was being stolen from Hillary, they had to play the game and dance to the tune of their CFR pipers. They both eventually begrudgingly gave Obama the nod for his 2008 run, and in return Hillary got to be his Secretary of State for 4 years after he won. That’s how the game is played in the really big, really creepy leagues.

I won’t be voting for Hillary if she runs in 2016.  I just can’t get all whipped up into an excited lather about voting for the first female president of the United States, because truthfully,, she will be the first female president and visible public mouthpiece for the CFR. Whoopee. Whoop de doo. Oh fun.

It wouldn’t matter if Roger Rabbit or Donald Duck was elected to the White House at this point. The White House is ALWAYS run by the CFR. Until this evil dynastic regime either dies of old age, chokes on it’s own wickedness, or is run out of DC on a rail – forever – the United States presidency will be the hand puppet of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

The question is: What are the American people going to do about it?