#PodestaEmails Adumbrated

The Clinton Foundation, Gold Mine hustle

Hillary did delete emails herself after all

Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents Via @HalleyBorderCol

Flint not having water to drink because it scores political points via @JordanChariton

Preparing statements for Hillary about how hard state dept. is working & how she only had one Blackberry-lie via @andrewthechap

Are they using @ClintonFdn email list serve for Clinton Campaign fund raising purposes? Is that legal? Via @escoker

Clinton Camp Discussed Deleting Emails Despite Knowing It Was Against the Law via @mtracey

Indian Billionaire wants to donate over a million to Hillary. Need to figure out modalities via @IFlipTrips

Hillary Clinton tried to avoid press for the entire election via @TheTrumpFound

Hillary admits to wanting #TPP. "I believe a strong and fair TPP trade agreement is both possible and necessary" via @KGBVeteran

How to lie about emails. #PodestaEmails4

What did .@hhigginbottom do that they had to keep her "happy" by making up a job for her she didn't earn? #PodestaEmails4 via @kinni00

Nepotism! Hillary campaign was handing off jobs to relatives of top staffers. #PodestaEmails5. Via @basedmattforney

Democrats do not value black voters and are just using them every election cycle to win. Know who you are voting for. Via @WhyBuild

Clinton Fdn paid BLM, Glenn Beck & Black Panthers to suppress the elections. Via @Shoes2Match

I clearly remember @DWStweets telling us there was no secret plan to limit the debates. Via @abowersock.

HRC camp having black church event trying to hide Bill passed Robert E Lee day and had pride in Ark confederate flag. Via @WDFx2EU7

HRC aid brainstorms "excuse" she can make for not turning over all her emails even after subpoena #PodestaEmails4. Via @JordanChariton

Democrats think galvanizing the black electorate is done through tokenism rather than policy. Via @rtyson82

@johnpodesta and #JASTA lawyer discuss the implications of Saudi donations to the Clinton Foundation. Via @partystraws.

@billclinton sexually abused his 3rd cousin while she babysat Chelsea! #PodestaEmails4 #PodestaEmails. Via @chiIIinois.

Read More

Paul Kagame and the Clinton’s

For the Clinton’s, especially President Bill Clinton, Rwanda has deep meaning for him and his presidency, for he has openly suggested that he will forever regret not intervening to prevent or maybe stop the Rwandan genocide, in which at least 800,000 people were murdered and/or killed in less than four months due to tribal genocide in 1994. At the time, then Vice President and Minister of Defense and now current President of Rwanda, Paul Kagame was a key player for both good and bad, depending on what side of the coin you end up on.

This has been the typical mantra of not only the U.S., but other western nations and leaders. For the Clinton’s and the Clinton Foundation, he is considered to be among “the greatest leaders of our time, and described as a “brilliant man” who “freed the heart and the mind of the people.”  Historically the United States, Britain, Germany and the Netherlands, have always been behind Kagame’s with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair describing Kagame as a “visionary’.  This is almost comical if it were not true that this is how many in the west really want and project for the world to see Rwandan President Paul Kagame in this manner.

Unfortunately the reality is that he is a dictator responsible for human rights abuses too numerous to list yet is a close associate of the Clinton's, the Clinton Foundation, and has received favorable treatment inclusive of funding by the Clinton State Department. Regardless of the fake picture they attempt to hide Kagame with, there is no way to get around that for him the democratic process in Rwanda is the equivalency of autocratic authoritarianism.

Since he has been involved in politics in Rwanda, dozens prominent dissidents have been tortured, disappeared, assassinated, and/or imprisoned. The lucky ones have fled the country or been exiled abroad. The list included journalists, opposition politicians and human rights activists. Thus it is for many, strange the extent of the relationship that Mr. Kagame and Mr. Clinton have. Kagame is a regular at the Clinton Global Initiative Annual meeting and even was awarded the organizations Global Citizen Award in 2009; Bill Clinton called him a “brilliant man” who “freed the heart and the mind of the people.”

This unfathomable relationship and the depth of interaction and sway Kagame has with the Clinton Foundation regarding Rwanda has been maintained although the U.S. State Department has often been adjudged for wanting a third term as president in which he changed the constitutional amendment allowing him to do so.

To get a better understanding of how this relationship manifested, one can start on 6 April 1994, when then Rwandan President Habyarimana's plane was shot down resulting in the deaths of Habyarimana and the President of Burundi, Cyprien Ntaryamira who was aboard the plane with him. Many believe that Kagame and the rebel army he led, Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), were responsible.  Since he has been in politics, the military wing of the RPF was renamed as the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA). After this incident, approximately 700,000–1,000,000 Rwandans were killed during the 100-day period from April 7 to mid-July 1994. In fact since his entry in politics, dozens if not hundreds have been found dead under strange circumstances. Yet this has not stopped Mr. Clinton or the Clinton Foundation incessant encirclement of Mr. Kagame Also, the United States remains on of Kagame's firmest ally and longest devotee (maybe because it is in its geopolitical interest seeing that Rwanda is a mineral-rich east African nation and maintains a powerful army).

Or it may be that the U.S. is alright with dictators it trains. Kagame studied at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas in the early 1990s, before he returned to Rwanda and seized power in 1994.  His son even studied at West Point. On the other hand, it may be due to the large sums of money the U.S. gives to the Kagame Government (Although it is consistently cited for murder and human rights abuses).  Much of this started under Bill Clinton and was supported by national security adviser Susan Rice and Jendayi Frazer, a former top State Department Africa diplomat.  But it was not until Hillary Clinton became secretary of state that Bill Clinton was in a position to provide Kagame with even more loot by securing around $27 million from the State Department through a Boston-based charity that he ran. By the time secretary Clinton left office, she had allocated tens of millions of emergency funds to combat HIV infection overseas — called PEPFAR, for Rwanda although it maintained one of the lowest HIV prevalence rates on the continent.

But for as much as former President Clinton openly states he regrets his inaction regarding the genocide in Rwanda, the record clearly indicates he was more involved than either he recalls or wants to recall. First it was President Clinton who stopped the UN Security Council from organizing an intervention in Rwanda. To be more accurate, in concert with the British, the U.S., under the direction of then President Clinton were covertly funding and supporting the Kagame and his Army that invaded Rwanda from Uganda some several years prior.  Secretly it was the desire of the Clinton Administration to keep Kagame as a proxy army to promote U.S. interest in neighboring countries. In addition Clinton had to be aware of U.N. evidence that senior Rwandan military staff who report directly to Kagame murdered tens of thousands of unarmed men, women and children, in 1996 and 1998. It was as if under the direction of President Clinton, Kagame became an official  U.S. proxy along with Uganda and used to invaded what is now called the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire) and first overthrowing Mobutu (1996), then Laurent Kabila (1998).

The end product allowed for the U.S. to have a major and dominant geopolitical imprint in the region, only at the cost millions more Rwandians, Ugandians and Congeleese civilians dead and still to this day, incessant and ongoing conflict over the vast mineral wealth in that region of the Congo.

This is possibly why upon leaving  the Clinton Administration in the capacity of  Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, later, as U.S.ambassador to the United Nations Rice allegedly tried to prevent the release ofa 2010 U.N. report, about the murder and killings carried out under the instructions of Kagame. Of course Rice refutes this assertion although since the days of President Clinton and his wife’s tenure as Secretary of State, the fact remains that unprecedented levels of funding continue to go to this despotic and murderous regime.

Having such a relationship with Kagame remains problematic for the Clinton’s and the Clinton Foundation given that the present leadership in the state department and U.N., as well as other nations in Europe and Africa continue to note that the Kagame government continues to display a disregard for human rights, whether it is by providing weapons to rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo or imprisoning and murdering his political rivals and/or suppressing political dissent and the press via violence. This will only get even more conflated if Kagame successfully amends the constitution of the nation to allow him to run for a third seven-year term (If he is successful, and Hillary wins the presidency, they will both be president starting 2017 together).  This may not be a good look.  We know in the past that the State Department under Clinton sidetracked a portion of US government grant money from nonprofit groups fighting HIV infection in Rwanda, and channeled it to the Rwandan government under the sole control of Kagame (US taxpayer money), which for the free thinking individual wreaks of possible favoritism and influence through his relationship with the Clinton's. Not to mention in 2012, Secretary Clinton boasted her work with Kagame in Rwanda as an example of the State Department assisting poorer nations to solve their own problems.  However, she forgot to mention her husband’s role in the entire effort. She lauded it as an example of the State Department prodding a poor country to take on more responsibility programs to fight HIV infection.

The bigger question is how long will these types of relationships (ones in which human rights are over-looked for personal gain and benefit) continue to go unexamined by the Clintons?  Former president Clinton can pretend that he regrets not getting involved in stopping the genocide in Rwanda but the fact is he didn’t give a fck. Clinton was not going to stop Kagame from finally overthrowing the existing, Hutu-led Rwandan government and seizing power. In all reality, Kagame actions went better than expected based on U.S., and even some select European nations desires. So much so that a massive cover-up began at the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda, in which only Rwandan Hutus were indicted and prosecuted.

So any time former President Clinton says that he is sorry he did not intervene in Rwanda, it is frankly a bold-face lie. When he states he failed, what he really means is that my objectives were not to stop murder, but rather a means of implementing the good old fashioned U.S. proxy war to encourage repeated invasions of a sovereign nation (Zaire) – nothing more, nothing less.

Read More

Obama Didn’t Found ISIS, He Just Breast Feed Them

A few weeks ago I read Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump assert that President Barack Obama was the founder, or creator of ISIS. I just wanted to say for the record, I could not let this mistruth, as any mistruth stated by a politician regardless of party, pass without clarifying the record. What Mr. Trump forgets is that ISIS started long before Obama was President and in my view if we really want to know the deal, on its founding, birth or creation, we must go back to the Iraq war more than twelve years ago, under the Presidency of Bush 43.

As history has shown, the current leader of what we call ISIS is Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim al-Badry, a man we now refer to as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State. What is known about him before proclaiming himself the leader of DAESH is that in early 2004 he was housed in the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. U.S. Defense Department reports note that coalition forces first captured Baghdadi on February 4, 2004, in Fallujah, Iraq. After the fiasco at Abu Ghraib, he was transferred to Camp. Bucca, located some 400 miles south of Baghdad in the southern town of Garma along the Kuwait border. It held some of the most radical extremists of the war. 

One could argue that the procreation of what we now call the Islamic state begin when Camp Bucca was created and birthed during the peak of the Iraq troop surge in 2007 at a time when Bucca contained 24,000 – 28,000 inmates. It held both Sunnis and Shiites, who were separated because moderate Sunnis and extreme Sunnis and Shiites were at odds with one another.  All and anyone who coalition forces figured look like the enemy or in the area of any type of bombing or sniper fire were rounded up in mass, in particular  military-aged males, without due process since few if any U.S, military personnel spoke Arabic and all in general were incapable of distinguishing enemies for friendlies.

Detention facilities like Bucca played a major part in the rise of the Islamic State. After the Bush administration’s policy of de-baathfication, what Bucca did was allow these individuals to link up with members of Saddam Hussein's ousted regime and develop new relationships. First it was unique, for as many have reported, it allowed for former Baathist secularists to get to know Islamist fundamentalists, both of which had nothing but hatred for the West and the U.S. Being once in politics and/or the military, the former Baathists provide jihadists with public relations, organizational and military skills. In the other side the jihadist were able to instill something to fight for in the former government ruling class of Iraq before the U.S. invasion and occupation. Some have estimated that nearly 90 percent of those freed from Bucca and other facilities returned to the battlefield to fight against coalition forces.

Like in America, prison served as a college or university for Islamic fundamentalism and jihadist training.  In the long run, it would be these hardcore jihadists and former Iraqi military officials who would eventually become the leadership of the Islamic State. While Bucca, Sharia Law was instituted by radical extremist and fundamentalist which by some reports, even included  gouging out eyes or cutting out their tongues for anti-Islamic behaviors considered to be Western in origin. A story reported by Al Jazeera based on first had reports suggested that jihadist were able to build relations and network in ways they would have never been able to do outside of Camp Bucca and that hard core extremist were able to radicalize other inmates and even give courses using the resources of the prison to teach inmates how to make explosives, and carry out suicide bombings. This is the start of what we currently refer to as the Islamic State and this was up to the year 2008, all of which was under the tutelage of George W. Bush.

 

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was not the only high profile prisoner detained at Bucca. Another was a former Iraqi military official who became head of the Islamic State’s military council named Hajji Bakr and the future official spokesperson and a senior leader of the Islamic State Taha Subhi Falaha, commonly called Abu Muhammad al-Adnani al-Shami. Others included al-Baghdadi's deputy Abu Muslimal-Turkmani, Abu Abdulrahman al-Bilawi, the military leader responsible for planning the seizure of Mosul and the founder of the Syrian Al Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra Front, Abu Mohammad al-Julani.

But objectivity cannot leave out the role that President Obama has played in nurturing the Islamic State. Since the CIA inspired uprising against Assad, Obama has been very busy sowing the seeds of war instead of diplomacy.  It is clear that the reason for such are similar to the reasons he in concert with Hillary Clinton, led events that resulted in the murder of Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi (with the use of Al Qaeda embedded in the U.S. backed opposition trained byU.S. special operation forces that had been inside Libya before the start of protests).

This is the plan they (Obama, Clinton, NATO and the West) have on deck for Assad and Syria as evidenced by leaked emails between Sidney Blumenthal and Obama’s Secretary of State. Like Libya, Syria’s Central Bank is state-owned & isn’t controlled IMF (International Monetary Fund), has no IMF debt and more importantly maintains immense oil and gas reserves. Plus, being the only secular Muslim states in the Middle East, this gets in the way of the West divide and Conquer modus operandi. The first and last may be even more important than the two in the middle. 

As of 2003, the only countries left in 2003 without a Central Bank owned by western interest were Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Syria.  After September 11th The U.S. was able to knock out two-for one by invading both Afghanistan and Iraq to then establish a Central Bank in those countries. Now back to Obama.

Obama is protecting Al-Nusura, Al Qaeda and ISIS-ISIL-Daesh by using  the US Airforce to provide cover on behalf of terrorists invading a sovereign nation state for the reasons I stated above:  it has nothing to do with protecting the citizens of Syria because if such was the case, the Obama Administration would bomb Saudi Arabia and protect the citizens of Yemen, whom the Saudi’s are slaughtering with U.S. supplied planes, weapons, cluster bombs and White Phosphorus.

Although it was the Bush administration with the assistance of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz that broaden the idea of birthing terrorist organizations to fight U.S. wars under the name of freedom fighters, Obama took it to another level.  Up until 2014, the Islamic State (ISIS) was called al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). What President Obama breast fed with guns and intelligence, Al Nusra (an al Qaeda affiliate) is overnight called the “Moderate Opposition” and even worse, “The Free Syrian Army.”

Either way it goes and regardless of what we call them, both are supported covertly by US intelligence and are merely malignancies of the same tumor – the Islamic State. Yes, Obama has got both his titties working: one for ISIS and the other for Al Nusra.

It is easy for the Obama Administration to keep on breast feeding these jihadist weapons especially since it is impossible to vet who is friend or foe (or rather foe or foe). Like any good hustler, anyone who is down to be a rebel no matter what we call them, get a gun and a regular salary know how to play the game and tell a random dumb American what they want to hear. And if they are not jihadist, the weakest of those the administration recruit cower under the first sight of ISIS extremist.  Case and point was when U.S. officials reported openly that frequently, “moderate” rebels give up their weapons and vehicles to al-Qaeda. How else did ISIS get freshly FSA supplied US-made anti-tank TOW missiles (“Tube-launched, optically tracked, Wire-guided")? Also, they even openly admit to the media and U.S. representatives that they got no problems with al-Qaeda or ISIL and often work with and conduct military operations together.

The bottom line is that Mr. Trump is incorrect, it was the Bush Administration: specifically Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Obama did however, take the infant into his bosom and feed them when he took office. Now he and the rest of the West (many reluctantly) wants to place the blame what is happening in Syria at the feet of Russia when in actuality it is a consequence of Obama’s foreign policy (or lack of) of aiding Syrian jihadists which has resulted in the intentional devastation of Syria, the massive migration crisis and the inordinate death toll of the nation’s civilian population. Thus distinguishing between the FSA and al-Nusra is impossible, because they are virtually the same organization. Taking it a step further, it could be argued strongly that the moderate Free Syria Army is just a cover for al-Qaeda (al-Nusra).

The Russians are right: the Obama Administration has never had any desire or intention to defeat al-Nusra (as required by U.N. Security Council Resolution 2268 - 2016). President Obama got ISIS and al-Nusra sucking on his breast good and has them nearly strong enough to do his dirty work in his effort to destroy Iraq and Syria.

Read More

America’s Racist Baggage Today is the Legacy of the Democratic Party

It is very difficult for me to understand how inefficient the knowledge base of a sizeable corpus of individuals in the generations after mine have, as it pertains to history.  No more astonishing a content area is this evident is with regards to American political history, in particular history of the Democratic Party. What few are aware of is that it is most probable that race relations in America are a direct result of Democratic Party policy and ideology. De Tocqueville acknowledge this when he stated that a natural prejudice was evinced against Africans brought to these shores against their will yet forever through pigmentation, will carry the “external mark” of a stranger, born in degradation considered as “an intermediate between beast and man.” Taking this even further he wrote:

“So those who hope that the European will one day mingle with the Negroes seem to me to be harboring a delusion…I see that slavery is in retreat, but the prejudice from which it arose is immovable…Race prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exist, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known.”

Ironically the laws that would manifest over his times and major attitudes regarding Africans in America, After the Federalist Party, would be fostered by one party in particular as it pertained to policy – the Democratic Party.

That is correct; you name it, many of the collective political accomplishments that we as African Americans benefited from did not occur because of the Democratic Party but rather in spite of the Democratic Party.  If it were not for U.S. Representative Justin Morrill (R-VT) in 1862, who got the Land Grant Act passed, which established colleges for African Americans, there would be no state funded historically Black Colleges and Universities. Even before this, the historical record notes that the Republican Party was formed essential to counteract the pro-slavery policies of the Democratic Party during a period in the nation’s history in which we saw Democratic President Franklin Pierce signing the Kansas-NebraskaAct (which allowed for the expansion of slavery into newly acquired U.S. territories in 1854). Ironically the same year, Montgomery Blair, a republican argued in front of the Supreme Court on behalf of his client Dred Scott albeit it unsuccessfully where the record noted the only dissent with the court decision majority of seven democrats was Republican Justice John McLean.

Although many incorrectly believe that freed slaves were promised after emancipation and the 13^th and 14^th amendment 40 acres and a mule, this was never factually the case.  The record documents that in 1866 Republican U.S. Representative Thaddeus Stevens introduced the legislation however it was vetoed by then Democratic President Andrew Johnson. Also that same year the Republican congress was able to override President Johnson’s veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and his veto of the Freedman’s Bureau Act which was written to protect former slaves from Black codes put into law to deny rights granted by the 13th and 14^th amendments. In addition, two times the following year, the Republican majority had to vote to over-ride Johnson’s veto of the legislation granting African Americans the right to vote.

Being unable to compete with the Republicans in the Federal legislatures, the Democratic Party, in particular southern democrats whom were former confederate veterans found the “Ku Klux Klan in Pulaski, Tennessee, on December 24, 1865.  To be accurate, the Ku Klux Klan was founded and formed to be the military wing of the Democratic Party and actions around the nation after its inception until this very day still supports this objective. KKK violence was aimed specifically intimidate and kill newly freed slaves and Republicans.  For example, in September of 1868 Democrats in Louisiana murdered around 300 African Americans whom attempted to defend their assault against a Republican Newspaper editor. The following month, while campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. House Representative James Hinds was assassinated by self-proclaimed Democrats and KKK members.

Now I know many would say that this was decades ago and I would agree, but what must not be forgotten is that the plan desired (in concert with democrats) was to construt and put in place policy designed to disenfranchise and keep blacks from owing land and in a position to sustain ourselves. Moreover they wanted to defeat and keep Republicans equally at bay via terrorism.  With the use of violence by the Party’s military wing (the KKK) and separating blacks from their land and placing them in positions not being able to provide for themselves, they formulated new policy at the federal level designed to make blacks dependent on democrats and the government as opposed to truly exercising inalienable rights associated with actual liberty.

Republicans fought back with policy. In 1871 the Republican congress passed the Ku Klux Klan act which outlawed the Democratic Party military wing. Republican President even dispatched troops to South Carolina after democrats threated blacks with death around the nation for even trying to vote.  In one case, African American Republican activist Octavius Catto was murdered by democrats in Philadelphia. A few years later in 1874, nearly 30 were killed when democrats took control of the Louisiana state house because Republican Gov. William Kellogg dared to have an integrated administration.

When democrats returned to leadership, all of what had been put in place by Republicans was obviated.  It was the democratic congress and President Grover Cleveland who repealed the Republicans Enforcement Act which gave African Americans the right to vote. Two years later America would see a Democratic Supreme Court uphold Plessy V. Ferguson. In 1901, Booker T. Washington would begin his life long battle protesting against the Alabama’s Democratic Party refusal to allow African Americans to vote.

Even during the time of Franklin Roosevelt democratic policy was moving more towards the views of dependency politics advocated by the KKK in an effort to form a dependency class of Americans based on color alone.  In 1937 it was the Republicans who organized against FDR’s appointment of Ku Klux Klan member Senator Hugo Black to theSupreme Court and it was Democrat FDR, whom just three years later rejected the Republican Party’s call to integrate the armed forces.

In 1953 California’s Three-term Republican Governor Earl Warren wrote the land mark decision for Brown V. Board of Education after Assistant Attorney General of the Eisenhower administration Lee ranking argued the case on behalf of the Plaintiffs with Thurgood Marshall.  On a roll it seemed, a Republican Federal judge, under threats from Democrats the blacks in the back of the bus law and ruled in favor of Rosa Parks.

But as history outlines, democrats fought tooth and nail against all of these outcomes. After Eisenhower signed the Republican’s Party Civil Rights Act into law, he had to send the 82^nd airborne division to Little Rock to enforce school desegregation amidst criticism from Democrats the likes of Future Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson in 1957.

In simple terms, the legacy of racism that has it’s weighted and oppressive foot on the collective necks of African Americans today was the courtesy of the Democratic party and democratic policy that continues to day with violence in the form of police brutality and disenfranchisement via policies of dependency.  Andrew Hacker explained this in his 1992 tractate Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal. He noted that as African Americans, we must live in an existence that is far removed from free-will and free-choice. He wrote “Black Americans are Americans, yet they still subsist as aliens in the only land they know. Other groups may remain outside the mainstream but the do so voluntarily. In contrast blacks must endure a segregation that is far from freely chosen.”

The reality is, how America and Americans views race presently is a direct result of beliefs of a perverted democratic system that proffers race as its central element of contention.  This contention is, when violence was no longer acceptable after the civil rights era, was transduced to policy designed with the intent to subjugate African Americans and systematically extract wealth from our community. As a policy this has never stopped.  The most lucid view of this is the large urban cities of America.  Cleveland has been run by democrats from 1942-present (police, city council and mayor) uninterrupted with the exception of  1972-77; Chicago has been run by democratsuninterrupted since 1931; Flint, MI since 1960; Detroit since 1962; Baltimoresince 1967; DC since 1967; Philadelphia since 1952; Newark since 1953; and Milwaukee since 1960. And I would reckon if II had the time to look up a few things, I could find trend lines over the same period that would show an increase in poverty, unemployment, incarceration, high school dropout rates and poverty as well as decline in wealth, land ownership, housing and income too.

This is our biggest problem as a voting block today - Democrats running for state or national office aspiring to win black votes without appearing to give a FcK about nothing but our vote. So if we so upset about our current circumstances and conditions, why we still voting to enslave and impoverish ourselves by voting for democrats unconditionally? They gave us the politics of bigotry and oppression that is killing us currently.

Read More

How The Clintons Hooked-up With a Tyrrant King of Morocco to Stack Loot

One thing about Bill and Hillary Clinton is that they are about getting that loot. Case in point among many glaring examples is their relationship with Mohammed the VI, King of Morocco. Now Morocco is no bastion of humanity, in fact it is one of the world’s worst violators of human rights by some estimates.  However, this did not stop HILLBILL from doing what they do, even while she was serving as the Secretary of State of the United Sates.  It appears that while in office, Secretary Clinton often was in communication with lobbyist that served the interest of the King and country.

One of the prize possessions of the King is the state owned mining company OCP (formerly called the Office Chérifien des Phosphates). OCP operates in disputed international territory in an out-of-the-way part of the Saharan Desert that the Moroccan government seized after Spain withdrew in 1975.  However, the government-owned mining company still  extracts the resources in the region without adequately compensating the extremely poor people that live there and consequently, the King and the government have been condemned forthese actions. In 2009 Forbes noted that the African nation controlled almost half of the world’s phosphate deposits and that the year prior, had mined 28 million metric tons of phosphate rock, placing it only behind the China and the U.S. at the time. It must also be noted that King Mohammed VI, has an estimated net worth north of $5 billion.

Now while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State between 2009 and 2013, the Government of Morocco was heavily courting the U.S. using the famous corporate law firm of Covington & Burling LLP, led by the firm’s senior counsel Stuart Eizenstat. To be exact, Eizenstat represented OCP in Washington. Report suggests that the law firm was paid in upwards of $1.3 million since 2012 to lobby the State Department and other federal agencies by the mining magnet. After Clinton office, within a few months the Clinton Global Initiative restarted its foreign meetings as well as also resumed taking huge sums of money from new foreign donors. The Moroccan government is even on the record of providing monetary support for her presidential campaign.

As many have indicated, Hillary is very experienced in these matters.  She must know that for years (when the CIA used Morocco as a Black site) that consistently the nation has been an incessant violator of human rights. In Morocco, thousands of children (mainlygirls) illegally in private homes of the elite as domestic workers, not to mention that there is no freedom of the press, speech or religion.  Of the past few years, the state has increased restrictions on domestic and international human rights groups, for investigating how political dissidents, reporters and others are administered severely long prison terms without due process for what some have called “politically motivated offenses.” In fact I am aware, at least some in the Clinton Stated Department knew for they categorized the government of Moroccoin similar terms.

The same has been said about the company that made the $1 million donation to the Clinton Global Initiative Middle East and Africa meeting in Marrakech on May, 5-7. The irony is that the Clinton’s took the money when some few years earlier the Clinton’s State Department had accused the Moroccan government of being corrupt. However, her criticism dampened and she praised not only the King and the Moroccan government, but also OCP. News and other independent reports note that OCP treats miner whom work in their mines inhumanely. They have been forced to retire early, had their pensions and wages cut dramatically and even state that many or often the target of forced detentions (especially Sahrawi’s trying to obtain independence in Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara.

It is unlikely that Secretary Clinton or Stuart Eizenstat were ignorant of the nefarious activities of the government or OCP.  Eizenstat is a close confidant of the Clintons and served in multiple capacities under the Clinton Administration.  This included serving as the United States Ambassador to the EuropeanUnion, followed up with being Clinton’s Under Secretary of the State forEconomic, Business and Agricultural Affairs and ending up as Clinton’s DeputySecretary of the Treasury.

Without a doubt the country and OCP was aware of what such a donation would get – access and possibly changes in policy and the status in which Morocco was viewed by the U.S. State Department.  Exports have pointed out that OCP has donated as much as $6 million to the Clinton Foundation over the past several years and openly, the Clintons shower the king with praises including being a moderate ruler with whom the U.S. should partner with.  However, this change in perspective is dubious given what was revealed in leaked Moroccan diplomatic cables that display that Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state on behalf of the nation lobbied UN to turn blind eye to their humanitarian abuses and violations in the Western Sahara. The documents also reveal that the Moroccan government had been occupied for years securing influence the Clinton family regarding dealings between the U.S. and Morocco relations, as well as to gain access to the ruling American elites in Washington, D.C.

One cannot over state this.  First it is a fact that OCP CEO Mostafa Terrab registered with the Justice Department as a foreignagent for Morocco to help get the meetings started with representatives of the Obama administration. Second, the practice of foreign nations seeing and using donations to the Clinton Foundation to impact U.S. policy is so frequent an outcome, that it is not unreasonable for foreign interest to seek this method of operation of supporting the foundation as a means to achieve such goals. Lastly, entities of the Moroccan government hired a firm headed by Washington lobbyist Justin Gray ironically right after he was named a board member of the pro-Hillary Clinton Presidential super-PAC, Priorities USA.

I am certain many will suggest  am just reaching and promoting a conspiracy theory when I am only outlining the way big money global politics happen in a world in which governments are run by crooks, thieves, plutocrats, corporatist and oligarchs. If I am in correct, and there is nothing to see here and is not an indication of how the Clinton’s, their foundation and globalist work, then explain to me how OCP, with all the controversy surrounding it, was able to receive nearly $100 million in U.S. taxpayer support, from the U.S. Export-Import Bank to purchase equipment from two American corporations? I am just asking.

Read More