Chrystia Freeland and Hillary Clinton - A Match Made In Hell

The following announcement recently appeared on the Liberal Party of Canada's Twitter feed:

 

 

Just for fun, let's look at what these two "global leaders" have had to say in the past:

 

1.) Hillary Clinton on the death of Muamar Qaddafi:

 

That's empathy, Clinton style.

 

2.) Chrystia Freeland on freezing bank accounts of Canadians during the February 2022 Truckers' Protest:

 

Remember, it gave her "no pleasure" to punish innocent Canadians.  Yeah, sure.  

 

Humanitarians they aren't.

Let's close with this definition:

Sociopathic behaviour - 

Consistent behavior patterns in sociopaths include:

 

1.) Lack of empathy for others

 

2.) Impulsive behavior

 

3.) Attempting to control others with threats or aggression 

 

4.) Using intelligence, charm, or charisma to manipulate others

 

5.) Not learning from mistakes or punishment

 

6.) Lying for personal gain

Who Will Benefit in Post-war Iraq?

Let's open with this video from June 2011 starring then Secretary of State and President-elect (in her mind) Hillary Clinton at the Business Forum Promoting Commercial Opportunities in Iraq:

 

 

Here are some key quotes with my bolds:

  

"Now, we are entering a new phase in our relationship with Iraq, and we are very committed to making a major civilian commitment to Iraq’s future. We’ll be opening, as you know, and running consulates in Irbil and Basra, we’ll have civilian experts available to work with not only Iraqi counterparts, but also Americans and to support American businesses in the years to come, as we do in our diplomatic – especially our commercial diplomatic work all over the world. And so it’s time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity. And the sacrifice that the Iraqi people have made for your freedom is one that we highly respect...

 

According to the IMF, Iraq is projected to grow faster than China in the next two years. Now, let me repeat that, because when I read it I said, okay, are you sure because we always think of China as being the juggernaut? But no, indeed, Iraq is projected to grow faster than China...

 

But Iraq has one of the largest customer bases in the entire Arab world. It has one of the world’s largest supplies of oil, and it has one of the best educated workforces in the region....

 

Today, Turkish, Chinese, French, Jordanian, Iranian companies are lining up to do business. But very honestly, we see too few American companies alongside our soldiers and our diplomats. Iraqis are looking to rebuild every sector of their economy, not only their oil sector but agribusiness, transportation, housing, banking, and many others. For example, Citibank is now engaging with Iraqi financial institutions and working with corporations who wish to invest in Iraq. Now, I do not want to sugarcoat the difficulties. I think, among friends, we need to have an honest conversation about what is it we all need to do to realize these very positive projections....

 

Now, each company will make its own decisions about the costs and benefits, but we want to go on record unequivocally in encouraging American business to begin that process, and we will do everything we can to support you in it. Our embassies and consulates will be hubs that support commercial activity in every region of Iraq. The State Department will work hard to champion American companies, including through events like this one."

 

Commercial diplomacy.  Don't you love that.

 

So, in the end, the war in Iraq ended up being all about business opportunities, most specifically for Corporate America.  Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians died:

 

 

...so that American companies could profit from economic expansion into post-war Iraq.

 

Now, and, in case you've forgotten or didn't pay attention when it happened, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy extended an open invitation to the Corporate World (aka GloboCap) to come to Ukraine at the World Economic Forum's 2022 Annual Meeting back in May 2022 as shown here (30 minutes 30 seconds)

 

 

"We offer every company that leaves the Russian market to continue operating in Ukraine will have access not only to our market of 40 million consumers but also to the common market of Europe and your brand, your positions they will only increase because you would truly support the protection of freedom.  Our representatives here in Davos can inform all of you on the details of the prospects that Ukraine opens for your businesses.  Ladies and gentlemen, we offer the world to set a precedent for rebuilding the country after the war which will show everyone who  dreams of destroying the life of a neighbour that the war is not working.  I invite you to take part in this rebuilding.  The amount of work is enormous.  We have more than half a trillion dollars in losses, tens of thousands of facilities that were destroyed.  We need to rebuild entire cities and industries and we offer a special historically significant model of rebuilding, one each of the partner countries or partner cities or even partner companies will have the opportunity to take patronage over a particular region.  It could be a city or community or even and industry."

 

That open invitation had to get the upper floor corner office dwellers in Corporate America rubbing their collective hands together at the opportunity to take advantage of yet another war-torn nation. 

 

With both Clinton's and Zelenskyy's comments in mind, let's look at a recent development in the world's ongoing war between NATO and Russia over Ukraine.  As background, BlackRock is one of the United States three largest index fund managers with $8.594 trillion of assets under management which is more than the GDP of all nations in the world excluding China and the United States as shown here:

 

 

Here is the recent announcement from BlackRock:

 

 

So, keeping Hillary Clinton's comments about commercial opportunities for Corporate America in the post-Iraq war era in mind, it's looking like BlackRock (as a highly influential representative of Corporate America) is already preparing itself to profit from the Ukrainian post-war era.  And, as an aside, BlackRock is also benefiting from the war itself as shown here:

 

 

War, it's not what it appears to be.  In the post-Second World War American-led global reality, war has never been about enemies fighting each other, it's always been about who benefits from the both the war itself (i.e. the defense industry) and those who step in to rebuild the targeted nation after it is destroyed.  The rebuilding is also not about helping civilians, it's about helping the ruling class increase their already obscene levels of wealth.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation - The Clintons and Gates - Bedfellows in Medicine

Given the current global pandemic, I will be more closely examining the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, one of the world's foremost advocates for mass vaccination.  In part one of this two part series, I want to take a closer look at the relationship between the Gates and Clinton families.  With Bill Gates appearing nearly everywhere during this pandemic and with Hillary Clinton "awaiting the call" to run yet again, I started to wonder if there was a connection between these two influential families.  Thanks to the Gates Foundation and its grants database, I discovered that a link between the two does exist.  

  

Using the search term "Clinton", here is what I found, noting that these grants which were designated to the Clinton Health Access Initiative:

Here are the grants that were designated for the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation:

In addition, two grants were designated for the Clinton Global Initiative Inc.:

In total, since prior to 2009, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (and its predecessors) designated grants totalling as follows:

Clinton Health Access Initiative Inc.: $393,839,169

Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation: $35,621,586

Clinton Global Initiative: $2,000,000

The grand total haul for the Clinton family foundations was $431,460,755.  So far in 2020, the Gates family foundation has donated $11,539,168 to the Clinton Health Access Initiative Inc.

Here are the three largest grants:

If you are interested, here is a link to the entire, searchable Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation database of Awarded Grants. 

As you can see, there is a very, very tight connection between the Gates family and the Clinton family.  This begs the question; if by some stroke of luck (on her part), Hillary Clinton was to find herself in the White House after the November 2020 election, what will Bill Gates expect for his investment of $431 million?

In part two of this series, I will take a look at the funding relationship between the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the world's foremost publishers of medical research. 

Google's Connection to Hillary Clinton and the 2016 Election

Updated January 2020

During the 2016 election, I posted this missive on October 14, 2015 on how search engines could be used to influence election outcomes.  This is well before the so-called Russian interference narrative that erupted in the last few weeks of the 2016 presidential election.  Little did I realize that the world's foremost search engine was going well beyond the mechanism that I described in my posting to influence America's voting public into casting their ballot for Google's preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton.

Thanks to leaked videos from Google as can be found here, we now have a very clear understanding of how Google's key personnel voted in 2016, giving us a clear sense of how the go-to search engine was attempting to influence voting.  We all should have seen this coming.  In an email from John Podesta's computer, WikiLeaks posted this exchange between Cheryl Mills, Deputy White House Counsellor for Bill Clinton and Counsellor and Chief of Staff for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Eric Schmidt, then Chairman of Google and the world's 106th richest person with a net worth of $14.4 billion as shown here:

Here is the email dated April 15, 2014, a few days under a year before Hillary Clinton even announced her candidacy for president in 2016:

It seems to me that, given that Hillary Clinton hadn't even announced at that point in time, Eric Schmidt, the head of a major U.S. company, had spent a great deal of energy and time into helping create a campaign template for Ms. Clinton.

Here are some of the highlights:

1.) a campaign budget of $1.5 billion with more than 5000 paid employees.

2.) campaign headquarters for approximately 1000 young, hardworking and enthusiastic people in either Chicago or New York City.  These people have to "be dying to work for you (Hillary)".

3.) Employees will relocate to participate in the campaign and will find low-cost temporary housing or live with campaign supporters on a donated basis.

I found this suggestion particularly interesting given that Eric Schmidt has billions of dollars that he could have used to help house some of these employees and volunteers in housing that was more suitable.

4.) a single record for a voter was to be developed, primarily using smart phones to identify and speak with voters.  It can also be used to update profiles on the voter and supply them with videos and answers to questions that they might have.  To keep these records up-to-date, volunteers were to do "walk abouts" where they would encounter potential voters; by having smart phone data, the volunteer could update voter records in real time.  Smart phones could also be used to raise funds and recruit additional volunteers.

5.) As part of "The Rules" and given that Google is a highly profitable company, Mr. Schmidt suggests that all players in the campaign work "at cost" and that auditing should ensure that "no one is profiting unfairly from the campaign".

I particularly liked this paragraph and the use of the words "the right vote":

"For each voter, a score is computed ranking probability of the right vote. Analytics can model demographics, social factors and many other attributes of the needed voters. Modeling will tell us what who we need to turn out and why, and studies of effectiveness will let us know what approaches work well. Machine intelligence across the data should identify the most important factors for turnout, and preference." (my bold)

Basically, if you boil Eric Schmidt's ideas for a Clinton campaign down to five words, this is what comes to mind:

"Big Brother is watching you".

Given that smart phones were going to play such a key role in the 2016 election and that Google's Android has a major share of smartphone operating systems in the United States as shown here:

...how can we be assured that Google wasn't going to share user data with the Clinton campaign and the DNC to help them build their much needed voter database?

Unfortunately for Eric Schmidt, Google, John Podesta, Hillary Clinton and Cheryl Mills, someone managed to hack into John Podesta's poorly protected computer and provide us with insight into how Google was using its corporate power to influence the election in Hillary Clinton's favour.  In any case, it appears that there was quite a cast of characters that were attempting to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in their favour.

Washington's Ever-Evolving Viewpoint on Russia

With the mainstream media positively apoplectic over Vladimir Putin and Russia in general since the Putin - Trump meeting in Helsinki, I wanted to take a look at what the other side of the political spectrum had to say about Mr. Putin before she ran for the Oval Office as well as a look back in time to see what another Republican president had to say about Russia's president.  I have posted on this subject in the past, however, given the current force-feeding of the anti-Russia narrative, it begs to be reposted. 

Fortunately for all of us, the very data breach that is the subject of the current Russian election meddling narrative provides us with a look at Hillary Clinton's approach to Russia and Vladimir Putin.  This information is sourced from a document that was released from captivity by unknown players from John Podesta's computer, and outlines some excerpts from Hillary Clinton's speeches that she was quite reluctant to share with the voting public, largely because she was playing to the extremely wealthy American demographic in those speeches (keep in mind that the content of these speeches was never denied by the Clinton camp or by Ms. Clinton herself):

1.) Remarks at the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries Convention on April 10, 2014 regarding the selling of Boeing 737s to Russia:

“In 2010, President Obama set a target of doubling America's exports over five years, and at the State Department I made export promotions a personal mission. So as I traveled the world on behalf of our country, I did everything I could to go to bat for American companies trying to break into new markets and compete on a level playing field. It took me to some really interesting places, particularly now with all the problems we're seeing with Russia and President Putin. Back in 2009, when Dmitri Medvedev was actually president, I visited the Boeing Design Center in Moscow, because Boeing had been trying to secure a contract for new planes with the Russians. And I made the case that Boeing's jet set the global gold standard. And after I left, our embassy kept at it, and in 2010 Russians agreed to buy 50 737s for almost $4 billion, which translates into thousands of American jobs.”

2.) Remarks at Mediacorp on November 13, 2013 regarding Edward Snowden:

"Now, what did we learn from that? Well, we learned, as we learned again with Snowden, that we have so much information on the internet, even if you encrypt it, even if you think it's the most secure site in the world that the Chinese will not be able to get into it, even the Russians who are constantly knocking on the door can't get into it, somebody in your own operation can get into it. And in order to guard against that, you would have to have so many more layers of bureaucracy and encryption that was available through jumping through hoops and the like that you don't really know how to protect against the very people that you have vetted, supposedly, and employed.”

This comment from Ms. Clinton simply reeks with irony given the events that led to the release of her own personal emails and those of her campaign manager, John Podesta.

3.) Remarks at the Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago Vanguard Luncheon on October 28, 2013 regarding Mr. Putin's human side:

“One time, I was visiting with him in his dacha outside of Moscow, and he was going on and on, you know, just listing all of the problems that he thinks are caused by the United States. And I said, ‘Well, you know, Mr.’—at that time, he was still prime minister. I said, ‘You know, Mr. Prime Minister, we actually have some things in common. We both want to protect wildlife, and I know how committed you are to protecting the tiger.’ I mean, all of a sudden, he sat up straight and his eyes got big and he goes, ‘You care about the tiger? I said, ‘I care about the tiger, I care about the elephant, I care about the rhinoceros, I care about the whale. I mean, yeah, I think we have a duty. You know, it’s an obligation that we as human beings have to protect God’s creation.’ He goes, ‘Come with me.’ So we go down the stairs, we go down this long hall, we go into this private inner sanctum. All of his, you know, very beefy security guys are there, they all jump up at attention, you know, they punch a code, he goes through a heavily-armed door. And then we’re in an inner, inner sanctum with, you know, just this long, wooden table, and then further back, there’s a desk and the biggest map of Russia I ever saw. And he starts talking to me about, you know, the habitat of the tigers and the habitat of the seals and the whales. And it was quite something.” 

4.) Remarks at Goldman Sachs on June 4, 2013 regarding a positive relationship with Russia:

“And finally on Afghanistan and Russia. Look, I would love it if we could continue to build a more positive relationship with Russia. I worked very hard on that when I was Secretary, and we made some progress with Medvedev, who was president in name but was obviously beholden to Putin, but Putin kind of let him go and we helped them get into the WTO for several years, and they were helpful to us in shipping equipment, even lethal equipment, in and out of out of Afghanistan.”

“So we were making progress, and I think Putin has a different view. Certainly he’s asserted himself in a way now that is going to take some management on our side, but obviously we would very much like to have a positive relationship with Russia and we would like to see Putin be less defensive toward a relationship with the United States so that we could work together on some issues.”

5.) Remarks at Sanford Bernstein, an integrated wealth management firm, on May 29, 2013 regarding Mr. Putin's personality:

“I last saw [Putin] in Vladivostok where I represented President Obama in September for the Asia Pacific economic community. I sat next to him. He's an engaging and, you know, very interesting conversationalist. We talked about a lot of issues that were not the hot-button issues between us, you know, his view on missile defense, which we think is misplaced because, you know, we don't believe that there will be a threat from Russia, but we think that both Russia and the United States are going to face threats from their perimeter, either from rogue states like Iran or from terrorist groups, that's not the way he sees it.”

I found Ms. Clinton's comments about having a "positive relationship" with Russia quite illuminating and her assertion that the United States would like to see Mr. Putin be less defensive towards his relationship with the United States could not be more ironic.

Now, let's switch gears and look at comments from a former United States president about Vladimir Putin.  Here are key parts of the transcript of a news conference held on Jun 16, 2001 following a meeting between U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin held in Slovenia starting with this comment from the U.S. President:

"This was a very good meeting, and I look forward to my next meeting with President Putin in July. I very much enjoyed our time together. He's an honest, straightforward man who loves his country. He loves his family. We share a lot of values. I view him as a remarkable leader. I believe his leadership will serve Russia well. Russia and America have the opportunity to accomplish much together. We should seize it, and today we have begun."

When Putin rhetorically asked whether Russia could be trusted, he said that he would not answer that question and that he could ask the very same question of the United States.  Here is Bush's response to the question of trust:

"I will answer the question. I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy.

We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. And I appreciated so very much the frank dialogue. There was no kind of diplomatic chit chat, trying to throw each other off balance.

There was a straightforward dialogue, and that's the beginning of a very constructive relationship. I wouldn't have invited him to my ranch if I didn't trust him."

In typical fashion, the former President has now retracted his positive comments on Mr. Putin's soul as shown in this quote from an interview with Fox Business Anchor Maria Bartiromo in April 2018 (12 minute mark):

"

Here's the transcript of George W. Bush's comments on Mr. Putin:

"When I looked into his eyes and saw his soul, Russia was broke. I mean, short-term broke. And ah, the price of oil goes up and Putin changed.  Look, he's a very smart tactician. The problem is, his whole attitude on most issues is 'I'm going to win and U.S. is going to lose so I'm not very surprised.  He is a very aggressive person who wants to reinstate Soviet influence even though the Soviet no longer exists and therefore, I always felt it was always very important for the United States to be very forceful in dealing with Putin. Not belligerent, but forceful and, ah, you know, he's good."

So are we to believe that as long as Russia's economy nearly bankrupt, the nation's leader was acceptable but when Russia made economic gains, many of which benefitted U.S.-based companies, Mr. Putin became evil?  By that same logic, the United States must be a terribly evil nation.  While the "broke" logic behind George W. Bush's change of heart toward Mr. Putin strikes me as rather weak, his change of heart is not a whole lot dissimilar to Donald Trump's recent backpedaling over his remarks made after the Helsinki meeting.

In both of these cases, Russia was used as a pawn in America's geopolitical maneuvering.  As long as things between Russia and the United States worked in America's favour, all was "beer and skittles".  When Washington sensed that it was on the losing end of any backroom deals with Russia, those who we elected to lead us drag out the tired old anti-Russia narrative to convince us that the former communist nation is nothing short of evil and that it is doing what it can to both take over the world and destroy the American way of life.  At the very least, Washington is doing whatever it can to manipulate what they see as a gullible American voting public into swallowing the latest flavour of geopolitical Kool-Aid.  In any case, what we can learn from the most recent behaviour by Donald Trump is that his appraisal of Vladimir Putin is hardly unique among the most high-ranking of U.S. politicians.

Hillary Clinton's Latest Classified Home Server Emails - The Saga Continues

Thanks to Judicial Watch and its lawsuit dated May 6, 2015 in which it sued the U.S. Department of State regarding State's failure to respond to Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act request for additional emails on Hillary Clinton's non-"State.gov" email address as follows:

...we now have an additional two batches of emails, one with 184 pages and the other with 45 pages.  The documents are part of the accelerated schedule of production that was ordered by U.S. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg on November 30, 2017, which requires that the State Department  complete the processing of Judicial Watch's request by September 28, 2018.  These emails were not previously disclosed by the Clinton camp.

According to Judicial Watch, five of the documents include material that is classified as "confidential".  Here are some examples:

1.) Email dated June 2, 2011 between U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair and Ms. Clinton regarding Blair's Middle East negotiations with the Israeli's and Palestinians which is classified as confidential until May 10, 2032:

2.) Email dated June 14, 2009 from Hillary Clinton to Jake Sullivan regarding Northern Ireland with its entire contents redacted which is classified as "confidential" until June 13, 2024:

3.) Email dated April 8, 2010 between Jake Sullivan and Hillary Clinton which contains an email to Sid Blumenthal from an undisclosed sender regarding the change in government in Kyrgyzstan with much its content redacted is classified as confidential until April 8, 2025: 

While not classified, this email from Huma Abedin to Hillary Clinton gives us an interesting look at the connections between the Clintons and multi-billionaire and Clinton campaign financier George Soros:

As you can see on this graphic, Soros Fund Management donated $10,556,793 to Hillary Clinton's 2016 run for the Oval Office, the sixth highest contributor:

At the very least, these emails show that the narrative that nothing confidential was ever resident on Hillary Clinton's "home-brewed" server are far from true.  The fact that a significant portion of the latest emails that have been released by Judicial Watch contain material that is still deemed too sensitive for Main Street America strongly suggests that the Clinton narrative holds no water.  After all, if it isn't sensitive, why is the Department of State still heavily using redaction to protect itself?