Reverse engineering Hillary’s crimes: media have it backwards

QuestionEverything2
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
August 24, 2016

The Hillary email scandal and the Clinton Foundation scandal have been slithering, segment by segment, into public view.

And now we have “pay to play.”

The latest revelation, from the Associated Press: “More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion…Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million [to the Foundation].”

The implication is clear. “You want a favor from the State Department? Pay the Clinton Foundation.”

The National Review gives us the tip of the iceberg: “Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain wanted a sit-down with Secretary Clinton but was rebuffed; Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band intervened through [Huma] Abedin to try to find a work-around for the crown prince, who gave donations to the Clinton Global Initiative totaling $32 million through 2010. Donations to the Clinton Foundation came in from the kingdom itself and from the state oil company. Band also intervened to secure a visa for a foreign athlete held up because of his criminal record, doing so at the behest of donor Casey Wasserman, a Hollywood sports-entertainment mogul, whose foundation has contributed between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation…”

But let’s put all this in the right perspective. Let’s reverse engineer this. The media has it backwards.

Heading up the State Department didn’t incidentally afford Hillary the opportunity to funnel cash into the Clinton Foundation, in return for granting favors to donors. No.

Head of the State Department was her side job. She was really an officer of the Foundation. And as such, she picked out a plum position that would allow her to expand the Foundation’s coffers: she became Secretary of State.

It would be like the son of a mafia crime boss landing a slot as a judge, so he could rule in favor of his father’s mob associates in court. The judgeship was just an angle, a way of serving the family. The family comes first.

Yes, as Secretary of State Hillary could remain in the public eye—an essential factor for her later run for President. And she could also exercise her passion for making war and wreaking havoc: Libya is a prime illustration. But behind it all, she has been Hillary Clinton of the Clinton Foundation.

Right now, as the latest chapter in the Clinton Foundation scandal is exploding, Bill, her husband, is promising to tighten Foundation rules for accepting donations. He’s presenting a typical mafia ploy: “The Family is getting out of the rackets. We’re going completely legit.”

Sure they are. Bill and Hillary have an itch that can never be scratched. They have to run a racket. They have to pile up money through cons and schemes and payoffs. That will never change.

Hillary convincing Obama to give her the Secretary of State job was a champagne moment for the Clintons. The husband and wife team were in clover. The State Department would become their satellite office for the Foundation, and as such, it would go global and suck in gobs of cash from California to Saudi Arabia.

Annual huddle of the Foundation: “Well, folks, our marketing arm, also known as the State Department, has exceeded all expectations. Everything we’ve been working for, all these years, is coming to fruition. It’s called free money, and we’ve got it.”

What Hillary has done is typical for any clandestine agent: she went undercover; her cover story was, she was Secretary of State; in that role, she achieved hidden ulterior objectives.

Mission accomplished.

Except, as usual, she and her husband did sloppy work. They failed to conceal their operation properly. They wandered off the reservation.

What’s next? Well, how about the Clinton Global Initiative? What might be discovered during a deep probe of that charity? Now we’re talking about real money: over 2000 projects and 69 billion dollars raised (Reuters, 9/22/11). Who diverted and kept how much of that gargantuan sum? Who used money from that vault to extract favors?

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

 

96% Of Clinton Donations Went To The Clinton Foundation

Source: ZeroHedge.com
August 14, 2016

Moments ago, when we showed the newly released Clinton 2015 tax return, we posted a rhetorical question: “how much of the Clinton charity donations went to the Clinton Foundation? Taking a deduction for contributing to the employer of your daughter and expense payer of your husband is awesome.”

We now know the answer: as page 29 of the tax return reveals, of the $1,042,000 in charitable cash contributions, exactly $1 million went to, you guessed it, the Clinton Family Foundation, whose expenses pay among others those Clinton family members and friends employed by the foundation, like Chelsea Clinton who happens to be the foundation’s Vice Chair. Is this the ultimate Clinton reacharound?

Here is a list of some of the other key employees at the foundation:

And the Board of Directors:

The other $42,000 went to the Desert Classic Charities, which hosts an annual gold event.

As reported earlier, the Clinton Foundation is allegedly under investigation for corruption by the US Attorney General.

Read More At: ZeroHedge.com

Why Your Money Isn’t Finding A Cure

Source: iHealthTube.com
Dr. Carolyn Dean
June 23, 2016

Cancer fundraisers have pulled in hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more, over the years. But are we really any closer to a cure or even better quality of life during treatments? Chemo and radiation continue to be first option treatments, as they were decades ago. So where does all that money go? Dr. Carolyn Dean discusses this issue. Find out why your money isn’t finding a cancer cure.

Blind Trust – Wikipedia’s Duplicitious Dealings & Scandals

“The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence. Science is simply common sense at its best – that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
– Thomas Huxley

—————————————————–
By: Zy Marquiez
December 22, 2015

In previous a Breakaway Guide to Mainstream Media Manipulation & Propaganda, we showed how trustworthy downright deceptive the mainstream media can be.

Its rather unfortunate, because the majority of the populace shows blind faith in the media, but thankfully not everyone. A large portion of people have begun to unplug, as media conglomerates such as CNBC keep losing viewers , even though there is a growing number of people capable of watching TV. Quite ironic.

Moving on to another more subtle component of media, but nonetheless important, we will take a cursory look at Wikipedia.

There have been a few instances that took place in the past which made me treat information provided by Wikipedia in an askance way.  Coupled with this is the fact that there is a wide breadth of people that can access the website anonymously and how ‘precise’ those “edits” can be.

These handful of events that took place made me extremely convinced that at worst, Wikipedia is just another mouthpiece for the establishment.

This is just personal opinion based on nefarious dealings witnessed by myself and two other people as it was happening.  

However, to be more precise, what am going to show you is that Wikipedia’s reliability isn’t as ironclad as people give it credit for.

The latitude and scope of power that Wikipedia has been able to showcase in its growth is as resounding at it is precise. Such power has the capability to singlehandedly make or break any particular individual/corporation/idea in more ways that people could fathom.

Recently published by the Independent, a veritable cavalcade of folks/corporations were eviscerated by actions undertaken within the catacombs of Wikipedia.

Serious scamming of a colossal magnitude was running rampant behind the scenes in unprecedented ways.

It’s been a long suspicion of a few folks that Blackmail is merely the tip of the iceberg however. That alone though is still quite notable given the reliability deceptiveness that can be carried out on such a widely known/used website.

To elucidate further into what was taking place, please take a note of how scam/s worked as detailed by Jamie Merril & Jonathan Owen:

” The scam worked by targeting firms struggling to get pages about their businesses on Wikipedia. They were often told their articles had been rejected due to concerns of excessive promotional content – although in some cases the scammers themselves may have been the ones causing the articles to be removed.

According to a Wikipedia insider, at this stage the scammers would demand a payment of up to several hundred pounds to successfully “re-post or re-surface” the article, and in some cases demanded an on-going monthly payment to “protect” the articles. The fraudster  usually claimed to be a Wikipedia editor or administrator.”

If that’s not disturbing enough for what has been considered by some as the Encyclopedia Britannica of the interwebz, it gets better.

Furthermore, lets couple the above fact with a statement by Andrew Orlowski which he elucidates in his article at TheRegister:

There are serious questions to be asked, not only of Wikipedia’s community structures – which encourage and protect anonymous editing – but also of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) itself. The charity has amassed assets of over $70m and a ready cash pile of millions of dollars, thanks to aggressive fundraising which suggests donors must pay to keep the site online (in reality, only around $3m is required to run the site every year). Yet the Foundation has little power to compel anyone to do anything: the community makes its own mind up. Neither seems able to bear much self-examination. [Bold emphasis added]

If that’s not enough to make someone downright outraged am not sure what is.

Trust is something that is often asked of us as individuals by society/corporations/institutions, but rarely earned by those very institutions that implore you at the outset. Events such as this are the exact reason why many folks are suspicious.

While anonymity can protect privacy, it can also be used as a weapon.

In this case we have seen what happens when one is behind the crosshairs of targeted bribery.

That doesn’t even begin to touch issues that Sharyl Attkisson spoke of in her Ted-Talks presentation about the deception within Wikipedia.

Author Phillip Roth reportedly went to edit information to correct a major fact error that pertained to one of his own characters that was cited on a wikipedia page, but as Attkisson relates:

“No matter how hard he tried, wikipedia’s editors wouldn’t allow it. They kept reverting the evidence back to the false information. When Roth finally reached a person at wikipedia, which was no easy task, and tried to find out what was going wrong, they told him he simply was not considered a credible source on himself.”

Ladies and gentlemen, case closed.

A place that doesn’t allow facts to be corrected, by people that created them, is no place that should be trustworthy.

When traveling the innards of the websphere, be mindful of information, no matter where it comes from. Including here. Do your research.

Ultimately what our mind hones in on, is our choice. Luckily for us, we still have one.

Do your research, check, recheck, and make the correct choice for yourself.

As Buddha once said:

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”

———————————————————-
Sources:

https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/category/mainstream-media-propaganda/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-24/cnbc-viewership-plunges-eight-year-lows
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/wikipedia-rocked-by-rogue-editors-blackmail-scam-targeting-small-businesses-and-celebrities-10481993.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/03/wikipedia_industrial_scale_smears_and_blackmail/
https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/sharyl-attkisson-astroturf-manipulation-of-media-messages/