Monday, November 30, 2015

CLINTON FOUNDATION: The "GOLD STANDARD" in 21st Century American Politics? ... Finding "Common Ground" between Philanthropy, War & Terrorism ... The "Great White Dope" Edition ... (Political Corruption & Ethics PT.8) & (Hillary Clinton PT.2)

Hillary Clinton with Qatari Sheik Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor Al Thani - AP/ Washington Free Beacon (newsread)

This posting will also serve 2 series of this journal ... both "Political Corruption & Ethics" and "Hillary Clinton". The postings title was inspired by the classic 1970 movie and former play "The Great White Hope" ... which frankly we get too much politically intoxicating "dope" that addicts us. Also inspiring the title, Democrat Presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, when she called the "Trans- Pacific Partnership" the "Gold Standard" of trade ... I mean, is this the "gold standard" of politics today that we have come to expect? All of this linked in here is actually 6 months old, and I havent heard a thing about this until now, and accidently stumbled on it while browsing online. I try to keep up with politics as much as possible, yet I'm sure I miss so much, because my time is limited like many people, but I keep up alot more than I have before I got online back in 2008 or so and started this journal/ blog. The newsread below from the International Business Times was more than I expected, I'm really surprised about this. Putting this piece in the "Political Corruption & Ethics" series is not to say that what the Clinton Foundation is doing is corrupt or illegal, there is nothing here that sayz it's illegal reading it, and the law/ rules/ legislation in place allow this ... but at the same time ... this hit me like a brick to my skull after reading the IBT piece and it's links, so I have to question the "ethics" here strongly. My differences and questions on issues with Secretary Clinton are actually petty in comparison to this, although I question where the secretary has stood on many things over the last several years. I had no issue on this email nonsense that was being drilled recently, which I feel is just political and seen nothing wrong with what she done. As a voting Democrat though, I have many questions ... being that, "if" my choice of candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders doesnt get the nomination, I am also depending on Bernie, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Congressman Alan Grayson for their advice and endorsement of a candidate, as to who I will support in 2016, these 3 people I have quite a bit of faith and trust in than many. I sure as Hell will not vote Republican either, they clearly have a devastating agenda and are very open and transparent about it. My issues and questioning on the Clinton's actually was from years back, with first President Bill Clinton and some of his policies, that's not to say I view Hillary and Bill as "alike" either, they may have way different views, as much as my wife and I do on various issues.

What's astounding to me is that none of the Republicans have even went into this, instead, they tried to make an issue out of this email nonsense with Hillary Clinton, which makes me wonder if the Republicans want Clinton as a candidate, after all, they constantly say in debates or their campaigns that they want to run against Hillary, you would figure that they would challenge Sanders, but they dont want to even talk about him, besides just saying he's a "socialist" or "angry old man nutcase". Could Republicans talk too much about Clinton on this issue without exposing themselves and their ties with the same entities?, sure they can have bitch fight debates all day long on nonsensical issues for public show to entertain us, like man- made institutionalized "designer brand" religious morality, each others emails, sexual views, undocumented immigrant workers from south of our border (who they all love to hire to work at their homes, and take photos with in campaigns) or whatever else related ... BUT, can they pound serious concerns like million dollar pay- offs or related? Would Republicans REALLY want to publicly debate against someone not owned by these entities like Sanders? ... they can make jokes for show about Sanders, like his hair, looks, age or being "democratic socialist" or related nonsense ... but they may NOT want to have to publicly debate him, because of what Sanders may bring up. I mean ... even if Republicans had to publicly debate with a man like Sanders over a couple common issues that Republicans love talking about, like "family values" or "supporting our veterans" ... Sanders would give them a run for their money just on those issues that they may not like and regret that they even brought it up in a public debate, not to mention what he would say about them and their taking backdoor money and laundering offshore monies or related. To my surprise as well, was not hearing a thing about this in any of the mainstream media or either side, and when any of these outfits like donors or even those in the Clinton campaign were questioned about anything, it was swept under the rug in a way.

I also dont understand why the Sanders campaign havent brought any of this out in any of these debates or on the campaign trail, at least to question some of this. I mean ... is it politically unfashionable in the Democrat Party to bring this up? I also have to question these donors to the Clinton foundation ... they all seem to be about philanthropy, love for humanity and peoples rights when they're asked why they donate, yet, some of their history shows that they are about human rights violations, unnecessary wars, biological/ chemical weapons possession, and having connections to arming terrorist's, even if it is unintentional ... and hearing this about Secretary of State Clinton supplying mass amounts of these weapons to some of these folks is even worse to me. I also question how the Clinton's can accept money from some of these donors based on what they publicly say they stand for and being outspoken critics of human rights violations, and even rights of women, oppression, terrorism, wanting to break up big banks and monopolies, and crack down on this campaign financing, etc, etc. I understand if one may think that a person like me who questions this, may think that folks like myself are naive on how politics and the world worx, but I have a general understanding of how these things work ... my question is, why should this not be questioned? ... why is this supposed to be the standard of what we should accept and support? ... simply because of this 2 party political game? It also appears more recently over the last several years, that all these things like Super PACs, Citizens United or such has simply made our 2 party system more like a one party system to where there are only slight differences between these 2 parties, such as on a few social issues, being that this mass funneling of money has made these 2 parties alike when it comes to wars, interventions and occupations, and allowing corporate/ banking lobbying to set all the legislation. I have to question some of the conflicts of interests we allow, flip- flopping, etc ... and NOT just of Clinton, but all in Washington ... politics/ politicians, like religions and their leaders, I have alwayz questioned, BECAUSE of their history. I have many questions is all, it isnt about being naive ... and we all should question more in my view.

Regardless, no doubt that the newsread below and commentary video after from Mike and Farron of "The Ring of Fire" is compelling and should make a person at least have some questions, and not to feel that you are a conspiracy theorist or politically incorrect to at least question these things.

Word Out ....

***** INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES: Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department ... (newsread)

How Hillary Clinton Ruined Her Legacy As Secretary of State ... Thanx to THE RING OF FIRE








***** RCJ MUSIC/ ART'S HONOUR ROLL SOCIETY (my hand- selected music/ arts picks)

***** RCJ/ THOMAS PICKERING: GOOGLE+ (video posts)

***** THE RESISTANCE/ PERIL'S OF THE POWER POSSE (inspiration for hope & change) ... to be viewed as a "profit- see", not a "prophecy".


No comments: