The Clinton Uranium Money
Commentary for 27 April 2014
A Dec 1, 2011 headline says, “Russia dominates global uranium markets.” The New York Times headline of three days ago says, “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.” How does Russia, a strategically guided state with agent networks around the world, dominate the uranium market? Russia does not have a large domestic supply of uranium. Yet Russia possesses half the world’s capacity to refine uranium. Given Russian domestic energy self-sufficiency you can bet Russian dominance over the world’s supply of uranium is not due to insecurity with regard to generating electricity.
According to The New York Times story referenced above, several leaders in the Canadian mining industry donated large sums of money to the Clinton’s “charitable endeavors.” These “leaders” sold off a big uranium mining company to the Russians. At one stroke this sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Why did they do this? Well, let us say that Russia wanted to control the Uranium supply as much as possible. And they were willing to pay. So we should not be surprised to learn that Russia managed to acquire this significant chunk of America’s uranium reserves with help from "friends" in the United States. Yes, Russia did this. And you may ask how such a thing happened. Well, The New York Times – however it might downplay the situation in the final telling – explained it in the following way:
Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal [where Russia acquired one fifth of the U.S. uranium reserves] 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.
Canadian records indicate a flow of cash in the direction of the Clintons, apparently related to the transfer of the uranium company to Russia. The chairman of the uranium company made four donations totaling $2.34 million to the Clinton Foundation. Even more suggestive, these donations were not disclosed. Even before these generous cash infusions, Clinton received $500,000 in speaking fees from a Russian bank. This happened at the outset, when the Russians first expressed their interest in getting control of American uranium. The Times then added, “Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown.”
Here The New York Times is incorrect. With perfect clarity, someone does know. Millions of dollars do not change hands so easily, and however smart Bill Clinton may believe himself to be, his speeches are not worth $500,000. Russia was clearly buying influence with the Clintons. Nothing could be more clear, and only a naïve person would entertain doubts as to what happened with the uranium company. The acquisition was not an accident. It was strategically intended and strategically leveraged. To what end this was done, of course, is perfectly obvious when we consider the defector testimony from long ago. Sergei Tretyakov said it best when he explained that the Russian special services want to “destroy” America now, even more than during the Cold War.
If you care for your country, if you want to save your own life, then wake up and take note of what is happening. See what your corrupt leaders are doing. See how easily the country you owe allegiance to is betrayed and how little is done about it. Let us be honest. The Cold War did not end in 1991. It has been going on these past 23 plus years. And if we examine the background of Bill and Hillary Clinton with care, and if we examine the background of Barack Obama with care, we will find connections to hard core communists. This should be regarded seriously, and all Americans should be concerned. This is especially true when we learn how the Clintons have enriched themselves from Russian and Chinese sources. It is a fact, long established, that Bill Clinton traveled alone to Moscow after he worked for KGB peace front in late 1969-1970. Readers might be interested, in this context, to read Kent Clizbe’s book, Willing Accomplices: How KGB Covert Influence Agents Created Political Correctness and Destroyed America. Clizbe gives a methodology for identifying KGB influence agents. What you must look for is whether they have traveled to Moscow, whether they have enjoyed great career success after such a visit, and then examine the content of their statements and actions.
As for Barack Obama, he was mentored by a card carrying member of the Communist Party named Frank Marshall Davis. What this turns out to mean depends on the larger context. People need to study this and come to their own conclusions. Communism as a movement is about deception. It is about revolution, plunder, and murder. As a nation we need to come to terms with this. We must also realize that China is still a communist country. A few years ago, during a radio interview with a Russian historian, I asked why today’s Russia was aligning itself with China. She said, “Because they are both communist.” Was this a slip of the tongue? She said it with such passionate impatience that her words are burned into my mind. Perhaps she has also given us the reason Russia is helping Nicaragua and Venezuela with weapons and military bases.
But here we seem to be confusing the issue of greed with that of ideology. The bottom line, it turns out, is strategy. Here we might say that greed and ideology have discovered common ground. How much money have the Clintons made off the Russians? The real question is why the Clintons aren't in jail. Someone recently told me that Washington is a town where everyone is chasing money. Surely, there is plenty of money to go around without taking money from Russia. But then, if you're bent in a certain way, perhaps you'd rather take money from your "friends." Isn't that how things actually work? So maybe Washington is a town where everyone is trying to make the "right" friends. This may sound better than mere greed, but in fact it may prove to be much worse.
