Red is the New Blacklist

“Corporate communism” is a phrase, which according to the Urban Dictionary, was first used by former MSNBC host Dylan Ratiger.

The two words essentially refer to a combined government and corporate system that generally moves wealth and power from middle class working folks to an elite group of individuals in order to exercise control over institutions and populations and to also eliminate competition and options in the process.

Economic policies that confiscate people’s earned income, coupled with lockdown impositions, false media narratives, and severe suppression of free expression, are just some of the indicators that warn of our nation’s rapid shift in the corporate communism direction of which Ratiger made reference.

In 2010 the former cable television host penned a piece in the Huffington Post. He offered an explanation as to why Americans of the last decade were inclined to reject communism.

“…it [communism] historically has allowed a tiny group of people to consolidate complete control over national resources (including people), in the process stifling competition, freedom and choice.”

Communist systems inevitably lead to a loss of freedom, a culture of exploitation, and a compromised group of leaders who obtain their positions courtesy of cronyism, nepotism, and treachery.

Elites who rule communist regimes are notorious for stealing wealth from their citizens in order to enrich themselves.

Hugo Chavez, the communist dictator of Venezuela, railed against the wealthy, while he himself lived an opulent lifestyle.

Chavez was not wealthy at the time when, as president in 1998, he took over the then-wealthiest nation in South America. However, before he died he managed to end up with a net worth of over $1 billion.

Communist Fidel Castro told the people of Cuba that he resided in a fisherman’s hut. But according to a book written by his former bodyguard, the despot owned a 90-foot yacht and over 20 luxurious properties, which were located throughout the country. Castro’s assets were reportedly worth about $900 million; this according to Forbes.

Perhaps it is the lure of monopolistic wealth that explains why multinational corporations nowadays seem to have forgotten the reasons for the decades-long cold war with the Soviet Union that our nation had to endure.

Billionaire co-founder of PayPal and member of Facebook’s board of directors Peter Thiel recently stated that multinational corporations in Silicon Valley do not consider themselves to be “American companies.”

Thiel’s viewpoint is that this lack of corporate loyalty is partially due to the embrace of “woke politics.” But there is also the factor that many of the companies’ employees are sympathetic to the Chinese Communist Party, particularly those who happen to be Chinese nationals.

In December of 2020, New York Post columnist Miranda Devine wrote a piece titled “US companies riddled with members of Chinese Communist Party” (https://nypost.com/2020/12/13/us-companies-riddled-with-members-of-chinese-communist-party/).

In the article, Devine discussed a database that had been leaked, which revealed that American companies had been infiltrated by registered members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

China severely restricts its citizens’ rights of free speech and expression. In fact, the CCP exerts tight control over its media by mandating that all published information be vetted by the regime.

The communist nation filters and censors the internet while being given an assist by multinational corporations that include Google and Yahoo. This requirement is enforced via a strict criminal prosecution system.

China’s attitudes are consistent with those of the international left who have no interest in the free flow of ideas or debate. Founding communists Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky viewed free speech as a bourgeois value and had no problem shutting down presses that were not controlled by the Party.

In reality, communist ideology of any kind is wholly incompatible with the concept of individual freedom. An individual’s best interests are always subordinate to the collective’s best interests.

In corporate communism, multinational conglomerates work in concert with the government to alter, affect, and/or abolish competition, free expression, and choice of employment.

Regimes of this type today also practice blacklisting.

Blacklisting is action on the part of an authority in which a roster is compiled of those who hold ideas, beliefs, or attitudes or who engage in practices or activities that are deemed unacceptable by the powers that be.

For years it has been commonly associated with investigations, which were instituted by the House Un-American Activities Committee back in 1947, in order to block screenwriters and other Hollywood professionals, purported to be supporters of communism, from obtaining employment.

Today’s blacklists contain the names of those who have fallen victim to what is now being referred to as “cancel culture.”

Those who are unfortunate enough to become blacklisted are exiled from digital and broadcast platforms because of past expression of ideas, which run counter to the contemporary narrative of the government-corporate regime holding the strings.

Communism by any other name is just as insidious. And just as deadly to freedom.

Eric Clapton Targeted by Outrage Mob for Anti-lockdown Song

Legendary recording artist Eric Clapton is a bona fide member of music royalty.

He just happens to be a three-time inductee to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and over the course of his career he has been the recipient of 18 Grammy Awards.

Something a lot of folks may not know is that Clapton was a member of a number of awe-inspiring rock and blues ensembles, including The Yardbirds, Cream, John Mayall & the Bluesbreakers, Blind Faith, Delaney & Bonnie and Friends, and Derek and the Dominos.

One particular endeavor of Clapton that holds personal significance for me is his nurturing and archiving of America’s musical treasure, The Blues.

His style of playing and choice of material reflects his own influences: famed artists Muddy Waters, B.B. King, Freddie King, Albert King, and Buddy Guy, among others.

Clapton collaborated on an album with B.B. King and released CDs that featured the work of Delta Blues master Robert Johnson.

After a long and illustrious career, Clapton is now having to endure the unimaginable—an onslaught of digital venom from the cancel culture.

The outrage mob that lurks in the shadows of social media slander circles currently has its sights set on destroying a heretofore sterling career and reputation of the iconic singer, songwriter, record producer, and guitarist.

What did Clapton do to deserve the onslaught of Internet hate?

He and fellow musical artist Van Morrison recently announced that the two of them would be releasing a protest song that related to government lockdowns, which have been imposed on people around the globe, all in the name of public health.

The tune is titled “Stand and Deliver.” Morrison, who wrote the song, is a musical legend in his own right, having been the front man for the seminal rock group, Them. He also skyrocketed to stardom as a solo artist with a distinctive soul brand all his own.

In a statement to Variety, Clapton characterized the lack of live music due to lockdowns as “deeply upsetting.”

“There are many of us who support Van and his endeavors to save live music; he is an inspiration,” Clapton said. “We must stand up and be counted because we need to find a way out of this mess.”

Morrison praised Clapton for having participated in the tune, saying, “Eric’s recording is fantastic and will clearly resonate with the many who share our frustrations.”

In addition to “Stand and Deliver,” Morrison is set this week to release three other protest-themed songs: “No More Lockdown,” “As I Walked Out,” and “Born to Be Free.”

The songs portray the coronavirus lockdowns as “fascist” and also hit Hollywood celebs for “telling us what we’re supposed to feel.”

Proceeds from the recordings go to Morrison’s initiative for musicians who are struggling as a fallout of the lockdowns.

Using music as a protest vehicle is a time honored tradition that dates back to the singer-songwriters of the 1960s. However, in today’s left-of-center’s warped selective embrace of censorship, musical expressions that contradict the agenda of the elitist class must be stricken from the public square.

As a result of the recording of the song and the public announcement of its release, Clapton has suffered a barrage of social media vitriol, including a sizable amount from members of the outrage mob, who dragged out statements of Clapton from more than 40 years ago.

This was an unfortunate time for the musical artist, a period in his life when he was in addiction’s dreadful grip. His remarks, which were made back in 1976, were featured on the Twitter account of singer-songwriter Deren Ney, who wrote that “all of [Clapton’s] racism wouldn’t fit in one screenshot.”

A band called The Mountain Goats, which had released a song about the pandemic, attacked both Clapton and Morrison in a tweet, and threw a number of expletives in for supposed effect. Numerous other tweets were posted on the web, accusing Clapton of being a racist.

The Vulture website joined in with the digital assault, and also threw in some politics in its citing of the “climb in COVID-19 cases.”

In another politicized piece, The Los Angeles Times noted that “Twitter is not amused” by Clapton’s taking a position against lockdowns in song. The publication then wagged its accusatory racist finger.

Despite failed models, questionable data, and nonsensical demands from government, millions of protesters have taken to the streets in the U.S., European countries, and international communities.

It could be that the politicization of the coronavirus has reached its zenith, thanks in part to Clapton and Morrison.

Music has that magical effect. It can reach into our souls and drown out all the unwelcome noise.

Nancy Pelosi’s Alinsky Approach

gettyimages-979539974-1280x720

Nancy Pelosi recently delivered the following message to a group of like-minded people in New York City:

“I think that we owe the American people to be there for them, for their financial security, respecting the dignity and worth of every person in our country, and if there’s some collateral damage for some others who do not share our view, well, so be it…”

Whether she intended to provide such a window into her political soul is unknown. However, it was a profoundly significant revelation from the woman who is desperately seeking to be Speaker of the House once again.

What Pelosi did in her unwitting confession is to telegraph just how low the Democrats were willing to stoop in their craven quest for power, so low that people who merely disagree with their socialist agenda may, as her characterization indicated, become expendable.

“Collateral damage” is a term that refers to civilians who suffer serious injuries and even death as the result of military conflict. The phrase is frequently employed as a euphemism for civilian casualties of war.

Pelosi’s cavalier attitude about potential victims of her Party’s left-wing agenda reflects a worldview that is devoid of several key moral safeguards, without which a society simply collapses from within.

As disgraceful rhetoric and unprecedented conduct on the part of the Democrats mounted, the lack of a moral rubric was made manifest. For months Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Eric Holder, and other prominent Party figures signaled their indifference to the welfare of persons and property as they simultaneously fanned the flames of discontent, which prompted base supporters and myriad susceptible individuals to engage in uncivil, intrusive, and outright violent behavior against political opponents.

Then came the hearings surrounding Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination and ultimate confirmation to the High Court, which turned out to be a seminal moment in time for what was to come to light, that the Democrats had devolved into societal autocrats who were determined to punish and, if “necessary,” destroy any individual or group that would fail to conform to their ideology or thwart their political plans.

What is on display is a collective capitulation to the Machiavellian maxim “the end justifies the means.” Machiavelli used this phrase to refer to the idea that a desired result ought to be reached by any means available, even morally bankrupt ones, in order to achieve what is viewed by those exercising power as a positive result.

Author Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” encapsulates the Machiavellian maxim and drags the concept to further depths. The book is fittingly dedicated to Lucifer.

While attending Wellesley, Hillary chose to write her undergraduate thesis on Alinsky and his tactics. Likewise, former President Barack Obama used “Rules for Radicals” as a textbook when he lectured on the subject of community organizing. The new so-called Democratic Socialists, that form a sizable portion of the base of the Party, are properly considered Alinskyites.

Alinsky devoted a chapter of his book to the topic at hand, titling it “Of Means and Ends.”

His rules relating to ethics reveal an intrinsically depraved philosophy.

Alinsky’s first rule is “One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.” In other words, the higher one ranks a particular issue, the less one should be concerned with whether or not the methods used to achieve it are good or evil.

“In war the end justifies almost any means” is Alinsky’s third rule, and it could easily be considered a match-up to Pelosi’s “collateral damage” phrase. Democrats have long defined their politics in military terms, where warlike strategy is employed, destruction of any and all types is deemed acceptable, and no societal construct or institution is off-limits.

Alinsky’s fourth rule, “ethical standards must be elastic to stretch in the times,” captures the essence of moral relativism. Basic logic dictates that moral standards that can be “stretched” at will cease to be actual standards.

In a twisted take-off on Fredric Neitzke’s “might makes right,” Alinsky’s seventh rule, “success or failure is a mighty determinate of ethics,” puts the outcome cart before the moral horse.

Throughout the chapter, Alinsky characterizes ethics as a hindrance to achieving political goals and is consequently expendable. As a result, any falsehood, any act of violence, any atrocity can be justified in the quest to achieve a political end.

The entire view is antithetical to the Judeo-Christian principles, which undergird Western civilization. The great theologian Thomas Aquinas wrote, “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention,” which is, in essence, the direct opposite of what Alinsky preached.

In a land that reveres the endowments of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for each and every individual, “collateral damage” will never be acceptable…so be it.

Tech Oligarchs Censor the Right

rtx5gc6c_wide-5a1301163e38ee381c8d446c8fc3f81e71ecf663-s1100-c15

The technology companies that provide social media platforms have grown to gargantuan size and now possess an ominous power over the ability of citizens to express and communicate ideas.

This control over free expression, which is held by a few tech oligarchs, is unprecedented at any time in human history.

The most widely used social media platform, Facebook, claims 2 billion users globally and is the preferred source for news for 45 percent of American adults. Three hundred hours of video are uploaded to Google-owned YouTube every minute of the day. And Twitter indicates that it has 330 million monthly active users. It was inevitable that these three monolithic social media platforms would be replete with users who seek to influence public opinion.

At one time all three seemed to reflect the notion that the general Internet should be treated as a free and open forum for any and all points of view.

The three have now shown themselves to be untrustworthy with data. They have proven to be biased, and of late have made it clear that they are willing to utilize the same kind of censorship that authoritarian regimes impose.

The ability of conservatives to reach people through the use of social media is being slowly and steadily diminished by the implemented policies of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. This is occurring under the guise of eliminating false information.

Videos, posts, and other expressions are routinely being taken down, accounts are surreptitiously being limited in scope, and in some cases users are even being exiled from the Internet.

Tech giants have consistently demonstrated hostility toward the convictions of Americans who dare to hold contrary views to the pre-ordained liberal script. This all seemed to have begun with the revelation in the spring of 2016 that news curators at Facebook were suppressing news stories from right-of-center outlets. The resultant negative publicity caused Facebook to actually remove its human editors.

Last summer Twitter blocked pro-life advertisements, labeling them “sensitive content.” Early this year Twitter claimed that it was purging the platform of suspected Russian bot accounts, but it ended up causing conservative Twitter users, including podcaster Dan Bongino, to suffer a loss of followers.

In what it claimed to be a hunt for “fake news,” YouTube shut down highly viewed non-liberal channels on its platform. It ultimately had to apologize for what it called “mistaken removals,” just one more admission that a video platform had engaged in ideological censorship. The organization’s use of an extreme left-wing group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, to determine what is “offensive” speech is a major tell of YouTube’s true intentions.

Oddly, the highly entrepreneurial Silicon Valley community has allowed itself to become a slavish patron of anti-business liberalism. As is typical of much of Wall Street and many major corporations, the tech world is devoted to leftist immigration policies that allow tech companies to access inexpensive labor.

Perhaps because the technology world considers itself to be scientifically minded, a huge portion of the tech community has become enamored with faux scientists such as Al Gore and have simply bought the notions of radical environmentalists hook, line, and sinker.

Those outside of the liberal circle, who happen to constitute a sizable segment of society, have made great strides in the past using digital technology to persuade the public. Presently, though, they are justifiably concerned about losing access to social media platforms at such a critical juncture in U.S. politics.

Where do divergent thinkers go to find a way to fight back against the free expression redactors? Here are some options for consideration:

–Litigation.

Lawsuits launched by those who feel as if they have experienced interference with their free expression on social media may find themselves in an uphill battle. However, it may be worth the struggle.

At the trial level, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh recently indicated that Prager University, a non-profit project by author, educator, and national radio talk show host Dennis Prager, failed to show in a lawsuit that YouTube infringed upon its free speech rights by placing age restrictions on its content.

The suit was filed over YouTube’s “Restricted Mode” setting on such topics it deemed offensive. The judge held that YouTube was not a “state actor,” but rather a “private entity” and as such was not subject to First Amendment protections.

The judge also dismissed a claim on another legal theory that YouTube engaged in false advertising by implying that Prager University’s videos were “inappropriate.”

The judge did encourage Prager University to amend its lawsuit to explore whether California’s state constitution would provide protection “in the age of social media and the Internet.” The decision can, of course, be appealed.

–Regulation.

The cumulative actions of social media giants have resulted in otherwise free market thinking individuals to begin eyeing the prospects of some kind of limited government regulation of the social media space.

One approach would be to classify social media platforms as “common carriers” and require that all users be treated equally. This is a variant of the much touted “net neutrality” about which tech blogs often rant.

A specific proposal that seems to have some merit involves mandating that users who are dissatisfied with either Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter be allowed to freely transfer their data to another platform, much in the same way consumers transfer their cell phone numbers from one carrier to another.

–Competition.

It is long overdue that a freedom loving social media provider appear on the scene.

Similar to the way in which the bias of the mainstream media gave birth to the alternative media, i.e., Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the like, those who hold non-liberal beliefs must create an alternative social media and do so before its too late.

The Celebrities Behind the Anti-Gun March

gunout-march-759

Lending support to the recent anti-Second Amendment march, which was misleadingly called the “March for Our Lives,” was a sizable roster of Hollywood elites.

The participating celebrities, who are routinely shielded 24/7 by their own armed security guards, were among those who were financing and supporting the nationwide protests.

The goal in mind was a singular one—to get other people to give up their God-given and constitutionally protected right to defend themselves and their families with firearms.

The Washington, D.C. protest, along with its so-called “sibling” events, was organized and funded with a considerable amount of help from Hollywood liberals and leftist organizations. Thousands of high school students were bussed to various locales via groups and individuals with links to the Democratic Party.

Despite its official noble sounding name, numerous media outlets, including BuzzfeedNews, reported that organizers were really pushing for full-on gun control legislation. It has also become increasingly clear that the march was specifically designed to gin up the voter registration rolls for the upcoming mid-term elections.

Democratic groups in Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia boosted the number of attendees by providing free transportation for participants to Washington, D.C. According to Bethesda Magazine, a Maryland Democratic House member hosted a pre-march rally and bussed supporters to the march. And the Washington Post reported that the Democrat mayor of Baltimore arranged for thousands of students to be driven to the march by bus. Democratic groups in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania also reportedly provided buses to participants.

As a further incentive for the younger demographic, organizers put together a free concert with an all-star billing, which included Miley Cyrus, Ariana Grande, Common, Demi Lovato, Jennifer Hudson, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Vic Mensa, and Ben Platt.

During the concert, performers proceeded to supplement their music with politically loaded protest visuals.

– Cyrus performed “The Climb” while holding a sign that read “Never Again.”

– Lovato concluded her performance with a raised fist and the words “MSD strong!”

– After Grande sang “Be Alright” she was joined on stage by some attendees who engaged in a group hug and selfie snaps.

– Hudson closed out the show in 1960s protest fashion with a version of Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changin’.”

A number of entertainment figures provided money to the organizers of the event, including Oprah Winfrey, Steven Spielberg, John Legend, Chrissy Teigen, and George Clooney. Taylor Swift, who has made it a point to remain apolitical, indicated that she, too, had donated to the march.

Clooney and Spielberg took to the streets to join the protesters. Other celebrities who made their presence at the march known included Kim Kardashian, Kanye West, Jimmy Fallon, Dennis Rodman, and Julianne Moore.

Paul McCartney joined in a march in New York and Amy Schumer spoke at a rally in Los Angeles.

Celebrities who used social media to digitally participate included Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Justin Bieber, Alyssa Milano, Michael Moore, and Debra Messing.

It is apparent that organizers of the march harbor ambition that extends far beyond the initial event. Plans are in the making to lobby lawmakers to achieve desired ends. The finance vehicle for the protest, “The March for Our Lives Action Fund,” is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, which, according to records, was registered on March 8, 2018.

The majority of non-profit groups are registered as 501(c)(3) charitable organizations; this allows donors to receive a charitable tax deduction for their gifts.

However, 501(c)(4) organizations are formed in order to conduct lobbying and legislative advocacy. The choice of this nonprofit vehicle means that donors actually lose tax deductibility for their donations.

On the group’s website, “The March for Our Lives Action Fund” has telegraphed its intent to pursue lobbying, indicating that funds will be used “to fight for comprehensive gun safety legislation at the local, state, and federal level.”

The website also offers a “March for Our Lives voter registration toolkit,” which appears to be a blatant effort to boost Democratic candidates at the polls.

Misguided Environmentalism Is the Root Cause of Devastating California Wildfires

 

thomas-fireCalifornia is in the midst of battling some of the worst wildfires in the state’s history, which have resulted in the wholesale decimation of forests, extensive destruction of property, and massive disruption of people’s lives.

Governor Jerry Brown recently characterized the dire situation by stating that these types of fires “could happen every year or every few years” and that Californians are simply “facing a new reality.”

A new reality? Hardly comforting words from the Golden State’s chronic political presence.

Certainly the “new reality” warrants a deeper investigation into what factors have been contributing to the escalation and what steps could be taken to mitigate and/or prevent future catastrophic events.

The fact of the matter is there has been a decided increase in unusually devastating fires over the last few decades. The wildfires that are occurring today are twice as large as they were forty years ago, and the fires themselves are much bigger, significantly more powerful, and consequently more dangerous.

The left claims that the mega fires are happening as a result of global warming. However, according to a recent Reason Foundation study, changes in climate cannot adequately account for the “pattern of fires observed over the past century.”

The United States Forest Service (USFS) is the agency responsible for managing the nation’s wilderness areas, which constitute almost two-thirds of U.S. forests. The USFS once had a great deal of success in mitigating the risk of major fires in the early part of the last century. Over the past few decades, though, forest management policy has become overly centralized and increasingly bureaucratic, while also presenting a growing detriment to public safety.

During the 1970s, after legislation was passed that claimed to protect the ecosystem, the USFS altered its policies in a manner that would have extremely serious consequences for those parts of the country that are concerned about wildfire hazards, particularly the Western part of the nation.

Decades of politicians employing central planning while pandering to environmentalist groups have resulted in overgrowth in the nation’s forests. Methods that had worked to lower fire danger were abandoned, and the USFS spent appreciably more money for significantly fewer results as it used its resources for questionable environmental practices.

Excess fuel in the form of overly dense wilderness areas became a mega fire hazard that created a danger to the public and to regional economies. Additionally, severe limitations on the harvesting of timber on federal land created dangerous conditions in forests that led directly to the massive fires of late. If the logging industry had been permitted to clear more wilderness areas, the fire threat would have been dramatically reduced.

The public needs to be alerted to the fact that when forests are too dense they become susceptible to the kind of explosive infernos that actually end up harming the ecosystem, killing wildlife and destroying habitats. Logging, controlled burns, and natural low-intensity wildfires not only assist in making mega fires less likely but contribute to the creation of healthier ecosystems as well.

Removing the wood fuels in naturally dry forests helps to greatly reduce the probability of high intensity fires while assisting the environment. It is imperative that the excess growth caused by decades of bad policy be removed. Dry forests, which were historically cleared by frequent, low-intensity fires, may need the careful implementation of controlled burns to protect the life and property of adjacent communities.

Republican leaders in Congress, who have been working along with the Trump administration, are attempting to reform the legal landscape that is plaguing America’s national forests. The congressional members are seeking to increase logging in order to thin out the overly dense and dangerous forest conditions that now exist.

In November the House passed legislation called the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017 in order to allow salvage logging and other forms of tree cutting on federal properties.

House Speaker Paul Ryan indicated that the bill was necessary to protect the nation’s federal forests “from the kind of devastation that California experienced.”

The bill would remove draconian environmental restrictions that have dramatically curtailed timber harvests on federal lands. The legislation is currently awaiting action in the Senate.

A Timeline of Treachery

clinton-russia-ties-bill-hillary-sold-out-us-interests-putin-regime

2004

Frank Giustra of Canada establishes a firm called UrAsia Energy Ltd. to invest in uranium mining.

2005

At a fundraiser that Giustra holds at his Vancouver home, he meets Bill Clinton.

Giustra’s UrAsia company sends engineers to Kazakhstan, which is ruled by a regime that controls approximately 20 percent of the worldwide uranium supply.

Giustra takes Bill Clinton aboard his private jet to ostensibly tour several nations for Clinton Foundation work: Destination, Kazakhstan. Giustra seeks a business relationship with the Kazakhstan-owned uranium company. He and Bill Clinton dine with the authoritarian dictator of the uranium-rich country.

Giustra’s UrAsia company strikes a $450 million deal with the state-owned Kazakhstan company. UrAsia becomes a top-tier uranium producer overnight.

A former opposition party leader, who planned to publish documents indicating government corruption in Kazakhstan, is found dead from four gunshot wounds, three in the chest and one in the head. The Kazakhstan government rules the death a suicide.

2006

Giustra makes a $31 million donation to the Clinton Foundation, which is not revealed until December of the following year.

Giustra co-produces a celebrity-filled 60th birthday bash for Bill Clinton, an event that eventually raises $21 million for the Clinton Foundation.

2007

Uranium One, a South African mining company, merges with UrAsia in a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which maintains the Uranium One name, is controlled by UrAsia investors, including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who becomes chairman, and Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal is estimated at approximately $45 million. Giustra sells his stake the same year.

2008

Giustra donates $31 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Giustra holds a fundraiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, to which he pledges $100 million. The event, which is held in Toronto, includes performances by Elton John and Shakira as well as appearances by celebrities Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and Robin Williams. The event generates $16 million in pledges.

2009

While Barack Obama assumes the presidency, the FBI begins to investigate Russia’s criminal activity in relation to U.S. uranium. Prior to Hillary Clinton assuming her new secretary of state position, the White House requires that she sign a memorandum obligating the Clinton Foundation to publicly disclose all contributors.

Telfer, Chairman of Uranium One, gives $1 million to the Clinton Foundation; this is the same year that his company appeals to the American Embassy to help keep its mines in Kazakhstan.

Moukhtar Dzhakishev, head of the Kazakhstan-owned uranium company, is arrested for illegally selling mining rights to foreign companies, including some rights owned by Uranium One. American diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks indicate concerns that Dzhakishev’s arrest is part of a Russian power play for control of Kazakhstan uranium assets.

A Russian entity gets a 17 percent ownership interest in Uranium One.

The FBI allows an American businessman to make kickback payments at the direction of Vadim Mikerin, Russia’s overseer of Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the U.S.

The FBI investigation uncovers proof that, between 2009 and 2012, Mikerin engaged in bribery and blackmail to compromise U.S. contractors in the nuclear industry.

2010

Telfer, Chairman of Uranium One, gives $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation using his family charity; this in the same year that Russians sought majority control.

Uranium One asks the American Embassy in Kazakhstan to take up its cause with Kazakhstan officials. The American Embassy ultimately reports this information to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

A Russian entity seeks majority ownership of Uranium One. Since Uranium One owns mining interests in the United States, it is required that the transaction be approved by the Hillary Clinton-led State Department.

Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a one-hour speech in Moscow. The money comes from a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin.

A Russian entity obtains approval from the U.S. to acquire a majority ownership interest in Uranium One.

2011

Telfer, Chairman of Uranium One, gives $600,000 to the Clinton Foundation using his family charity.

2012

President Obama is caught on a hot microphone in a private conversation in Seoul, South Korea, telling outgoing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that Vladimir Putin should give him more “space,” and that after his election he would “have more flexibility.”

Telfer, Chairman of Uranium One, gives $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation using his family charity.

(Over a span of years, Telfer’s charity has contributed millions to the Clinton Foundation. The contributions are not publicly disclosed, despite the agreement Hillary Clinton had made with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.)

2013

A Russian entity gets 100% control of Uranium One, a company with uranium-mining stakes that now stretch from Central Asia to the American West. The company is then taken private. The deal makes the Russian entity one of the world’s largest uranium producers and gives Russia control of much of the global uranium supply chain, including 20 percent of U.S. uranium.

Summary

Investigative reporting by John Solomon at The Hill and Sara Carter at Circa have uncovered a sordid tale worthy of the best Hollywood screenwriters; a saga involving blackmail, corruption, and bribery conducted by the mainstream media’s favorite scoundrels, the Russians.

Details have emerged of a story involving a multi-year investigation, conducted by the FBI, into criminality and money laundering emanating from Russian entities. The Russian entities were attempting to strengthen Russia’s nuclear weaponry by obtaining access to U.S. uranium.

The FBI investigation took place when the Obama administration was in power.

Former President Bill Clinton was paid an extraordinary amount of money as a speaking fee while his wife, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, approved the uranium deal for the Russians.

Millions of dollars flowed into the Clinton Foundation from parties related to the Russia-uranium deal during this same time period. Hillary failed to disclose the monies received, despite her pledge to do so.

The FBI assembled proof dating back to 2009 that Russian operatives were trying to get their hands on U.S. uranium, and they were doing so using criminal methods. The FBI knew that several individuals, who were also major donors to the Clinton Foundation, created a company that they sold to the Russians.

The sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Uranium is considered a strategic asset, with a serious impact on national security.

A sale of this type had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of U.S. government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the Hillary Clinton-led State Department.

The Obama administration had evidence that Russia was involved in a bribery and extortion scheme, which started in 2009, but the information was kept from the public until October 2017.

Some familiar names are involved in the Russia-uranium saga, including the following:

— Robert Mueller was the FBI Director during the multi-year investigation that assembled critical information on Russia and uranium. Mueller is now the special counsel investigating the so-called Russia collusion matter.

— The multi-year investigation was headed up by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who is now Deputy Attorney General, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who is now the Deputy FBI Director.

— Mikerin, the Russian operative, entered into what appears to be a sweetheart plea agreement with prosecutors in August 2015, a plea agreement co-signed by Rosenstein and head of
the Obama Department of Justice Fraud Section Andrew Weissmann, now one of the top prosecutors in Special Counsel Mueller’s office.

— After Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russian meddling case, Obama appointee Rosenstein is the same person who appointed Mueller as special counsel.

Reportedly, no details of what was an active FBI criminal investigation were given to Congress at the time of the Russia uranium deal.