Total Pageviews

Sunday, July 24, 2016

GMO Programming

This information comes from Jim Stone. He is a researcher who finds the oddest things, and the following is no exception.

I would implore all of you reading this to pass on this information. I don't bloody care if you send them my way, as long as you let them know.

I have been saying it for years - GMO foods are for getting everyone "vaccinated"

There is a good reason why Russia has firmly said no to GMO. And the reason is that once the food is GMO, it will do whatever the genetic programmer wants to the people who eat it. And that is too much to trust anyone with in this day and age. The article to the left is an old one (posted below). There are many such articles, but many of them cannot be found thanks to Google, and an agenda.

They have experimented with getting corn to naturally grow antibiotics, and many other medications, including Prozac and other antidepressants and mind control drugs. Corn is not the only one; bananas were also used in early experiments for vaccinating people, as have many other food crops.
So if you think you are going to be able to avoid developing autism or some other vaccine related disorder just because you avoided getting shots, think again, they are working overtime to make the very food you need to survive your worst possible enemy. No wonder why they banned GMO labeling in the U.S. 
Do you think there might be an agenda?
Your vote for Hillary will ensure that ALL children will get their shots, and that your food will continue to be "improved by scientists". If you want "progress" to continue along the same path that has already caused serious destruction of the nation, there is no choice better than Hillary, she will accomplish the agenda.
Trump had already declared that he's against mandatory vaccinations, and presented evidence of damaged families at the RNC Convention. Do you think that GMOs weren't mentioned, as well?

Here's the embedded link:

Vaccine: Coming to a farm stand near you

Can diseases be warded off by eating GMO corn? Scientists are working to find out.ROBIN SHREEVESMay 7, 2009, 10:44 a.m.
How about a little vaccine with your corn on the cob? I’m wondering if there is going to be any room left for actual corn in corn once scientists get done adding pesticides, fertilizers and now possibly vaccines to the genetic makeup of corn.

Meat & Poultry (you need to sign in to see article but registration is free) reports that researchers at Iowa State University are putting vaccine into corn. The goal is to put the vaccine into the corn that the pigs will eat to help stop diseases like swine flu from happening.
“We're trying to figure out which genes from the swine influenza virus to incorporate into corn so those genes, when expressed, would produce protein," said Hank Harris, professor in animal science and one of the researchers on the project. "When the pig consumes that corn, it would serve as a vaccine."
The goal, if things go well, is to have this vaccinated corn available in 5-7 years. Tests need to be done to make sure that the vaccines will work when given to the pigs orally through the corn.
Pigs aren’t the only ones who could “benefit” from this genetically altered corn.
According to the researchers, the corn vaccine would also work in humans when they eat corn or even corn flakes, corn chips, tortillas or anything that contains corn, Harris said.
I’m not to comfortable with this. Will consumers need to fight for “vaccinated corn-free” labels to be put on products that aren’t made from this type of corn, the way they have for the “rBST-free” label on dairy products? Or, if it comes to fruition, will products be unlabled and consumers unaware?

Does this concern anyone else? 
It concerns the bloody hell out of me.

You see, I haven't forgotten about one of Monsanto's signature patents: TERMINATOR GENES.

From what we currently know, the terminator genes are in Monsanto's seeds to prevent farmers from simply replanting crops and not having to yet another season's worth of seeds.

But...what if the process isn't as passive as we're supposed to believe?

What if Monsanto can REMOTELY TRIGGER the process?

Furthermore, what if Monsanto can turn certain genes ON?

If you've seen Kingsmen: Secret Service, you'll absolutely understand as to what I mean, without explanation.

Also, refer to Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, especially Jonathan Crane, the Scarecrow, and his compounds. Separately, the compounds don't caused any harm; mixed together, all sorts of untold harm could befall one.

JS comments that the article isn't recent.

Think about that.

Let me offer some advice. Not too long from now, when you're shopping for foods, you will soon see some of your familiar products adorned with the QR code to check for the presence of GMOs. It's almost a certainty that if the product didn't formerly have said code, that the product absolutely contains GMOs. If it's a product you trust, buy it, take it home, and do an exhaustive search as to the presence of GMOs. I'm fairly certain that you can return most items, if you do so in a timely fashion.

Try to stay cool - only two more days of the heat wave!

Saturday, July 23, 2016

AUTISM EXPLAINED / Glyphosate effects on crops, soils, animals & consumers

Published on Aug 13, 2014 AUTISM EXPLAINED: Synergistic Poisoning from Aluminum and Glyphosate. This video is a must watch for everyone. Dr. Stephanie Seneff, Senior Research Scientist at MIT, opens our eyes to the synergistic role of aluminum and glyphosate in autism. Glyphosate is the so-called active ingredient in Monsanto's ubiquitous and toxic herbicidal concoction Roundup. She also discusses glyphosate's role in diabetes, Alzheimer's, digestive system disorders, infertility and birth defects. STOP MONSANTO. BOYCOTT ROUNDUP. BOYCOTT GMOs. Published on Mar 5, 2012 Dr. Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University, presented "Glyphosate effects on crops, soils, animals & consumers"

Dr. Don Huber: GMOs and Glyphosate and Their Threat to Humanity

Published on Apr 17, 2014 Food Integrity Now interviewed Dr. Don Huber, Professor Emeritus, Plant Pathology, Purdue University on the effects of GMOs and Glyphosate on human health.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Clinton Backs Monsanto’s Case That to Be Anti Monsanto Is to Be Pro Global-Warming (Re-Post from Nation of Change)

Good morning, dear readers!

Here I am again. I believe I lost a couple of you, and I would have to surmise that you were either:

  • violently anti-Trump, or
  • vehemently pro-Hillary
I want you to know I don't make such decisions lightly. We are the last nation to have a female President/executive. It's sort of a sad statement...that being said; I don't believe that Hillary deserves that distinction.

I'm pretty sure I don't need to rehash my enabling criminals argument yet again, but here it is:

Speaking of that ill-advised decision - I've made this point before, but I think it bears repeating:
You like in a multiple dwelling. It doesn't have to be an apartment building, but someplace where your doors are adjacent to each other. You work in the morning, and you come home, take care of things and retire for the next day of work. 
Your neighbor parties all day and all night. You've never seen them leave to go to work; of course, it's none of your business.
One morning, you happen to wake up early, and, being so close to the time you need to arise, you just start getting ready early. You leave a bit earlier than you usually do, and when you step out of your door, you see the weirdest thing. 
There is a huge stack of bills in front of your neighbor's door.
Well, it doesn't belong to you, so you leave...but the thought nags at you all day.
You arrive at home, and you try to put the thought out of your mind. You can't - the thought eats at you all night, and once again, you wake up early.
This time, the first thing you do is to check for the aforementioned money.
Just like before, there is a stack of money in front of your neighbor's door.
This time, you grab about a third of the stack, and then you return to your apartment, and get ready for work.
Of course, now you're dreading the inevitable phone call.
It never comes.
The whole way home, you're imagining the note that you know will be left upon your door.
You arrive home...and there is no note.
You open your envelope. No voicemail. Nothing.
You breathe a sigh of relief.
You eventually go to sleep...and now you wake up early with a purpose.
This time, you go to the neighbor's door, and you take half of the money.
The next day, you do it again.
The following day...and so on, and so on...
The neighbor never says a bad word to you; never shoots you accusing looks; it seems that they are totally oblivious as to your theft.
If you can steal this money, without repercussion...why would you STOP?!?

When you allow criminals to escape punishment, you embolden them to commit further crimes.

If you want to see a non-violent example of this, this weekend, watch Inside Job, Margin Call and The Big Short. It seems the only people to ever be indicted were:

  • Ivan Boesky (who parked money with his ex-wife; once he finished his sentence, he sued her for the funds, citing, "he can't live as a poor man". He got those funds, IIRC);
  • Michael Milken
  • Bernard Madoff
  • Martha Stewart (and that was a SCAM from beginning to end)

The murder of JFK and the inaction that followed set the stage for the murders of RFK (which had been captured on film by Jamie Scott Enyart, performed by Thane Eugene Caesar), MLK (the shirt Jesse Jackson had on was dabbled in chicken blood!) and Malcolm X, among others.

So...why have I felt the need to post again today?

Read this:

Clinton Backs Monsanto’s Case That to Be Anti Monsanto Is to Be Pro Global-Warming

| Blog Post
“There is no comparison between the actual scientific consensus that global warming is real and man-made, and the phony ‘scientific’ ‘consensus’ that GMOs are safe.”
On June 27th, I reported Hillary Clinton’s having privately told GMO industry lobbyists, on 25 June 2014, that the federal government should subsidize GMO firms in order to enable them to buy “insurance against risk,” and that without such federal subsidies, “this [insurance] is going to be an increasing challenge” for the industry to afford. I also reported that, in an interview she did immediately afterward with the GMO industry’s lobbying organization’s (the Biotechnology Industry Organization’s, or BIO’s) head, she compared the opponents of GMOs to the opponents of action in response to global warming; she said, in effect, that both environmental groups are ignoramuses who don’t know what scientists are saying about both the ‘safety’ of GMOs and the dangers of global warming.
At the time when I wrote this news report (it was still news, even a year after the speech was given), the 15 June 2016 article in FORTUNE magazine, “Can Monsanto Save the Planet?”hadn’t yet come to my attention, but it importantly supplements the news that I had just reported, and so I now supplement the article I previously wrote on this. The FORTUNE article argued that Monsanto is the world’s champion of environmentalism, by enabling the planet to provide food to an expanding population even as the planet will be getting hotter and hotter. It said that Monsanto, and other GMO firms, are the only hope for a planet that’s burning up. The FORTUNE article also assumed, as did Hillary Clinton’s presentation to GMO lobbyists and to their chief, the equal validity of the 97% of global warming scientists who believe that human-caused global warming is real, and of the GMO-corporate-funded bio-‘scientists’ who allege that GMOs have been proven to be safe long-term for human consumption and for the environment.
As regards the claim that the GMO-corporate funded ‘research’ proving GMOs to be safe is valid, there are many independently funded studies that have found GMOs not to be safe, and also not to be environmentally friendly. Funding of independent research on the question is sparse, but I tracked down the claimed main source of the funding of that meta-study (study of studies), and found it to be the Isvara Foundation, which seems to me likely to be independent of the GMO producers. Here is a summary of what that meta-study found: It found, for example, that, “A review that is claimed by pro-GMO lobbyists to show that 1,700 studies show GM foods are safe, in fact, shows nothing of the sort. Instead, many of the 1,700 studies cited show evidence of risk. The review also excludes or glosses over important scientific controversies over GMO safety issues. (p. 102),” and, “A review purportedly showing that GM foods are safe on the basis of long-term animal studies, in fact, shows evidence of risk and uses unscientific double standards to reach a conclusion that is not justified by the data. (p. 161).”
There is no comparison between the actual scientific consensus that global warming is real and man-made, and the phony ‘scientific’ ‘consensus’ that GMOs are safe. (And there’s more on that, and more.) Hillary Clinton and the lobbyists know this, they can’t be so stupid as not to know, but they are paid to lie about it. The industry pays both them and their politicians (such as Clinton) to do this. (And Clinton wants to go even farther and have taxpayers help to fund the GMO firms, thus to subsidize those firms’ stockholders.)
Is it merely by coincidence that the puff-piece for the GMO industry (in the person of its main corporation, Monsanto) inFORTUNE magazine, and the secret statements that Hillary Clinton made at one of her $225,000+ speeches to (and interviews with) lobbying organizations, are almost carbon copies of each other?
You’ll have to decide that for yourself. But other voters won’t even be able to, because they read the standard ’news’ media, which hide such facts. (For example, the 27 June news report I did was rejected by virtually all newsmedia.) So, please pass along to other voters this news report, which is the third report that I’ve done about the only one of Hillary Clinton’s 91 speeches to lobbying organizations and to international corporations, which managed to have leaked out from behind her embargo against making public any of her corporate-funded speeches, for which she has received in total more than $21 million paid to her own account, not including any additional payments to her political campaign. Voters might think that Ms. Clinton ‘believes’ one way about an issue, when in fact, she has actually been bought to impose as the future U.S. President the exact opposite. Her record shows: in public office, she does what her backers want, not what her voters might prefer. Ever since at least 1993, when she did what the HMO industry bought the Clintons to do in drawing up their healthcare plan (which plan the health insurers opposed strongly and successfully defeated), Hillary and Bill have both been on the take, being liberals or even ‘progressives’, who believe that their actual constituency is their paymasters — not their voters. They are similar to Barack Obama in this regard, no different — and no different from George W. Bush, and his father. (As regards Trump, he has no record at all in public office, so we can’t yet really know.)
And that’s why she continues to hide the transcripts and videos of her 91 corporate-paid speeches. But fortunately, the one speech she made to the GMO-producers, slipped away from her total control.
And the article in FORTUNE provides some evidence that the propaganda-campaign for the GMO industry is coordinated by their lobbying organization, the BIO, so that both one of their politicians, and one of their magazines, are singing the same song, even if different lyrics from it.
Duh...what good is posting this without the pertinent data? Here we go:

Why Hillary Clinton’s Paid Speeches Are Relevant

Posted on  by Eric Zuesse.
Eric Zuesse, originally posted at
On the fake-‘progressive’ (actually conservative-Democratic-Party) website that’s run by a longtime CIA asset Markos Moulitsas, “Daily Kos,” there was posted on February 24th an article by “motocat”, headlined, “I have personally been to a closed door corporate Clinton speech. This is what I experienced.” This person, he or she, didn’t indicate what the speech said, other than “how disappointing the whole thing was,” and, that it was a speech by Bill Clinton, not Hillary Clinton, and “It made me feel sort of sad to see how old and feeble he looked. The last time I had seen Bill speak was when he was running for his first term as President. He looked like a different man.”
Then the author went into speculation about what might be in Hillary Clinton’s speeches:
Everyone wondering what Hillary possibly could have said in 30 minutes that was worth 250K is missing the point. These people are celebrities. They are booked to deliver paid speeches, because it benefits those who book them in some way. You might as well ask what Kanye West could possibly say in 45 minutes at Madison Square Garden that would be worth 250K to the promoter.
I have no doubt that Hillary does not want to release the transcripts of those speeches because those pouring through them for a gotcha news story or to prove a point, will surely find praise for the institutions she was speaking on behalf of. In this political climate, that would be a bad news cycle for her. I also have no doubt that she also showered glowing praise on the countless colleges whose commission speeches she spoke at, as well as praised the accomplishments of whatever non-profit she spoke on behalf of. Does anyone really think her speech to the US Green building council in 2013 was fair and balanced about negative aspects of what the Green building council has done? No. These are performances for a purpose.
Personally, I am surprised she just doesn’t come out and say the following.
For many years I worked as a paid speaker. I gave speeches to many different organizations in many different industries, who all paid me very well. It was my job, and part of my job was to be inspiring, encouraging, and flattering to those people in the audience and those who paid me.’
I’m not sure what people expect to find in these corporate event speeches she gave dozens of throughout the year. Backroom promises? Revelations about how she plans to screw the middle class? Confessions of cardinal sins? No company or speaker would be so stupid as to include that sort of thing in a corporate event speech anyway.
There are many important issues to be focusing on right now in this race and debate, but this isn’t one of them.”
There were over a thousand reader-comments to that idiotic article, as of April 1st, and then it said: “Comments are closed on this story.” The readers who had gotten through the article and were sufficiently struck by it to enter a comment to it were generally debating each other, via comments such as “What makes the diarist think that a pubic [that person’s perhaps Freudian misspelling of ‘public’] event selling tickets has any comparison to the intimate and closed door speeches given by the Clintons to the upper echelon of high finance?” versus (responding to that one): “or the private intimate talks by Bernie and with his supporters. How doe [that person’s misspelling of ‘do’, of course] we know Bernie has not promised something.” In other words: a foolish article elicited over a thousand comments from foolish readers, at that Democratic-Party propaganda site. They’re just the Democratic Party equivalent of Rush Limbaugh’s Republican-Party fools – no different, except for the labels they give themselves.
Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches (which none of those fools knew anything about – not even the article’swriter did) are not relevant because of anything that they said (which was public to all attendees; hermeaningful comments might have been made privately to the executive who had hired her for the speech), but because the organizations that paid typically $225,000 to her, for each of them, were paying a servant, for extremely valuable services that that servant is being expected to provide to the owners and top executives of that organization if that servant becomes the U.S. President (or, in the case of her husband Bill) for valuable services that already were provided by that servant when he was a President. They’re pay-offs, for services that are anticipated, or else that have already been provided. They are not (such as the author was assuming) for “the speech.
The fools who had read that article weren’t commenting about how atrocious and stupid it was; they were debating with each other, on the basis of their ignorance and stupidity, which enabled that article to hold their interest and then to engage comments from them upon other idiots’ comments about it.
This is how enough of such self-characterizing ‘liberal’ voters become suckered into voting for a far-right (except on ‘social’ issues) candidate who is as atrocious and unqualified to serve as President as is Hillary Clinton.
However, if her speeches are relevant as prospective, and/or retrospective, pay-offs to her, then who and what are these groups that have been providing these pay-offs to her: Here’s the complete list, as it was tabulated and posted online in March by the lawyer Paul Campos (then copied without credit to him, by several others). And, as you can see, they are anything but “the countless colleges whose commission speeches she spoke at, as well as praised the accomplishments of whatever non-profit she spoke on behalf of.”
March 19, 2015 American Camping Association Atlantic City, NJ $260,000.00
March 11, 2015 eBay Inc. San Jose, CA $315,000.00
February 24, 2015 Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women Santa Clara, CA $225,500.00
January 22, 2015 Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Whistler, Canada $150,000.00
January 21, 2015 tinePublic Inc. Winnipeg, Canada $262,000.00
January 21, 2015 tinePublic Inc. Saskatoon, Canada $262,500.00
December 4, 2014 Massachusetts Conference for Women Boston, MA $205,500.00
October 14, 2014 San Francisco, CA $225,500.00
October 14, 2014 Qualcomm Incorporated San Diego, CA $335,000.00
October 13, 2014 Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers Colorado Springs, CO $225,500.00
October 8, 2014 Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) Chicago, IL $265,000.00
October 7, 2014 Deutsche Bank AG New York, NY $280,000.00
October 6, 2014 Canada 2020 Ottawa, Canada $215,500.00
October 2, 2014 Commercial Real Estate Women Network Miami Beach, FL $225,500.00
September 15, 2014 Cardiovascular Research Foundation Washington, DC $275,000.00
September 4, 2014 Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP San Diego, CA $225,500.00
August 28, 2014 Nexenta System, Inc. San Francisco, CA $300,000.00
August 28, 2014 Cisco Las Vegas, NV $325,000.00
July 29, 2014 Corning, Inc. Corning, NY $225,500.00
July 26, 2014 Ameriprise Boston, MA $225,500.00
July 22, 2014 Knewton, Inc. San Francisco, CA $225,500.00
June 26, 2014 GTCR Chicago, IL $280,000.00
June 25, 2014 Biotechnology Industry Organization San Diego, CA $335,000.00
June 25, 2014 Innovation Arts and Entertainment San Francisco, CA $150,000.00
June 20, 2014 Innovation Arts and Entertainment Austin, TX $150,000.00
June 18, 2014 tinePublic Inc. Toronto, Canada $150,000.00
June 18, 2014 tinePublic Inc. Edmonton, Canada $100,000.00
June 10, 2014 United Fresh Produce Association Chicago, IL $225,000.00
June 2, 2014 International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association Denver, CO $225,500.00
June 2, 2014 Let’s Talk Entertainment Denver, CO $265,000.00
May 6, 2014 National Council for Behavorial Healthcare Washington, DC $225,500.00
April 11, 2014 California Medical Association (via Satellite) San Diego, CA $100,000.00
April 10, 2014 Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. Las Vegas, NV $225,500.00
April 10, 2014 Let’s Talk Entertainment San Jose, CA $265,000.00
April 8, 2014 Marketo, Inc. San Francisco, CA $225,500.00
April 8, 2014 World Affairs Council Portland, OR $250,500.00
March 24, 2014 Academic Partnerships Dallas, TX $225,500.00
March 18, 2014 Xerox Corporation New York, NY $225,000.00
March 18, 2014 Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal Montreal, Canada $275,000.00
March 13, 2014 Pharmaceutical Care Management Association Orlando, FL $225,500.00
March 13, 2014 Drug Chemical and Associated Technologies New York, NY $250,000.00
March 6, 2014 tinePublic Inc. Calgary, Canada $225,500.00
March 5, 2014 The Vancouver Board of Trade Vancouver, Canada $275,500.00
March 4, 2014 Association of Corporate Counsel – Southern California Los Angeles, CA $225,500.00
February 27, 2014 A&E Television Networks New York, NY $280,000.00
February 26, 2014 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society Orlando, FL $225,500.00
February 17, 2014 Novo Nordisk A/S Mexico City, Mexico $125,000.00
February 6, 2014 Las Vegas, NV $225,500.00
January 27, 2014 National Automobile Dealers Association New Orleans, LA $325,500.00
January 27, 2014 Premier Health Alliance Miami, FL $225,500.00
January 6, 2014 GE Boca Raton, FL $225,500.00
November 21, 2013 U.S. Green Building Council Philadelphia, PA $225,000.00
November 18, 2013 CME Group Naples, FL $225,000.00
November 18, 2013 Press Ganey Orlando, FL $225,000.00
November 14, 2013 CB Richard Ellis, Inc. New York, NY $250,000.00
November 13, 2013 Mediacorp Canada, Inc. Toronto, Canada $225,000.00
November 9, 2013 National Association of Realtors San Francisco, CA $225,000.00
November 7, 2013 Golden Tree Asset Management New York, NY $275,000.00
November 6, 2013 Beaumont Health System Troy, MI $305,000.00
November 4, 2013 Mase Productions, Inc. Orlando, FL $225,000.00
November 4, 2013 London Drugs, Ltd. Mississauga, ON $225,000.00
October 29, 2013 The Goldman Sachs Group Tuscon, AZ $225,000.00
October 28, 2013 Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago $400,000.00
October 27, 2013 Beth El Synagogue Minneapolis, MN $225,000.00
October 24, 2013 Accenture New York, NY $225,000.00
October 24, 2013 The Goldman Sachs Group New York, NY $225,000.00
October 23, 2013 SAP Global Marketing, Inc. New York, NY $225,000.00
October 15, 2013 National Association of Convenience Stores Atlanta, GA $265,000.00
October 4, 2013 Long Island Association Long Island, NY $225,000.00
September 19, 2013 American Society of Travel Agents, Inc. Miami, FL $225,000.00
September 18, 2013 American Society for Clinical Pathology Chicago, IL $225,000.00
August 12, 2013 National Association of Chain Drug Stores Las Vegas, NV $225,000.00
August 7, 2013 Global Business Travel Association San Diego, CA $225,000.00
July 11, 2013 UBS Wealth Management New York, NY $225,000.00
June 24, 2013 American Jewish University University City, CA $225,000.00
June 24, 2013 Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Company, LP Palos Verdes, CA $225,000.00
June 20, 2013 Boston Consulting Group, Inc. Boston, MA $225,000.00
June 20, 2013 Let’s Talk Entertainment, Inc. Toronto, Canada $250,000.00
June 17, 2013 Economic Club of Grand Rapids Grand Rapids, MI $225,000.00
June 16, 2013 Society for Human Resource Management Chicago, IL $285,000.00
June 6, 2013 Spencer Stuart New York, NY $225,000.00
June 4, 2013 The Goldman Sachs Group Palmetto Bluffs, SC $225,000.00
May 29, 2013 Sanford C. Bernstein and Co., LLC New York, NY $225,000.00
May 21, 2013 Verizon Communications, Inc. Washington, DC $225,000.00
May 16, 2013 Itau BBA USA Securities New York, NY $225,000.00
May 14, 2013 Apollo Management Holdings, LP New York, NY $225,000.00
May 8, 2013 Gap, Inc. San Francisco, CA $225,000.00
April 30, 2013 Fidelity Investments Naples, FL $225,000.00
April 24, 2013 Deutsche Bank Washington, DC $225,000.00
April 24, 2013 National Multi Housing Council Dallas, TX $225,000.00
April 18, 2013 Morgan Stanley Washington, DC $225,000.00
None of the 91 speeches was to a college, nor to any other such type of organization.
At zerohedge, the payments for all the speeches were totaled to: $21,667,000.
Here are some of the other routes through which she is also preparing for her ultimate retirement (and her and Bill’s bequest to daughter Chelsea): arms dealsoil and gas (and here), and donors.
Anyone who would presume that Hillary Clinton gets paid those types of fees for “her speeches,” because she’s a “celebrity,” needs to go back to elementary school. (But, of course, since the aristocracy are in control of the country, the elementary schools aren’t even teaching about such matters – nor are the high schools, which should be.)
In other words: her paid speeches are just a part of the legal graft she’s in politics for. “You might as well ask what Kanye West could possibly say in 45 minutes at Madison Square Garden that would be worth 250K to the promoter.” No, it’s not like that, at all.
Hillary Clinton is no Kanye West. She makes her money in a very different way. Serving a far wealthier clientele. What she serves them, is us.
After all: how else would you get a wealth-distribution that’s like this?
It requires lots of lies, and lots of suckers for them, to make them believe in “the system.”
To produce the meat, shepherds are needed; and people such as Hillary Clinton are specialized in doingthat type of job.
Hello, meat; this is the farm.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity