George Clooney: Enemy of Democracy-The Clooneys “Power” Couple

From George Clooney: Enemy of Democracy

Chapter 10:  The Clooneys—“Power” Couple

“Defender of terrorists, human rights violators, and people who hate the west” obviously could not be used to sell Amal to the masses, so in August of 2013 Amal appeared on the pop culture scene as Britain’s “hottest woman barrister”. Based on what criteria is a amal-sexisest-barrister-picmystery due to a lack of any professional accomplishments and what anyone knew of her at the time; however, it pushed her into the mainstream, and the terms “hottest barrister” and “human rights attorney” became her two PR tags. The Clooney PR story stated that just after this announcement, George met Amal and pursued her with a vengeance. However, the PR events of the “greatest love story of all time” do not match what appears to be reality. It has been noted that Clooney knew of her family long before this time. Initially it was reported that the two had dinner in May of 2013 in London, but those reports have disappeared off the internet. It can, however, be proven that they were in London at the same time. Clooney, who was in England filming “The Monuments Men” dined at Loulou’s in London on May 26th with “friends” including former flame Monika Jakisic, who, it seems, was used as a red herring to distract from the Amal/George pairing. That same week, Amal organized the launch for Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen’s, both Soros co-horts on the

Council for Foreign Relations, book “The New Digital Age” at the same Loulou’s in London two nights later on May 28th. September, however, was given as the “official” date to the public when they supposedly met at some “humanitarian” function. Keep in mind how this rhetoric rings similar to the Weiner/Abedin courting story as in “she “did the unthinkable,” an insider says, and “walked away from the group George was with…. he asked her out on a date, she declined once again. “He was absolutely shocked,” the insider says. The Daily Mail‘s sources say she ultimately turned down two dates. But Clooney eventually convinced her to go out with him”. Much like the Weiner/Abedin “love story”, the “handsome” playboy “met his match”. Like Weiner, Clooney supposedly pursued her and, like Huma, Amal supposedly turned him down. Both couples were married in a relatively short time after their engagements by prominent progressive politicians. Both brides wore Oscar De La Renta lace gowns. All have the same political ideologies and puppet masters. All coincidence….

Ethically Mined Diamond

In April of 2014, the engagement announcement as well as pictures of Amal flaunting the almost $1 million “ethically mined diamond” hit the press.  Great “humanitarians” they are, this would seem appropriate, but it was odd how much of a huge part the “ethically mined” angle of the ring took regarding the PR thereafter.  There could be a reason for that. Clooney’s abuse of the term “humanitarian” continued in 2014 when Project Enough


released a report on war lordism and the mines of the Congo. The report indicated that due to the economic pressure of a provision of the US Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act, control over the mines had passed out of the hands of the warlords and local militias.  This occurred via a provision that required any company using “conflict materials’ to register with the US Securities and Exchange Commission and publish their supply chain to shame them into using materials from which warlords and militias would not benefit thus loosening their control over the locals in the area.  A theoretically noble request, this ‘humanitarian” cause, as with many of the others with which Clooney is affiliated, actually hurts the locals more than helps, while the rich get richer.

The villagers in the Congo call this provision “Obama’s Law” which set off a chain of events that has propelled millions of miners and their families deeper into poverty.  As Congo began to comply with the law, its government starting shutting down the mining industry. Then, a process was launched to certify the country’s minerals as conflict-free. But the process unfolded extremely slowly, marred by a “lack of political will, corruption and bureaucratic and logistical delays”. That led foreign companies to avoid buying the minerals, which has driven down prices. Many miners are forced to find other ways to survive, including by joining armed groups. Meanwhile, the militias remain potent threats.  ‘The intention of the law was good, but in practice, it was not well thought-out,’ said Eric Kajemba, director of the Observatory for Governance and Peace, a regional nonprofit group. ‘This is a country where the government is absent in many areas, plagued by years of war and bad governance, where the economic tissue has been destroyed. The American lawmakers didn’t appear to take this into consideration’.” Sounds an awful lot‘Mr.-President-why-so-silent’-re-Congo-genocide-graphiclike Clooney’s involvement in the Sudan, both of which he attempted to address in an op-ed in June of that year, failing miserably when he pushed to “fair share” more taxpayer wealth to “Africa” via the UN when he stated the, “US government must give the Treasury Department the resources it needs to follow the money enabling mass atrocities and enforce sanctions against complicit actors” but later he admitted “Over the last decade, US taxpayers have contributed billions of dollars to Sudan for humanitarian Band-Aids and for peacekeepers in a land where there is no peace”. Billions? And nothing has changed there? So where did all that money go? And he wants more for the Sudan AND Congo? Why not use his money? Because the point is creating legislation to redistribute the world’s wealth from the 99% to the 1%, and, if that fails, forcing it, not anything remotely related to “human rights” or being “humanitarian”.


The initial intent of this Congo mining expedition involved creating legislation to undermine U.S. sovereignty by weakening the first amendment,. So far, it has not worked.  On August 18, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reaffirmed that “both Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act and its implementing Conflict Minerals Rule issued by the SEC violate the First Amendment to the extent that they require issuers to state on their website and to report to the SEC that their products have “not been found to be ‘DRC conflict free’.” The court gave two reasons for this decision:

“First, even assuming that the government’s interest in alleviating the humanitarian crisis in the DRC is sufficient under the AMIdecision, the effectiveness of the government’s chosen means to achieve that end is speculative and conjectural, falling far short of that required under the First Amendment to compel speech. No congressional hearings were held on the likely impact of Section 1502 prior to its passing, and post-enactment hearings offered mixed evidence of the Rule’s effectiveness. Second, for Zauderer to apply, the compelled disclosures must be of “purely factual and uncontroversial information” about the product or service being offered. The required disclosures failed this requirement.”

“Compel speech?”  As we will see, the Clooneys claim to support “free” speech when, in reality, they support censored “controlled” speech. This is a very early indicator of their push to control speech via legislation on an international scale.  Perhaps this is why by November, the greatest human rights attorney ever “figured out” that a 7 karat, $1 million ring might be a bit “too flashy” to wear at least in court, so she was requesting George get her a less ostentatious one.  The supposed “ethically mined” portion of her diamond which was supposed to help with George’s “humanitarian” image had been struck down in court. Of course, she still heads out in $25K outfits and with the ring on as she is papped out with movie stars and not working, so maybe she missed the memo regarding the PR narrative shift?

It should also come as no surprise that Clooney’s interest in the Ukraine became public at this time for two reasons. First off, Amal supposedly represents former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Secondly, guess who funds the Ukrainian protests? George Soros.  He told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, “I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine becameSoros Ukraineindependent of Russia. And the foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in events now”.  These “events” involve the balkanization of the Ukraine, much like Libya and the Sudan.  The information about George Soros’ involvement in Ukrainian politics was “openly voiced by Yulia Timoshenko in 2008. Timoshenko, then the country’s prime minister, said that she was attempting to minimize the effect of the global financial crisis by following George Soros’ advice.” George Soros is currently the one of top financial backers and overall supporter of the rebels in the Ukraine fighting against Putin for “democracy”…er…oil as “Ukraine has vast supplies of oil and natural gas.  Energen, a natural gas utility, could be a prime

Pinchuk Soros

developer of Ukraine’s fossil fuel reserves.  Soros owns nearly two million shares of that company.” In addition, Timoshenko has crony ties to the Clintons.  Viktor Pinchuk, steel magnate, 54, ranked by Forbes Magazine among the richest men in the world.”teamed up with ( Yulia Tymoshenko), a protégée of the feared Dnipropetrovsk governor Pavlo Lazarenko. In the mid-1990s, Pinchuk and Tymoshenko founded Commonwealth, a firm that imported much-needed natural gas from the energy-rich Central Asian states to Ukraine. But the alliance was short-lived: Tymoshenko soon ditched Pinchuk and set up an energy trading firm of her own.”  Later on, in 2004, she became prime minister to Viktor Yushcenko.  As his fortune grew, Pinchuk  bonded with the Clintons, by supporting the Clinton Global Initiative.  In 2007, Pinchuk made his first donation to the CGI in the amount of $5 million dollars. Many more followed, thus giving him access to Washington.


In 2013, Maria Danilova of Tablet mag called Pinchuk a “bridge to the west”, so it should shock no one that in December of 2013 “Mr. Democracy” Clooney recorded a video message to protect his best interests claiming to support the Ukraine’s protestors, condemning violent crackdowns on protestors, as well as the ongoing detention of jailed former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, client to his…whatever Amal was at the time. In March of 2014, just before the engagement announcement, George was seen wearing a T-shirt supporting her in January of 2014 during The Monuments Men press junket.  In February of 2014, she was released


On a purely coincidental note, it might be worth noting that in December, as well, Dan Dubiecki and Lara Alameddine’s Allegiance Theater saw Hollywood heavyweight and longtime Clooney cohort Harvey Weinstein throw some work their way with “Veronica’s Room”. Coincidence, surely.

As the marriage set up got under way, the culmination of Clooney’s African “humanitarianism” as cover for his involvement in the globalist quest to redistribute wealth the way they see fit via the “green scheme” came on July 16, 2013. Nespresso and Techonserve launched a partnership to “improve the livelihoods of smaller coffee farmers while creating a more ‘sustainable’ source of supply for Nespresso”. Clooney has been a very well paid PR rep for Nespresso for a long time. Once the South Sudan split in 2011, Nespresso swooped in to claim the rich coffee bean resources there. Nespresso realized it had an “opportunity to stamp its name on an entirely new coffee origin. In doing so it is capitalizing on novelty, quality and the feel-good aspects of investing in a good cause that happens to be backed by an international celebrity.” Translation? They will exploit thenespresso-pods-killing-environmentresources to make lots of “green”.  CEO Jean-Marc Duvoisin acknowledged, “”This is not a charitable exercise; this is business. It will depend upon farmers stepping up to the challenge and being part of a global economy, to continue delivering quality and consistent coffee.”  How much will the farmers be paid?  Not a mandated minimum wage as Clooney advocates in the United States, but a “living wage” which is, again, completely subjective language. How much is that especially compared to what Clooney and the CEOs will make?  In 2013, he earned $40 million from his Nespresso deal.  Surely he “fair shared” that with the farmers?


Also in 2013, the company convened its first “Sustainability Advisory Board, which will provide insight and recommendations to enhance Nespresso’s long-term sustainability strategy. The board is composed of experts and thought leaders in the area of sustainability, including TechnoServe President and CEO Bruce McNamer”…and George Clooney? Yes, he is on the board as a “thought leader”. The need for cynicism might not be so great if Clooney’s history of elitism and support of the 1% were not as great, that Clooney’s already been bought and paid for by Nespresso to the tune of $40 million as “ambassador”, the fact that a 20 year board member of Technoserve was George Soros’ brother Paul and that it is now known that the “pods” Clooney once championed over the “packets” back in 2006 cannot be recycled easily because they were made of both plastic and aluminium. The hypocrisy should surprise no one.


What we have here in a nutshell is cronyism from war profiteering—Clooney campaigned for South Sudan’s independence, then Nespresso, a primary financial backer of Clooney’s went in to lay claim to its resources as “sustainability” while using a Soros-backed initiative to promote it.  Nevermind, this is the same Nespresso who paid the greatest humanitarian of all time handsomely to shill their coffee while their C.E.O. declared water was not a human rightand continues to bottle water in drought stricken California.  nespresso-ceo-water-not-human-rightClooney likes to boast that the money made from one of his contracts was used to fund his initial satellite project that just so happened to keep an eye on his coffee resources in South Sudan atrocities in Sudan to be able to call out those who profit from war.  Anyone else see the irony in that statement? Yes… David Swanson from Global Research did:  “Clooney’s new organization, “The Sentry,” is part of The Enough Project, which is part of the Center for American Progress, which is a leading backer of “humanitarian” wars, and various other wars for that matter — and which is funded by the world’s top war profiteer, Lockheed Martin, and by number-two Boeing, among other war profiteers.”  Clooney supports the Soros funded “rebellions” in the Ukraine, Armenia, Libya, and the impending overthrow


of Assad.  One might conclude that wars or “conflicts” that bring forth geopolitical events like the establishment of South Sudan as an independent region which will bring quite the financial windfall to Clooney and his cronies are okay since the “correct” people profit from them.  In the meantime, not only has South Sudan fallen back into war, the real human rights atrocities are occurring unabated.  Americans were attacked and raped by soldiers , and the UN and the U.S. embassy did nothing.  Again, the Clooneys are only “humanitarians” when it is politically and financially expedient.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s