Hillary Clinton and Cookstoves

Vladimir Lenin is said to have declared that “Every woman must learn to rule the state.” But in fact he said the contrary (see 'Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?') Thus in modern politics, many pre-election pledges can be nothing, and the statements of the public figures can be misinterpreted.
But this issue can readily be discussed within a political framework, particularly in the developed capitalist countries, where the housewives are a serious percentage of the active electorate, for which there is a rationale to fight.
There is such an organization as the Global Alliance For Clean Cookstoves. It is based in Washington and is another “ecological” cover for political manipulation. Its activity is described as: "[A]  public-private partnership hosted by the UN Foundation to save lives, improve livelihoods, empower women, and protect the environment by creating a thriving global market for clean and efficient household cooking solutions. The Alliance aims to provide for 100 million households to gain access to clean and efficient cookstoves and fuels by 2020. The Alliance works with network of public, private and non-profit partners to accelerate the production, deployment, and use of clean and efficient cookstoves and fuels in developing countries.
We should take into account that the Alliance is promoting this initiative as a means to save lives, improve living conditions, women's empowerment, and fight against climate change.
The thing is that this global green business belongs to the candidate for the US presidency from the Democratic, party Hillary Clinton, as she was the honorary chairman of the Board of the Alliance leaders by chance. And this organization was founded by her family foundation in 2010, but at the beginning of 2016 it already cost US taxpayers at least $114 million, and by 2020 it is expected to spend another $225 million.
Mrs. Clinton was at the office as the Secretary of State under President Obama since January 21, 2009 to February 1, 2013, therefore, she used her official position to promote another scam of “stoves”.
The process occurred like this: On September 21st, 2010, Secretary Clinton officially launches The Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves at the annual meeting of her family foundation Clinton Global Initiative. The initiative is currently managed by the United Nations Foundation (UN), which is associated with the United Nations and has close ties with the Clinton Foundation. The US State Department, along with the Environmental Protection Agency (Lisa Jackson as the head) on the same day began to support the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, where more than $50 million from the pockets of the American taxpayer are sent. And it was only the beginning...
The Alliance partners appear all over the world, but in 2010 since its launch, “strategic partner and ally” was the Clinton Foundation.
Other partners and founders are:
-   Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH;
-   Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (Germany);
-          Norway Embassy;
-          Peru Goverment;
-          Morgan Stanley;
-          Shell Foundation;
-          SNV: Netherlands Development Organisation;
-          U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID);
-          United States Department of Energy;
-          National Institutes of Health (the USA);
-          Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the USA);
-          United States Department of State;
-          United States Environmental Protection Agency (the USA);
-          United Nations Environment Programme;
-          United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees;
-          United Nations Industrial Development Organization;
-          United Nations Environment Programme;
-          World Food Programme;
-          UNICEF;
-     World Health Organization
Bilateral and multilateral donors of the project are:
- Canada;
- Climate and Clean Air Coalition;
- Denmark;
- Finland;
- Germany;
- Malta;
- the Netherlands;
- Norway;
- Spain;
- Sweden;
- Great Britain;
- The USA;
- World Bank.
Corporate donors:
- Aetna;
- Baker & McKenzie;
- Bosch Siemens;
- Delher;
- Deutsche Bank;
- Dow Corning Corporation;
- Fuji Television Networks;
- Infosys;
- Johnson & Johnson;
- Morgan Stanley;
- Shell.
Thus a huge global network as created from a variety of corporations, banks and companies, with the support of a number of states, the objective of which is the creation and imposition of a new specific product. This product is branded in accordance with the fashion in developed countries and in the context in which it enters the developing countries' society.
In other words, there is a good foundation for a promising start-up, as the modern managers say. It is possible that the issue of the creation of environmentally friendly stoves and related products can be fully justified both politically and economically. But in this case we are concerned with the ethical issue.
After all, Mrs. Clinton was not bothered that her actions violated US law, namely the Code of Federal Regulations (5 CFR 2635,702): “An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations.”
But if we look deeper, we can discover another interesting fact. Special attention is given to the UN Foundation. Despite the name, it has no direct relationship to the United Nations. The Fund was founded in 1998 by Ted Turner, an American businessman and media mogul, who claimed to “connect people, ideas and resources to help the United Nations solve global problems.”
Thus, they managed to deceive many people from different countries, though this “cooking: business is directly supervised by the UN. After all, the names are the same, and the two organizations have communication with each other."
By the way, the Daily Caller News Foundation investigation revealed a disturbing trend that the couple's Clinton Foundation received funds from regimes, that are associated with serious violations of human rights and do not always act in the US interests. We know that the Clinton Foundation took $130 million from Middle East countries and four billionaires from Saudi Arabia.
In the spring of 2016, a number of US media outlets started a discussion about it. Did the oil-rich Gulf countries give so generously to the Clinton Foundation to affect US policy in the future? What about Bill Clinton's business partnership with Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the authoritarian ruler of Dubai from 2003 to 2008? As the tax records show, Clinton has appropriated about $15 million of “guaranteed payment” from this transaction.
Only in the last three years, after being a high diplomat, Hillary Clinton was invited to speak to dozens of firms on Wall Street, usually for a fee of $250,000, despite her clear condemnation of the Wall Street activities during her campaign.
It is known that she received about $22 million from these performances, quite decent, even with a growing consensus among foreign-policy thinkers that Clinton was one of the worst secretaries of state in US history.
So why did the Arab moguls and Wall Street magnates pay up the Clintons? The question remains without an answer.
Even before the Clinton Foundation donors from Nigeria were involved in a bribery system with another US company Halliburton, which is the largest contractor in Iraq after the US occupation in 2003. Other Gulf donors received contracts for chemical weapons delivery in exchange for nearly the same value as their contributions. The Clinton Foundation trustee in Canada Victor Dahdaleh was arrested in 2011 for or his alleged role in a bribery scheme that funneled kickbacks from aluminum conglomerate Alcoa to Aluminium Bahrain.
However, Barack Obama recently called Hillary Clinton the best candidate. Perhaps he had in mind, the best of the worst, because he is still cleverly avoiding the truth.