You are hereBlogs

Blogs


Is T-Mobile’s video app an attack on net neutrality?: Binge On, Opt In, Truth Out

By Alfredo Lopez

 

Last week, T-Mobile's CEO John Lagere pubicly asked the Electronic Frontier Foundation a straightforward question: "Who the f*** are you anyway, EFF? Why are you stirring up so much trouble and who pays you?"

Focus: Oregon Militia Standoff - Jan 13, 2016


Oregon standoff: Bundy, militants destroy fence preventing ranchers' cattle from grazing on nearby public land - OregonLive.com


VIDEO: Malheur Militants Tear Down Section of U.S. Fish and Wildlife fence - YouTube


VIDEO: Bundy on Why Ranchers Cut Down The Federal Fence (Start at 1:20 min) - YouTube


U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Condemns Militants Removing Refuge Fences - OPB

 

Oregon standoff: Militants to hold a community meeting with Harney residents on Friday and announce a departure plan - OregonLive.com


VIDEO: Malheur militia plans to meet with community - YouTube


Proposal for Resolution of the Peaceful Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge - Citizens for Constitutional Freedom


Redress of Grievance: Attorney's office, federal court judges and Bureau of Land Management broke laws and violated the Constitution in their treatment of Hammond ranchers - Bundy Ranch blog


The Oregon occupiers claim they found official documents there that will exonerate the Hammonds and expose government injustice against local ranchers - CSMonitor.com


VIDEO: Bundy: Primary purpose is to get the Hammonds out of prison - YouTube


Bundy says they are occupying the Oregon wildlife refuge to prevent a war between the government and the people - Fox News


Leader's mom says armed group at wildlife refuge needs more supplies - wtsp.com


Oregon standoff: Why are you here? Hear from occupiers and their visitors - OregonLive.com


Who's who inside and on the outskirts of the Malheur occupation - High Country News


Oregon standoff: Unsolicited outsiders flocks to Burns to ‘help', Few, if any, of them have been welcomed by law enforcement - OregonLive.com


Oregon occupation planned for months by Ammon Bundy and Montana militia leader - OregonLive.com


VIDEO: Ammon Bundy in-depth interview a week after the occupation - YouTube

 

----------------------------------------------------

Oregon judge proposes militia pay $75,000 per week for occupying refuge - The Guardian


Sheriff handling Oregon standoff denounces militia’ intimidation of law enforcement (full text of the sheriff's statement) - OregonLive.com


VIDEO: Sheriff David Ward Says Malheur Militia Are Harrassing Police and Federal Employees - YouTube


Northwest Lawmakers Visit Malheur Refuge On 'Fact-Finding Mission' - KUOW News and Information


Oregon standoff: Roseburg state legislator ignores local warnings, visits protesters - OregonLive.com


Schools near Oregon standoff site reopen as militant occupation continues - OregonLive.com


POLL (HuffPost/YouGov): Americans don't have much sympathy for the Oregon militants, (but rural residents were not polled separately from city dwellers) - huffingtonpost.com


POLL (HuffPost/YouGov): Full poll results of how Americans view the Oregon militants - YouGov 


POLL (Conservation in the West): Majority in West opposes giving states control over federal land, (again rural residents were not polled separately from city dwellers) - LA Times


POLL (Conservation in the West Poll): Press Release, Slides, Summary Reports, Overall Data - State of the Rockies Colorado College


Bundys don't represent Western views on lands issues, former Secretary of the Interior Salazar says - KSL.com


Report: What if govt. ‘viciously’ attacked Oregon ranch family? - WND


To contact Bartolo email peaceloverblog[at]yahoo[dot]com (replacing [at] with @, [dot] with .)

A Homeland Is a Country That Allows Domestic Use of Military

Have you seen Dahr Jamail's report on U.S. military plans for war games in Washington state? I'm sure some observers imagine that the military is simply looking for a place to engage in safe and responsible and needed practice in hand-to-hand combat against incoming North Korean nuclear missiles, or perhaps to rehearse a humanitarian invasion of Russia to uphold the fundamental international law against Vladimir Putin's existence.

But if you look over the history of domestic use of the U.S. military -- such as by reading the new book Soldiers on the Home Front: The Domestic Role of the American Military -- it's hard not to wonder whether, from the U.S. military's point of view, at least a side benefit of the coming war game isn't rehearsing for the next time citizens in kayaks interfere with a corporation intent on poisoning the earth's climate with fossil fuels.

Soldiers on the Home Front is almost rah-rah enthusiastic in its support for the U.S. military: "Our task here is to celebrate the U.S. military's profound historical and continuing contribution to domestic tranquility, while at the same time ... ." Yet it tells a story of two centuries of the U.S. military and state militias and the National Guard being used to suppress dissent, eliminate labor rights, deny civil liberties, attack Native Americans, and abuse African Americans. Even the well-known restrictions on military use put into law and often ignored -- such as the Posse Comitatus Act -- were aimed at allowing, not preventing, the abuse of African Americans. The story is one of gradually expanding presidential power, both in written law and in practice, with the latter far outpacing the former.

Some of us are grateful to see restraint in the approach to the men occupying a federal facility in Oregon. But we are horrified by the lack of similar restraint in using the military or militarized police against peaceful protesters in U.S. cities. Police departments as we know them simply did not exist when the U.S. Constitution -- virtually unaltered since -- was cobbled together in an age of muskets, slavery, and genocide. Among the developments that concern me far more than the authors of Soldiers on the Home Front:

Numerous drills and practices, and the locking down of Boston, desensitizing people to the presence of the U.S. military on our streets.

Congress members threatened with martial law if they vote against their oligarchs.

The legalization of lawless military imprisonment without charge or trial for U.S. citizens or anyone else.

The legalization of murder by drone or any other technology of U.S. citizens or anyone else, with arguments that apply within the Homeland just as anywhere else, though we've been told all the murders have been abroad.

Nuclear weapons illegally flown across the country and left unguarded.

Mercenaries on the streets of New Orleans after a hurricane.

Northcom given legal power to illegally act within the United States against the people of the United States.

Fusion centers blurring all lines between military and domestic government violence.

Secret and not-so-secret continuity of government plans that could put martial law in place at the decision of a president or in the absence of a president.

The militarization of the Mexican border.

The gruesome history and future of the attack on the Bonus Army, the bombing of West Virginia, Operation Northwoods, tin soldiers and Nixon coming, and Franklin Roosevelt's actual and Donald Trump's possible internment camps.

The authors of Soldiers on the Home Front claim that we must balance all such dangers with the supposed need for a military to address "storms, earthquakes, cyber attacks ..., bioterrorism." Why must we? None of these threats can be best addressed by people trained and armed to kill and destroy. When only such people have funding and numbers and equipment, they can look preferable to nothing. But what if we had an unarmed, nonviolent green energy brigade taking on the protection of the climate, and non-military police ready to enforce laws in crises, a major new Civilian Conservation Corps trained and equipped and funded to provide emergency services, a computer whiz team dedicated to fending off cyber attacks and preventing their ongoing provocation by U.S. government cyber attackers, a publicly funded healthcare system prepared for health emergencies, and a State Department redirected away from weapons marketing and into a new project of building respectful and cooperative relations with the world?

If the United States were to move from militarism to all of the above, the main problem would be what to do with all of the remaining money.

Focus: Hillary Clinton - Jan 12, 2016


FBI's Clinton probe expands to public corruption track, investigates if Clinton Foundation donors benefited from State Dept access - Fox News


VIDEO: FBI’s Hillary Clinton Investigation Expands To Look Into Possible Corruption - Fox News


Clinton denies FBI investigation into family foundation, 'It’s an unsourced, irresponsible claim that has no basis’ (VIDEO) - desmoinesregister.com


GOP chair: Dems 'rethinking' Clinton after new FBI probe - Washington Examiner


'150 agents' working Clinton Foundation probe: Ex-U.S. atty - Washington Examiner


Watchdog files ethics complaint over over the State Department's treatment of major Clinton Foundation donors - Washington Examiner


Text of the Complaint Against Hillary Clinton for Practice of Favoritism - FACT

 

How badly will Hillary's RICO trial hurt her campaign? - Tea Party


How Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cared for Democratic donors, She nurtured supporters during time as diplomat - POLITICO


Emails show Hillary helped friend navigate federal contracts, Ambassador Wilson was paid handsomely by Symbion — $20,000 per month — to drum up business for the company - Daily Caller


Hillary's Schedule Shows Meeting with Ambassador Wilson who was lobbying for Symbion - The Daily Caller


Clinton Had No Hand in U.S.$47 Million Power Deal: Symbion - allAfrica.com


Clinton Foundation employee emailed State Department Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills to get donors face time to discuss future CGI project - Washington Free Beacon


Report slams State Department FOIA process involving Hillary Clinton and top agency officials - POLITICO


Clinton's private email account exploits FOIA loophole, report says - Fox News


Full Text of the State Dept Inspector General Report on State Department and FOIA - Judicial Watch


Clinton’s staff vetted public records requests, Top aide involved in process meant to be free of political influence - freebeacon.com


Dozens of State Dept. staff knew Clinton used private email - Washington Examiner


Sudan appears to be subject of possibly-classified talking points that Clinton asked her foreign policy adviser to strip of their headers and send to her via “nonsecure” means - The Daily Caller


To contact Bartolo email peaceloverblog[at]yahoo[dot]com (replacing [at] with @, [dot] with .)

Talk Nation Radio: Cynthia McKinney's Real State of the Union

  https://soundcloud.com/davidcnswanson/talk-nation-radio-cynthia-mckinneys-real-state-of-the-union

Cynthia McKinney has served in the Georgia State Legislature and the United States Congress where she voted against NAFTA, opposed the war on Iraq, and introduced the first resolution for the impeachment of George W. Bush.

She didn't leave Congress until Diebold voting machines flipped votes away from her right in front of voters' eyes.

She has been a Green Party candidate for U.S. President.

She recently completed a PhD in Leadership and Change.

Read her dissertation: “El No Murio, El Se Multiplico!” Hugo Chávez : The Leadership and the Legacy on Race

And her books:

Total run time: 29:00

Host: David Swanson.
Producer: David Swanson.
Music by Duke Ellington.

Download from LetsTryDemocracy or Archive.

Pacifica stations can also download from Audioport.

Syndicated by Pacifica Network.

Please encourage your local radio stations to carry this program every week!

Please embed the SoundCloud audio on your own website!

Past Talk Nation Radio shows are all available free and complete at
http://TalkNationRadio.org

and at
https://soundcloud.com/davidcnswanson/tracks

Tomgram: Rick Shenkman, How We Learned to Stop Worrying About People and Love the Bombing

This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To receive TomDispatch in your inbox three times a week, click here.

Torturers, rapists, murderers: for more than a decade as I researched my history of the Vietnam War, Kill Anything That Moves, I spent a good deal of time talking to them, thinking about them, reading about them, writing about them. They all had much in common. At a relatively young age, these men had traveled thousands of miles to kill people they didn't know on the say-so of men they didn't know, and for a mere pittance -- all of it done in the name of America.

Guess Where Huge Funds for Fighting Climate Change Are Being Wasted


In the United States it's not actually difficult to find significant funding with which to research new and innovative -- not to say bizarre and absurd -- pursuits, as long as they form part of an overall project of mass murder.

The United States has hundreds of programs at universities, think tanks, and research institutes that claim to devote their attention to “security” and “defense” studies. Yet in almost all of these programs that receive many millions of dollars in Federal funding, the vast majority of research, advocacy and instruction have nothing to do with climate change, the most serious threat to security of our age.

Hence the need for this petition to the U.S. Congress: End federal funding for security and defense programs at universities and think tanks that do not take climate change as their primary subject for research and for instruction. All universities, think tanks and research institutes that claim to be concerned with “security” or “defense” research must devote at least 70% of their resources to work on the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change, or lose their eligibility for Federal funding.

This excellent proposal originated with Emanuel Yi Pastreich, Director of The Asia Institute. Other signers, including myself: David Swanson, Director, World Beyond War; John Kiriakou, Associate fellow, Institute for Policy Studies; John Feffer, Director, Foreign Policy in Focus; Norman Solomon, Cofounder, RootsAction.org; Coleen Rowley, Retired FBI agent and former Minneapolis Division legal counsel.

Why do we think this is important? Why do we plan to deliver the petition to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Armed Services Committee? Here's why:

In an act of profound intellectual irresponsibility, so-called scholars of "security studies" spend their hours imagining fantastic military scenarios, rather than responding to the incontrovertible threat of climate change which scientists have unanimously identified as a reality.

We cannot waste any more of our tax dollars on security and defense studies that fail to address the primary threat to the well-being of the United States, and of the world.

The time has come to put an end to this insanity. We demand that all programs of defense and security studies in the United States identify in their statement of purpose climate change as the primary security threat to the United States and that they dedicate at least 70% of their budgets to research, teaching and advocacy to the critical topics of mitigation of (primarily) and adaptation to (secondarily) climate change.

Any program that fails to focus on climate change in this manner should lose its status for Federal funding.

Mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change should be the primary concerns for all in security and defense field studies. Obviously other security issues deserve study, but granted the fact that the cost of climate change will run in the trillions of dollars over the next decade, and even more beyond then, we do not have the funds to support programs that are not dedicated to addressing this immediate threat.

Focus: Oregon Militia Standoff (and Trump Op-Ed) - Jan 10, 2016


The central issue of the Oregon militia standoff is not a about furthering an extremist right-wing agenda, it is about federal land management. The militants occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge are not a fringe group, they voice the frustrations of local residents who complain about the policies of the federal authorities, specifically the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service. Residents have little control over federal lands, but their lives are profoundly affected by changes in grazing leases, drought, wildfire and invasive weeds, water rights and irrigation allowances, logging and mining contracts, wildlife conservation and fishing, enviromental protectionnational parks and recreation, fencing and public access, limits on all-terrain vehiclesetc. Residents see regulations on federal lands arbitrary and unpredictable, an imposition by out-of-touch federal bureaucrats who drive up costs and undermines their economic security.  For instance, ranchers say that their costs to maintain federal land are high notwithstanding the cheap grazing fee they pay. The solution of this longstanding political conflict cannot be by simply applying law enforcement. A deadly confrontation could be the outcome of charging the militants with trespassing and dislodging them with force. A dialogue between residents, county, state and federal authorities should be initiated over the issues of land management in order to find a consensus. Below are the latest news about the Oregon standoff plus a background documentation.


Burns, Ore., residents visit besieged land refuge; find common ground with Bundy movement - Yahoo News


Oregon standoff: Harney County group asks Ammon Bundy to leave but takes on his cause - OregonLive.com


Family members join refuge occupation; Ammon Bundy says group will go, but not yet - bendbulletin.com


Militia groups meet with leaders of Oregon occupation, pledge support - KFGO


Ammon Bundy doesn't want heavily armed members of the Pacific Patriot Network there and ask them to leave - OregonLive.com


VIDEO: A representative from the Bundy group says they are looking to de-escalate the situation, want to be peaceful and 'put away the long guns’ - YouTube


Faces of the Malheur occupation: Meet the militants and their visitors - OregonLive.com


Donald Trump op-ed on federal land control - rgj.com


Lawmakers contend that the protesters at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge are voicing concerns shared by many in the West, stop short of endorsing their actions - WND


VIDEO: Press Conference Walden on the situation in Harney County, Oregon - YouTube


Congressman Walden uncorks years of frustrations in U.S. House speech going viral, the official Youtube video of the speech logged 100,000 views - OregonLive.com


VIDEO: Congressman Greg Walden addresses U.S. House on situation in Harney County, give voice to rural frustrations with the Bureau of Land Management officials - YouTube


TRANSCRIPT: Oregon militants: Congressman Walden addresses U.S. House, takes Bureau of Land Management to woodshed - OregonLive.com

 

------------------------------------------------------

Roots of Oregon land dispute stretch back decades, a struggle between federal agencies and ranchers, loggers and miners - WSJ


Tracing the deep roots of the Oregon occupation, Those beliefs aren't that unusual in parts of the American West - nationalgeographic.com


Armed Oregon occupation: Is it really about white poverty in the West? - Christian Science Monitor


Should the government own so much land in the West, should its control over that land be reduced? A Debate among experts - NYTimes.com


The Oregon standoff and the landowner’s right to burn - slate.com


BLM burns land unsupervised: Burn ranchers home and cattle alive, Fire video starts at 3:10 minute and you can see cattle that are burnt and suffering (VIDEO) - Examiner.com


I’m an Oregon rancher. Here’s what you don’t understand about the Bundy standoff - The Washington Post


How the Federal Government's Role Changed From Realtor to Landlord in the West - GovExec.com


Oregon Standoff: The Federal Land Grab vs. the Sagebrush Rebellion - garynorth.com


The Bureau of Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service have systematically driven virtually all the ranchers out of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. All except the Hammonds - East Oregonian


What the Oregon standoff is really about, forget the Bundys and "terrorism”— the real crime is what federal bullies do to ranchers like the Hammond family - The American Conservative


Bundy blog details long feud between Hammond ranchers & Feds - Bundy Ranch Blog

 

To contact Bartolo email peaceloverblog[at]yahoo[dot]com (replacing [at] with @, [dot] with .)

Yellen has to raise rates: What’s Behind the Fed’s Decision to Raise Interest Rates in a Struggling Economy?

By Dave Lindorff

 

Much has been written over the past few weeks in the financial press and the business pages of general interest newspapers debating the wisdom of the decision in December by Janet Yellen and the Federal Reserve Board to raise interest rates for the first time in almost a decade.

Focus: Oregon Militia Standoff (Clinton and Trump Comments) - Jan 8, 2016

 

Oregon occupation leader Ammon Bundy meets sheriff, rejects bid to end standoff (VIDEO) - OregonLive.com


VIDEO: Ammon Bundy And Sheriff Dave Ward Meet Face To Face - YouTube


Utah group, attorney representing protester travel to Oregon seeking to de-escalate the occupation - The Salt Lake Tribune


At town hall meeting Oregon residents happy occupation puts their concerns in spotlight, but fear violence - LA Times


VIDEO: Oregon Standoff: Burns Gives The Armed Occupiers An Earful - YouTube


VIDEO: Congressman Greg Walden addresses U.S. House on situation in Harney County, give voice to rural frustrations with the Bureau of Land Management officials - YouTube


TRANSCRIPT: Oregon militants: Congressman Walden addresses U.S. House, takes Bureau of Land Management to woodshed - OregonLive.com


Ammon Bundy: Dispute is jurisdictional issue between the federal and the state governments (VIDEO) - koin.com


Oregon militants: Death threats from ranchers to federal officials reported years before standoff - OregonLive.com


Ranchers sentenced to prison have reputation for kindness - AP


Hillary Clinton: Oregon militia should be charged with trespassing, 'It's always best if we can resolve any kind of situation like this in a peaceful way but... law has to be obeyed' - lasvegassun.com


Trump says he would tell Oregon militia leader ‘you gotta get out', then he would invite him to the White House to discuss the group's grievances - TPM


To contact Bartolo email peaceloverblog[at]yahoo[dot]com (replacing [at] with @, [dot] with .)

Tomgram: Rebecca Gordon, American War Crimes, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow

This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To receive TomDispatch in your inbox three times a week, click here.

Berning Down Wall Street

I don't know where this will end but every time I write about a book on Bernie Sanders, somebody sends me a larger one. At least my arms are getting stronger from lifting the things. One point is clear to me: if the media ever wanted to catch up on all the coverage of Bernie's campaign that it has foregone, it could do it with a minimum-wage staffer reading aloud from books -- reducing the need to find corporations opposed to oligarchy to buy the advertisements. The reporting is in books, it's just not in newspapers or boob tubes.

The latest is Bernie: A Lifelong Crusade Against Wall Street & Wealth by Darcy G. Richardson. Like the last one was, it is now the most substantial reporting I've seen on Bernie's political career. It also does the most to include the voices of Bernie's critics from the left (see Chapter 1). In addition it, by far, includes the most information on Bernie's foreign policy actions, good and bad, over the decades. The book is a bit too heavy on horse-race coverage of each of Sanders' past elections for my taste, but people who like that stuff will eat it up.

Having written elsewhere today about public diplomacy by towns and cities, I was particularly struck by Richardson's chapter titled "International Diplomacy," which covers, not Bernie's career in Washington, but his time as mayor of Burlington, Vt. It is safe to say that when it comes to foreign policy Bernie was better then than he is now, was better then than any current mayor in the United States, and was better then than possibly any other mayor ever. I say that while continuing to condemn the horrible things he did, including arresting peace activists for demanding conversion of weapons jobs to peaceful ones.

Mayor Bernie denounced the Pentagon budget, explained its local relevance, demanded nuclear disarmament, opposed apartheid in South Africa, and sought to improve U.S.-Soviet relations. "We're spending billions on military," he said, touching on a theme that today he wouldn't prod with a $10 billion screw out of an F-35. "Why can't we take some of that money to pay for thousands of U.S. children to go to the Soviet Union? And, why can't the Soviets take money they're spending on arms and use it to send thousands of Russian children to America?"

Mayor Bernie backed a successful ballot initiative telling the U.S. military to get out of El Salvador. He denounced the U.S. attack on Grenada. The Burlington Board of Alderman voted to encourage trade between Burlington and Nicaragua, in defiance of President Ronald Reagan's embargo. Mayor Bernie accepted an invitation from the Nicaraguan government to visit Nicaragua, where he spoke out against U.S. war mongering, and from which he returned to a speaking tour letting Vermonters know what he's seen and learned. He had also set up a sister city relationship for Burlington with a city in Nicaragua. He led an effort that provided $100,000 in aid to that city.

Again, articulating basic common sense wisdom that he wouldn't come near today for love or the presidency, Mayor Bernie Sanders said, "Instead of invading Nicaragua and spending tremendous amounts of tax dollars on a war there, money which could be much better used at home, it seems to me that it would be worthwhile for us to get to know the people of Nicaragua, understand their problems and concerns, and see how we can transform the present tension-filled relationship into a positive one based on mutual respect." Just try to imagine Senator Sanders saying that about the people of Syria or Iraq.

Richardson's book is of course largely devoted to the topic of taking on Wall Street greed, on which Sanders has been stellar and consistent for years and years. But we do also catch glimpses of Sanders' evolving foreign policy from his opposition to the war on Vietnam (which was more serious than other books have suggested) through to his proposal that Saudi Arabia "get its hands dirty" and kill more people. At the time of the Gulf War, Sanders was far more hawkish than a simple look at his No vote on invasion suggests. He supported the troop build up and the deadly embargo. He backed the NATO bombing in Kosovo. He opposed until very late any efforts to impeach Bush or Cheney.

But on the matter of Wall Street, Sanders has been as good in the past as he was in this week's speech. He warned of the danger of a crash years before it came, and questioned people like Alan Greenspan who brushed all worries aside. He opposed repealing Glass-Steagall. He opposed credit default swap scams. He opposed the appointments of Timothy Geithner and Jack Lew. His "big short" was perhaps to stay in politics until it became clear to all sane people that he'd been right on these matters, as on NAFTA and so much else. His favorite book in college, we learn, was Looking Backward. He found the root of most problems in capitalism. He developed a consistent ideology that makes his growing acceptance of militarism stand out as uniquely opportunistic and false.

By that I most certainly do not mean that he is a candidate for peace strategically pretending to be for war, as many voters told themselves about Barack Obama on even less basis. When Bernie was good on foreign policy he campaigned promising to be good on foreign policy. As his performance worsened, so did his campaign promises. Any elected official can be moved by public pressure, of course, but first he'd have to be elected and then we'd have to move him -- something millions of people have taken a principled stand against even trying with President Obama.

One note in Sanders' defense: Richardson cites a rightwing newspaper article claiming that Bernie and his wife together are in the top 2 percent of income earners. It's worth noting that were that true it would not put them anywhere at all near the top 2 percent in accumulated wealth. It also seems to be an extreme estimate on behalf of the author of a sloppy article. Another source places the Sanders in the top 5 percent in income, while noting how extremely impoverished that leaves them by the standards of the U.S. Senate.

Cities of the World, Unite Against Nations' Wars

What if the very worst result of George W. Bush's war lies is that people stop taking seriously the danger of actual nuclear weapons actually falling into the hands of actual lunatics? Arguably the very worst result of Woodrow Wilson's lies about German atrocities in World War I was excessive skepticism about reports of Nazi atrocities leading up to and during World War II. The fact is that nuclear weapons are being recklessly maintained, built, developed, tested, and proliferated. The fact is that governments make mistakes, fail, collapse, and engage in evil actions.

By Dick Cheney's calculation, if there was a 1% chance that a pile of ridiculous lies was true, it justified all out war on the world, destabilizing a region, killing and making homeless millions, and birthing radical new terrorist forces. By my calculation, there is a 100% chance that if we continue current nuclear policies, sooner or later, a huge number of people -- quite possibly all people -- will die, many of them with melted skin, eyes hanging out of their sockets, noses burnt off, and screams of bitter envy for those already dead. Surely this justifies some slight action of some sort, apart from more fracking or building internment camps for Muslims.

I say that's my calculation, but the idea actually arises -- one of many -- from my reading of an excellent book called City, Save Thyself! Nuclear Terror and the Urban Ballot. It was written by David Wylie, a former Cambridge, Mass., city councilor who helped initiate the first municipal Commission on Peace and Disarmament, the twenty U.S.-Soviet Sister City alliances, and an urban referendum effort against nuclear weapons.

What if we were to confront real dangers of nuclear apocalypse and climate apocalypse without the fear that produces stupidity, but with smart strategic action aimed at substantive change? That brings me to a second favorite idea from Wylie's book, and what I take to be his central proposal. Democratic people power is the force that can put a halt to the war profiteers and weapons proliferators. Democratic people power can best be created at the level of towns and cities. Towns and cities of the world can together form a federalist structure of global power of the sort that nations will never produce and which the United Nations has fervently resisted since its creation.

Do you live in a town or city in the United States? When you organize, are you able in some small way to influence your local government? Would people in your town be willing to communicate with people in a foreign town, perhaps a largely Muslim foreign town? Would people in your town be interested in a world that reduced and eliminated weapons of mass destruction? Would people in your town appreciate major new resources for education, infrastructure, green energy, and jobs -- resources that would become available with reductions in military spending? Would the people of your city like to tell the people of a foreign nation that, despite many differences and mutual ignorance of each other, you'd prefer not to see the U.S. military bomb them, and you'd in fact like to get to know them better through cultural exchanges and joint action as members of a global security committee?

None of this is far fetched. Cities and towns are in fact where it is entirely possible to get things done. While activist groups focus their efforts on doomed bills in Congress, U.S. cities are taking huge strides on election reform, green energy, education, voting rights, etc. We need to shift our worldviews to properly pursue this course. We need to stop identifying ourselves by the name of a nation, and instead think of ourselves in terms of our towns and the world. There is overwhelming evidence that redirecting political engagement from national advocacy that almost always fails into local advocacy that often works would be less a redirection of a finite amount of civic action and more a generation of vast new quantities of popular democratic work.

Sister and twin cities, Mayors for Peace, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the League of Historical Cities, and other such organizations point to the potential for giving local political strength a broader grip on the world. Communication across distances and languages is growing easier by the minute. Agreement that our communities would be better off not burned to the ground by either bombs or climate chaos is among the easiest and least controversial notions available to be proposed to a diverse group of democratic-spirited representatives from planet earth.

Here in Charlottesville, Virginia, I, as a Charlottesvillian and World Citizen, am pleased to report that our local city council has in recent years passed resolutions against possible wars on various countries, including Iraq and Iran, in favor of conversion to peaceful industries, and against the use of drones. Our city council, like most, routinely informs its state general assembly of its wishes. And the influence of the city's official voice does not end there. Cville's past resolutions on Iraq, military spending, uranium, and other matters have inspired other localities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors to raise their voices as well. Some of these resolutions have been directed to the federal government, to which the residents of Charlottesville pay taxes and whose laws the residents of Charlottesville are subject to.

This is how our federalist republic is supposed to work. City council members in Virginia take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Cities and towns routinely send petitions to Congress for all kinds of requests. This is allowed under Clause 3, Rule XII, Section 819, of the Rules of the House of Representatives. This clause is routinely used to accept petitions from cities, and memorials from states, all across the United States. The same is established in the Jefferson Manual, the rule book for the House originally written by Thomas Jefferson for the Senate.

In 1967 a court in California ruled (Farley v. Healey , 67 Cal.2d 325) that "one of the purposes of local government is to represent its citizens before the Congress, the Legislature, and administrative agencies in matters over which the local government has no power. Even in matters of foreign policy it is not uncommon for local legislative bodies to make their positions known."

Abolitionists passed local resolutions against U.S. policies on slavery. The anti-apartheid movement did the same, as did the nuclear freeze movement, the movement against the PATRIOT Act, the movement in favor of the Kyoto Protocol, etc. We are not an island. If we become environmentally sustainable, others will ruin our climate. If we ban assault weapons, they'll arrive at our borders. And if the skies of the United States are filled with drones, it will become ever more difficult for Charlottesville to keep them out.

Wylie's proposal would further empower my city and thousands of other cities, each of which would appoint a representative to a global body. If nations won't protect the climate, cities of the world can nonetheless agree to do so. If nations won't resolve disputes by peaceful means, cities can nonetheless make that happen. If nations won't invest in peaceful industries, cities and towns can nonetheless create programs of economic conversion to industries that provide greater economic benefit while also reducing the chances of violent death by nuclear hell fire.

Wylie's proposal should be read in its entirety in his book, which outlines numerous ways for cities to advance this process, including ways to encourage and recognize world citizens, and to encourage and recognize world cities. Cities can also use referenda, rather than council votes, to give democratic weight and wisdom to their actions. And national politicians who denounce the broken system they are part of can take actions to strengthen the local-level system that still has life in it.

The proposal here is not to risk federal prosecution by secretly negotiating with foreign national governments. Rather the idea is to risk an outbreak of peace and mutual understanding by publicly interacting with local governments from one's own and other parts of the world. This public diplomacy could be truly public in the sense of publishing full video of all of its interactions on the public internet. (An outline for such transparency can be found in the remnants of broken campaign promises from a certain national U.S. political candidate of 2008.)

Wylie's book is a guide to action and includes in it a model letter to your local mayor or city council, a model resolution, a model agenda for a first meeting of a municipal security assembly, and a rich bibliography for deeper understanding of how to make this work. I highly recommend it.

Iniquity, the 0.000006%, and Who Pays $300k to Hear Hillary

The United States' 20 wealthiest people (The 0.000006 Percent) now own more wealth than the bottom half of the U.S. population combined, a total of 152 million people in 57 million households. The Forbes 400 now own about as much wealth as the nation's entire African-American population — plus more than a third of the Latino population — combined; more wealth combined than the bottom 61 percent of the U.S. population, an estimated 194 million people or 70 million households.

These stats are from the Middle Ages and also from the Institute for Policy Studies which acknowledges that much wealth is hidden offshore and the reality is likely even worse.

What did those 20 wealthiest, most meritorious people do to deserve such disgusting riches? The group includes four Wal-Mart heirs, three Mars candy heirs, and two Koch brother heirs. They earned their wealth by being born to wealthy parents, just like some who want to work for them, such as Donald Trump. One politician is actually one of them: Michael Bloomberg.

These individuals could fund a total shift to clean energy or end starvation on earth or eradicate diseases. That they choose not to is murderous and shameful. It's not their sacred right. It's not cute. And it's not funny when one of them pretends to give his money away by giving it to himself.

The 0.000006 Percent has a tight grip on the media as well, with Jeff Bezos owning the Washington Post and Amazon, Sheldon Adelson buying newspapers, Mark Zuckerberg owning Facebook, Larry Page and Sergey Brin with Google, Warren Buffet owning whole chains of newspapers, and again Bloomberg with Bloomberg News.

In the first phase of the 2016 Presidential election cycle, according to the New York Times, 158 wealthy donors provided half of all campaign contributions, 138 of them backing Republicans, 20 backing Democrats. No candidate can easily compete without huge amounts of money. And if you get it from small donors, as Bernie Sanders has done the most of, you'll be largely shut out of free media coverage, and belittled in the bit of coverage you're granted. The media coverage, the debate questions, and the topics discussed are determined by the interests of the wealthy in this national oligarchy.

Then there's the corrupt foundation money and speaking fees flowing into the Clinton family from wealthy sources in the U.S. and abroad. While most Americans are unable to sit through a full presidential debate, Wall Street, Big Pharma, and corporate technology interests have shelled out hundreds of thousands of dollars supposedly just to hear Hillary or Bill Clinton speak.

According to a new report by Consortium News, Hillary Clinton took in $11.8 million in 51 speaking fees between January 2014 to May 2015. Bill Clinton delivered 53 paid speeches to bring in $13.3 million during that same period. That's over $25 million total, largely if not entirely from wealthy parties with a strong interest in influencing U.S. government policy.

This system of rewarding former politicians is one of the great corrupting forces in Washington, DC, but the revolving door that brings such politicians back into power makes it many times worse.

According to the Washington Post, since 1974 the Clintons have raised at least $3 billion, including at least $69 million just from the employees and PACs of banks, insurance companies, and securities and investment firms.

According to the International Business Times, the Clintons' foundation took in money from foreign nations while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, nations such as Saudi Arabia for which she then waived restrictions on U.S. weapons sales. (Also on that list: Algeria, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Qatar.) I brought this up on a recent television program, and one of the other guests protested that I was not, at that moment, criticizing Donald Trump. But, even if we assume Trump is the worst person on earth, what has he done that is worse than taking a bribe to supply Saudi Arabia with the weapons that have since been used to slaughter children in Yemen? And what does Trump have to do with bribery? He's self-corrupted. He's in the race because of the financial barrier keeping decent people out. But he hasn't been bribed to act like a fascist.

The Wall Street Journal reports that during the same period, Bill Clinton was bringing in big speaking fees from companies, groups, and a foreign government with interests in influencing the U.S. State Department. Eight-digit donors to the Clintons' foundations include Saudi Arabia and Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk. Seven digit donors include: Kuwait, Exxon Mobil, Friends of Saudi Arabia, James Murdoch (son of Rupert), Qatar, Boeing, Dow, Goldman Sachs, Wal-Mart and the United Arab Emirates. Those chipping in at least half a million include Bank of America, Chevron, Monsanto, Citigroup, and the Soros Foundation. And they don't even get a speech!

Sign this petition:
We urge the Clintons to clear their corrupted image by donating their $25 million in recent lecture fees to organizations legitimately working for campaign finance reform, Wall Street reform, environmental protection, and peace.

Watch this video.

Should Criminalizing War Start by Pretending It’s Legal?

cover_18_Abolishing_WarThere’s a terrific new book on abolishing war called Abolishing War: Criminalizing War, Removing War Causes, Removing War as Institution. The authors are Johan Galtung, Erika Degortes, Irene Galtung, Malvin Gattinger, and Naakow Grant-Hayford. Johan Galtung, who was recently on my radio show, is brilliant as always, drawing on vast knowledge and wisdom.

As the book’s subtitle suggests, it proposes three types of approaches to eliminating war: “three approaches to have war join slavery and colonization in the dust-bin of history. No question of picking and choosing, they belong together and the more seamlessly, the better.” I couldn’t agree more, and will be drawing on the ideas in this book in the work we do at World Beyond War.

The book’s longest section is on criminalizing war, and it offers an argument I haven’t seen before. I think there’s great value in the argument, and that it can augment others. Nonetheless, I’m going to quibble with it.

Here is a book that practically quotes the arguments of the Outlawrists of the 1920s without mentioning them. It recommends, as its first recommended course of action right on the inside of the front cover, recreating Japan’s Article 9 for all states. And yet it largely ignores and bizarrely dismisses the existence of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, from which Article 9 derives (and which it practically quotes) and which already applies to most large nations.

The book’s second recommendation is to somehow build on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ “implicit” criminalization of war. Nowhere is it explained how an implicit criminalization of war is more useful than an explicit one. In fact, Irene Galtung rather wistfully imagines how nice it would be to have an explicit one. Nowhere is the problem mentioned that the United Nations, as “implicit” criminalizer of war, legalizes defensive and otherwise UN-authorized wars — two loopholes that have been stretched and abused to effectively allow any Western war whatsoever. This is, of course, in contrast to the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which bans all war and requires that nations settle all of their disputes entirely peacefully.

In the one instance where the book refers to the Kellogg-Briand Pact, it claims that, “this opens two huge loop-holes: use of force by non-members, and by and on non-states.” There are a number of errors in this claim. One of them is chronological. There were no laws banning war prior to Kellogg-Briand. In forbidding war between nations, the pact took war away in many cases from many major wagers of war. The pact was open to and remains open to all nations. Any nation that is not a member can simply send a letter to the U.S. State Department and instantly become a member. So, the so-called loophole for non-members is one that has been closing and could close further, but it wasn’t opened by the pact. War was legal for all states against all states prior to 1928.

What about non-states? The states that made the pact considered, and still to this day consider, war by non-states to be illegal. In fact, they consider illegal almost any action, if not the very existence, of most entities that might wage war without being a state. Within states, killing by anyone other than the state, is forbidden by national laws and by customary standards of law — as outlined, in fact, by the strategy pursued in the book by Galtung et alia — on which, more in a second. The bigger shortcoming is the failure to outlaw war by a member state against a non-state, but most such wars are also wars on the populations of states and often against the will of the governments of those states, often — indeed — against yet other states using proxies to wage war for them. A shortcoming, moreover, is not a condemnation of a useful step as counterproductive; it’s just a shortcoming requiring an additional step forward.

Clearly Galtung does not really think that criminalizing war between nations is an unhelpful step. He wants to do it singly, nation by nation, modeled on Japan’s Article 9 (which arguably has the very same shortcomings as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, plus the shortcoming of only applying to a single nation). Of course, Article 9 is under threat, and somewhat similar statements in the Constitutions of Italy and Germany and other nations are even less adhered to. But Galtung is right: bans on war in national constitutions should be strengthened, defended, and complied with. Doing so, however, presents a problem of logic in dismissing the Kellogg-Briand Pact as unhelpful. Never mind the purity of heart of its creators (its creators in fact were masses of people who brought legislators to it kicking and screaming) or the perfection of compliance by its members heretofore. If Japan launches a major war next year, Galtung will still want Article 9 upheld — or he should; I will. The Kellogg-Briand Pact is a law clearly banning all war for most major nations, including the least likely nations to agree to newly creating such a law today. Other nations could sign onto it and urge their fellow members to comply with it. Malaysia, for example, could choose to become a member of the pact and suddenly find itself a leader among its members by advocating for compliance — and for accountability and reparations and reconciliation — exactly as it would have to do with eternal vigilance if it instead used its own version of Article 9, only in this case with the major war makers of the world formally committed in clear language to compliance as well.

Because war is, in a major way, already illegal, calls to criminalize it ring in my ear a bit hollow, a bit like the rhetoric of the U.S. Congress proposing over and over again, year after year, to re-criminalize torture, rather than prosecuting torturers under long-standing laws. But the approach to criminalizing war proposed by Irene Galtung certainly has some merit. It doesn’t exactly claim that war is now legal, but it does claim that in written law it is legal, and this strikes me as dangerous.

The argument that Irene Galtung makes is not unrelated to the argument I have long made about drone murders, namely that murder is illegal under national law and customary international law. And it is nearly identical to the argument that Marjorie Cohn and other lawyers make for the illegality of torture under customary international law — only applied to war rather than torture.

Irene Galtung’s idea is that customary international law is higher than written international law or written national law. The problem, as she readily admits, is that — being unwritten — it is highly controversial. Still, what’s needed is an act of interpretation not entirely unlike the interpretation of a written law. Galtung claims that all national constitutions provide a right to life, and that the right to use deadly force in self-defense exists only when such use is necessary for self-defense. War is deadly force, simply on a larger scale, and it is never necessary, as there are always alternatives. Therefore, logically, even if you’d be hard-pressed to get many well-paid lawyers or human rights organizations or governments or judges to admit it, war is a crime.

This argument (which I have, of course, only sketched very roughly) is smart, logical, and educationally useful. I plan to repeat it often. But what appeals to “customary law” come down to are attempts to radically change legal custom on the authority of current legal custom (reinterpreted). That this couldn’t be helped by also pointing to existing laws like the Kellogg-Briand Pact is difficult for me to imagine. In fact, later in the book the authors cite the UN’s Declaration of the Right of the Peoples to Peace. That we have a right to peace means that we have a right to the absence of war. The Declaration states that it:

“Emphasizes that ensuring the exercise of the right of peoples to peace demands that the policies of States be directed towards the elimination of the threat of war, particularly nuclear war, the renunciation of the use of force in international relations and the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations.”

The weakness is in those last few words, as the Charter contradicts itself and permits war. The Kellogg-Briand Pact lacks that particular weakness. I would love someday to hear a clear statement from Johan Galtung on what weaknesses he thinks its carries that justify its dismissal from public awareness and use.

Focus: Oregon Militia Standoff - Jan 6, 2016


Ammon Bundy wants millions of federally owned acres transferred back to 'the people' meaning local or state authority, ranchers released - MSNBC


VIDEO: Ammon Bundy meet the press at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge - KPIC


VIDEO: Oregon protesters plan: Repatriate federal lands, investigate the origins of how the federal government purchased its land holdings - NBC


Activists say they'll leave if residents want them gone, residents say they agree with activists’ message but take issue with their tactics - LA Times


Ranch protesters form Citizens for Constitutional Freedom group - WND


Why many Westerners get angry about federal land rights, closer collaboration between the federal government and the states on land issues may be a solution of the conflict - Vox


In Oregon, frustration over federal land rights has been building for years - The Washington Post


The Bureau of Land Management Has a History of Bullying Ranchers – 'Nox & Friends


Key things to know about federal land ownership in the West - AP


The Bundys, the family behind the Oregon militia standoff, explained - Vox


Harry Reid Wanted Cliven Bundy Off His Ranch To Help Son Rory, China? - Investors.com

 

-----------------------------------------------------

Ammon Bundy says Feds won't oust militant occupiers, law enforcement communicating with him through back channels - OregonLive.com


Feds are taking wait-and-see approach to Oregon protesters, wary of the deadly confrontations at Waco and Ruby Ridge - dailysignal.com


VIDEO: Oregon militants post new video from refuge, plead for help to 'prevent bloodshed' - OregonLive.com


Authorities may plan to cut off power to militia at occupied Oregon refuge, Any such move would mark a significant escalation in the crisis - The Guardian


White House on Oregon standoff: this is a matter that local law enforcement is handling, we are hopeful that that situation can be resolved peacefully - OregonLive.com


Oregon ranchers begin new prison term, hope to receive rare presidential clemency from Obama - OregonLive.com


GOP candidates careful about response to Oregon standoff - UPI.com


Oregon protesters find support and scorn on social media - Reuters


To contact Bartolo email peaceloverblog[at]yahoo[dot]com (replacing [at] with @, [dot] with .)

Tomgram: Engelhardt, The Fate of Our Earth

This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To receive TomDispatch in your inbox three times a week, click here.

It’s time to panic!

Clinton, Sanders and the Libya War - Jan 5, 2016


During the last Democratic presidential debate Sanders criticized Clinton foreign policy saying that she is "too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be.” Clinton responded: "With all due respect, senator, you voted for regime change with respect to Libya. You joined the Senate in voting to get rid of Gaddafi, and you asked that there be a Security Council validation of that with a resolution.” Sanders did not reply. Hopefully he will do it next time when the issue arises again with Clinton or the Republican presidential candidate. The Senate resolution co-sponsored by Sanders calls on Gaddafi to “recognize the Libyan people’s demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit a peaceful transition to democracy.” The resolution urges the United Nations Security Council to consider the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory "to protect civilians in Libya” but it does not call for war and military action to overthrow Gaddafi. The resolution was agreed to Senate on March 1, 2011. Few weeks later, when the US, EU and NATO began the military intervention in Libya, Sanders told Fox News: "I think one of the things many people are upset about is this war took place without consultation of the Congress, without debate within the Congress...I hope the president tells us that our troops will be leaving there, that our military action in Libya will be ending very, very shortly.” Conclusion: Sanders did not support the Libya war.


I do not agree with the Senate resolution which contains the false statement that Gaddafi was killing thousands of people to repress the revolt. The resolution defends the protesters "demanding democratic reforms" but ignores the fact that they included armed Islamic estremists with Al Qaeda in a significant role. In another false statement the Senate resolution hints that Gaddafi personally ordered the terrorist attack that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270. There is no evidence of his involvement. The Libya former Minister of Justice Mustafa Abdul Jalil, who resigned during the  2011 rebellion, claimed to possess documents proving that Gaddafi personally ordered the airplane bombing but later denied making this claim saying he was misquoted. In 2003, Gaddafi paid compensation to the families of the Lockerbie victims, although he maintained that he had never given the order for the attack.


The U.S. military intervention in Libya is Obama's major foreign policy mistake. Decisions taken at the top of U.S., European and Arab circles have caused the immense suffering of the people at the bottom. The establishment of a no-fly zone in Libya proved to be the first step towards an incremental military intervention that lead to the toppling of the Gaddafi regime. Hillary Clinton and her close associates, former US Ambassador Susan Rice and National Security Council aide Samantha Power, lead the charge advocating the Libya war within the Obama administration. Opposed were Secretary of Defense Gates, the national security adviser Tom Donilon and counterterrorism chief John Brennan. In the end a reluctant Obama, who was also pressed by France, Britain and the Arab League, sided with Clinton on Libya. A groundbreaking article by the Washington Times reports that, according to secret audio recordings recovered from Tripoli, top Pentagon officials "so distrusted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2011 march to war in Libya that they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gaddafi regime in an effort to halt the escalating crisis.” The tapes were reviewed by The Washington Times and authenticated by the participants. The nation’s highest-ranking generals were concerned that president Obama and Congress were being misinformed on Libya. On tape an American intermediary specifically dispatched by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Libya said: “You should see these internal State Department reports that are produced in the State Department that go out to the Congress. They’re just full of stupid, stupid facts.”


To contact Bartolo email peaceloverblog[at]yahoo[dot]com (replacing [at] with @, [dot] with .)

Talk Nation Radio: Cian Westmoreland, former U.S. Air Force technician in Afghanistan, speaks against war

https://soundcloud.com/davidcnswanson/talk-nation-radio-cian-westmoreland-former-us-air-force-technician-in-afghanistan-speaks-against-war 

Cian Westmoreland is a former Air Force technician who served in Kandahar Air Field, Afghanistan at the 73rd Expeditionary Air Control Squadron. He assisted in building a signal relay station that was used for transmitting and receiving data, radio, and radar picture for unmanned and manned missions for approximately 250,000 square miles over Afghanistan. In a report provided to him after his tour, he was credited with assisting in 2,400 close air support missions and 200+ kills of supposed enemies. The UNAMA report for that year, 2009, claimed however that this number also included 359 civilians killed in airstrikes. Westmoreland discusses his experience.

Learn more: http://projectredhand.org

See related film: http://dronethedocumentary.com

Support whistleblowers: https://whisper.networkforgood.com

Total run time: 29:00

Host: David Swanson.
Producer: David Swanson.
Music by Duke Ellington.

Download from LetsTryDemocracy or Archive.

Pacifica stations can also download from Audioport.

Syndicated by Pacifica Network.

Please encourage your local radio stations to carry this program every week!

Please embed the SoundCloud audio on your own website!

Past Talk Nation Radio shows are all available free and complete at
http://TalkNationRadio.org

and at
https://soundcloud.com/davidcnswanson/tracks

American Casualties of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program

When Americans think about nuclear weapons, they comfort themselves with the thought that these weapons’ vast destruction of human life has not taken place since 1945—at least not yet.  But, in reality, it has taken place, with shocking levels of U.S. casualties.

Emails: US Government Facilitated LNG Business Deals Before Terminals Got Required Federal Permits

Cross-Posted from DeSmogBlog

Emails and documents obtained by DeSmog reveal that the U.S. Department of Trade has actively promoted and facilitated  business deals for the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry and export terminal owners, even before some of the terminals have the federal regulatory agency permits needed to open for business. 

Obama's Oily Christmas Gift: Faster Pipeline Approvals

Cross-Posted from DeSmogBlog

Just over a week before the U.S. signed the Paris climate agreement at the conclusion of the COP21 United Nations summit, President Barack Obama signed a bill into law with a provision that expedites permitting of oil and gas pipelines in the United States.

My 2016 New Years Day: The Good, the Sad and the Ugly

By John Grant

 

Philadelphia -- A number of things converged to make my New Years special this year. Three of them were good, one was not so good -- in fact, it had the sense of a nasty omen for the future.

Ruling soon on Mumia non-treatment policy challenge: PA Admits Secret ‘Protocol’ Denies Hep-C Treatment to All But Dying Inmates

By Dave Lindorff

 

Following three days of contentious testimony in a courtroom in Scranton, PA late last month, a federal district judge is considering a legal petition by Pennsylvania's most well-known prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal for a finding that the state's long-running refusal to treat his active case of Hepatitis-C, a potentially fatal disease, violates his Eighth Amendment right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

Focus: Hillary Clinton - Jan 2, 2016


Speaking fees meet politics for Clintons, Former president spoke to groups with issues before State Department - WSJ


House Oversight Probes Hillary Speech Fees To Clinton Foundation - Forbes


Letter of House Oversight Committee Chair about the speech fees Mrs. Clinton failed to disclose while she was Secretary of State - house.gov


Watergate Prosecutor op-ed: 'Clinton cannot avoid having to respond to questions about foundation activities and speaking fees’ - CNN


RICO suit against Clinton Foundation trial Jan 20 - Media Circus


Clinton raised $37 million in last 3 months, she also raised $18 million for the Democratic National Committee and state parties - New York Times


Clinton Tops List of Arms Company Donations - teleSUR English


ARCHIVE: Clinton Foundation amends its tax return forms from four separate years due to errors in the reporting, admits to millions in foreign cash - Fox Nation


ARCHIVE: Clinton Foundation refiles ‘fraudulent financials’ with IRS - WND


ARCHIVE: Report of Wall Street Analyst: The Clinton Foundation Refiled, but the Errors Remain - Charles Ortel


ARCHIVE: Watchdog group FACT calls for probe of Clinton relationship with firm tied to son-in-law - Fox News


ARCHIVE: 41 years. $3 billion. Inside the Clinton donor network - Washington Post


ARCHIVE: Clinton close relationship with businessman who used offshore tax havens and paid IRS $250 million to avoid charges of tax evasion - Breibart


ARCHIVE: Judicial Watch Sues Treasury for Records on Hillary Clinton-Russian Uranium Scandal - marketwired.com


ARCHIVE: Long line of felons worked with nonprofit American India Foundation co-founded by Bill Clinton - Daily Mail Online


ARCHIVE: Clinton Foundation Running Private Equity Fund in Colombia - Washington Free Beacon

 

---------------------------------------------------

State Dept releases more Clinton emails: Hundreds are classified - AP


Email shows Soros regrets supporting Obama, complains he has never met with the President but can ‘always' get meeting with Hillary - Daily Caller


Hillary emails show ties to Rahm, Blumenthal, Clinton Foundation - Washington Examiner


That time Hillary Clinton's pollster told her to resign calling remarks by Obama 'the stupidest thing ever said by a president in foreign policy' - Washington Examiner


In email Sid Blumenthal floated rumor that Gaddafi supplied his troops with Viagra in order to rape rebel women, it was then voiced by Susan Rice during a UN’s Security Council meeting - Daily Caller


Hillary Clinton: I never told Benghazi victims' families the terror attack began over an anti-Islam video, Four of them say she is lying - Daily Mail Online


ARCHIVE: Journalist Friedman details Clinton's crucial mistake over Libya: Ignoring Pentagon and NSC advice and supporting Sarkozy in bombing Gaddafi and seeking regime change - PRNewswire


VIDEO ARCHIVE: Architects of disaster: The destruction of Libya, Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Hoekstra offers an analysis of a disastrous foreign policy decision - heritage.org


To contact Bartolo email peaceloverblog[at]yahoo[dot]com (replacing [at] with @, [dot] with .)

Identity Berned

Every time I write about a book about Bernie Sanders, somebody sends me a better one. If this keeps up, by the time his campaign is over I should be reading the best book ever written and be completely out of touch with reality. The latest is The Bern Identity by Will Bunch.

These books don't make me like Bernie Sanders any more or less, or for that matter take seriously any more or less the idea that a likable personality is particularly relevant. But they do inform me about Sanders and about his supporters. Bunch's is the most substantive, best researched, and most coherent book of the bunch so far.

Bunch admires Bernie for learning the lessons of the 1960s and, for the most part, never selling out. Bunch finds this remarkable, almost unique. And, of course, it is that among U.S. Senators, and among the gang of misfits occupying the two stages at the freak shows we call presidential primary debates. But there are many thousands of people who woke up during the 1960s and never went to sleep. Many of them have worked for peace and justice ever since with hardly a burnout. One could pick any number of them and stack their accomplishments up quite impressively against those of Bernie Sanders.

Yes, I agree that Bernie's injecting of a little bit of sense into corporate television is important and very hard to measure. Yes, I have no doubt that there's a bit more integrity and relevance in Bernie's background than there was in the legend of the African-American community-organizing author come to save us while shrewdly pretending not to. But Bernie holding the biggest political rallies in some big cities since Eugene McCarthy may not be an unmixed blessing.

I've written before about Bernie volunteers professing to be motivated by policies that their candidate explicitly opposes. Yet I cannot stay untouched by the excitement Bunch depicts at massive Bernie rallies he's attended. It's wonderful for people to suddenly discover that something might be possible, to suddenly give a damn, to suddenly do a tiny something about it. But it's also miserable to consider that they have been so well trained to do this only as cheerleaders for a candidate.

Surely that's not the lesson of the 1960s in which the civil rights and antiwar and other movements organized around issues and imposed change on the entire bipartisan political structure -- just as major change has usually been brought about. Yes, elections were hugely important in the Sixties, but they were secondary. Now they are Everything. The peace movement shut down in 2007 because there was to be an election in 2008, and it won't start up again until a Republican moves into the White House. Elections are terrific -- I'd love to see a fair and open one in the United States some day -- but there is a danger in the new myth that they are all that there is.

Bunch's book celebrates Bernie Sanders as having stayed true to his Sixties politics all these years, while the public moved away and has finally returned to him. I think there's something to that, but would offer a few caveats. First, there have always been millions of people wanting progressive policies, and they have been effectively shut out by the media, by the Democratic Party, and by an increasingly corrupted political system. Second, the other candidates have moved so far right that Bernie is closer to where a middle of the roader sits. Third, Bernie is fundamentally rightwing on militarism, and nobody wants to analyze that problem in any depth.

On the first point, I recommend Ted Rall's book on Bernie, the first half of which is a history of the Democratic Party's flight to the right.

On the second point, let's be honest, there are many people who could be doing more or less what Bernie is doing right now in the Democratic Primary. Most potential candidates sat this one out, either because Hillary Clinton claimed such a lock on the nomination or because committing to support her should she win was too revolting a decision to make in order to run as a Democrat. The media completely whites out third-party candidates like Jill Stein, and the public has been convinced they're useless. And yet, even as the Republicans ape Hitler and Mussolini, Hillary Clinton tries to position herself to their right. Bernie is a brilliant, dedicated, relatively honest candidate who has been given an opening by a combination of circumstances, not least of them perhaps the media's notion that an undecided primary is better for ratings as long as there's no risk of someone like Sanders actually winning.

On the third point, Bunch's history of Sanders' life suggests that it's not entirely new for him to give far less interest to peace than to domestic matters. There's no account of Sanders growing outraged over the war on Vietnam, rather over President John Kennedy's opposition to the Cuban revolution. Sanders registered as a conscientious objector, but he organized against racial discrimination and against restrictions on having sex on campus. Bunch seems not to notice the elephant that's not in the room. He says a Sanders speech is a laundry list of liberal issues in which everyone will hear whatever they're waiting for. Not if you're waiting to hear about peace.

Bunch doesn't hide the shortcomings. He notes that the Sanders campaign staff forced the removal of a banner advocating rights for Palestinians, that in 1983 peace activists protested a GE weapons plant in Burlington demanding conversion to peaceful manufacturing and Mayor Sanders had them arrested in the name of preserving 3,000 weapons-making jobs, and that in recent years Sanders has supported the production of the F-35 also in the name of jobs for Vermonters.

In 1972 Sanders wrote, as Bunch quotes him, that the daily U.S. military budget was greater than the annual state budget of Vermont. At $4 billion today, the state of Vermont is slightly over one day's military spending (taking annual military spending to be $1.2 trillion) but it has been a long time since Sanders has demanded conversion to peaceful spending. Instead, he has accepted the truly sociopathic notion that jobs (and jobs of a particular sort, as if a good socialist doesn't know that the same dollars could produce more jobs if spent on peace) justify militarism. Imagine how that sounds to the 96% of humanity never mentioned by Sanders, except when citing the successes of European nations whose radically lower military spending he seems not to have noticed.

Dear parent of dead children in Yemen just blown up by U.S. weapons, let me assure you that the money Saudi Arabia paid for those weapons -- if not the "contributions" to the Clinton family -- produced a lot of jobs. And while we could have had even more jobs by investing in something useful like green energy that would keep you from baking to death in the years to come, the fact is that I don't really give a damn.

Militarism is at least half of what Congress spends money on each year. It's not my personal quirky interest. Is it OK that Bernie excuses Israel's crimes because he's Jewish? Should we overlook his support for guns because he's from Vermont? These are debatable, because he's so wonderful on so many other things. But continuing down the path of sociopathic militarism is not an option if we are to maintain a livable planet. Bernie voted against the 2003 attack on Iraq, but then worked against those in Congess trying to block funding for it. Was that the right compromise? Was that authenticity?

Of course, the military spending debate is usually about the wars that add 10% or so to the standard military spending. When it comes to those, Sanders wants Saudi Arabia to start paying for them. But there are problems with that scheme. First, Saudi Arabia gets its money by selling the world the poisonous fossil fuels that will destroy it. Second, Saudi Arabia buys the biggest pile of its weapons from the United States, which thereby contributes to the mass slaughter -- and everyone knows it. Third, Saudi Arabia is one of the largest sources of funding and support for the people that Bernie imagines it funding a war against. Fourth, continuing these insane wars in the Middle East will continue to spread violence around and outside of that region, including to the United States, regardless of what share of the bill the United States is asking Saudi Arabia to pick up. That cycle of violence will only end by taking a different approach, not by continuing down the same road with a different billing scheme.

The great hope that comes to the smarter people at rallies for good candidates under corrupt electoral systems is that they are building a movement that will outlast the campaign. But when has that actually happened? And how can such a candidate-focused movement not bow before the candidate's own compromises?

The election book we really need is the one that explains the minor role elections play in social change. The next-best election book that we need, the one I keep looking for, is the one that outlines what each candidate proposes to do if elected. What would their proposed budgets look like? Which nations would they bomb first? Does Bernie think military spending is too high or too low? Who knows! I expect the question not to come up in the next dozen Bernie books, but I'll keep looking.

Court could rule not treating inmates with Hep C violates 8th Amendment: Dr. Jess Guh on Hep-C Epidemic in Nation’s Prisons

Judge could rule not treating prisoner Hep C violates 8th Amendment:

Dr. Jess Guh on Hep-C Epidimec in Nation’s Prison and PA’s Refusal to Treat Mumia Abu-Jamal

A Progressive Radio Network podcast

Dave Lindorff and his guest on PRN.fm's “This Can't Be Happening!" program, Dr. Jess Guh, talk about Mumia Abu-Jamal’s court battle in federal court in Scranton to force the state’s prison system to provide him with treatment for his active and potentially fatal case of Hepatitis-C.

Dr. Guh, a primary car physician from Seattle who has been investigating the shoddy standard of health care in the nation’s prisons, and who has reviewed some 100 pages of Mumia’s medical record, says that what Pennsylvania and many other states are doing to prisoners in their control by denying Hep-C treatment is nothing short of malpractice and neglegence on a massive scale.

To hear this podcast, please go to: www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/2972

Bern the Feel

If you have to obsess over a political candidate who's ocassionally allowed on television, please do so with Ted Rall's book on Bernie. This is not John Nichols' interview of Bernie in which he forgets that foreign policy even exists. This is not Jonathan Tasini's almost worshipful book in which he selectively includes the best and omits the worst of Bernie Sanders' record.

And this is not even just an honest look at the facts about Bernie (which Rall sees as far more positive than negative). What sets this book apart is not that it's a cartoon, but that it's an argument for placing Bernie Sanders in a particular position in U.S. history, namely as the restoration of liberalism to a Democratic Party that hasn't seen it since the McGovern campaign.

In fact, a huge chunk of the book is not about Bernie at all, but is a history of the rightward drifting of the Democratic Party over the decades. Another big chunk is a history of Bernie's childhood and career. Both of these sections are well done. Then comes the "Return of the Democratic Left," the supposed rebirth of leftism within the Democratic Party.

Rall suggests this as a possibility, but I'm pretty sure he finds it quite a bit more likely than I do. Rall says that in order to win, Bernie has to create the impression that he can win. Well, of course, in a certain sense he could. Polls show him defeating Trump, for whatever polls are worth, and defeating him by more than Hillary Clinton would.

But is that what Bernie has to do to win? I should think he would have to convince the media gatekeepers that he favors corporate power, that he would have to win over the corrupt super-delegates, that he or a team of lawyers or a movement of activists would have to clean out the bureaucracy of the corrupt Democratic National Committee.

I remain convinced that the media is keeping Sanders and Trump around for ratings and will destroy them as soon as it chooses, and never chooses to do such a thing as early as the December of the year before the election. In part, I attribute a lot more power to the media in general than Rall may. He tells the story of the rise and fall of Occupy without mentioning the media that fundamentally created it and largely destroyed it. I also am of course aware that history is not quite as simple as a fairy tale.

"Here for the first time in 40 years was a candidate running for the Democratic nomination who was talking about bread and butter issues," writes Rall of Sanders. But such candidates have of course existed. The year 2004 doesn't make it into Rall's history, or the name John Kerry, but in that year I worked for the campaign of Dennis Kucinich who also ran in 2008. His campaigns failed badly, but Jesse Jackson's campaign of 1984 won more states than Sanders has yet won.

Sanders is doing remarkably well, but when people's televisions tell them they must vote against him, will they disobey? The U.S. public has become intensely obedient. I think it's worth keeping a few things in mind:

1. The U.S. government mostly produces weapons and wars. Militarism is at least half of discretionary spending every year. Rall honestly notes various wars that Bernie has supported. But neither Rall nor anyone else has the slightest idea whether Sanders thinks military spending should stay at 50% of the budget, drop to 5%, or rise to 90%. Such basic policy questions are not asked.

2. Most serious political change has never come through elections, it has come through popular movements that influence or overwhelm whoever happens to hold power.

3. If Bernie is tossed under the bus by the caucus and primary voters, in predictable obedience to their televisions, the cause of saving the earth will not be lost. You will not be required to go into deep mourning. An interesting distraction will have been set aside, nothing more.

4. Understanding all of that, it'd certainly be better for Bernie to win than any of the other Democrats and Republicans. And it would mean the sort of Rooseveltian transformation of the Democratic Party that Rall sees coming.



Speaking Events

2016

 

March 24, Boone, NC.

 

March 25, Asheville, NC
Battery Park Apartments, 1 Battle Square, rooftop room, noon - 2 p.m.
Sign up on FB.

 

War Is A Lie: Second Edition
Published April 5, 2016
Tour begins here:

April 11, Washington, DC, 6:30-8:00 p.m. at Busboys and Poets at 5th and K Streets.
Sign up on FB.

 

April 12, Baltimore, MD, 7:30 p.m. at Red Emma's.
Sign up on FB.

 

April 14, Bellingham, WA, 7:00-9:00 p.m. at Bellingham Unitarian Fellowship.
Sign up on FB.

 

April 15, Seattle, WA
Town Hall Seattle
1119 Eighth Ave (8th and Seneca) 
Seattle, WA 98101
7:30pm
Sign up on FB.

 

April 16 Portland, OR

 

April 24, Oneonta, NY at Unitarian Universalist Society of Oneonta.
5:30 discussion with students.
7:00 talk and Q&A with everyone.
Sign up on FB.

 

May 28, San Francisco, CA
11 a.m. to 1 p.m., David Swanson interviewed by Daniel Ellsberg, at San Francisco Main Public Library, 100 Larkin Street.
Sign up on FB.



May 28, Marin County, CA
4 to 6 p.m., David Swanson in conversation with Norman Solomon, at Book Passage, 51 Tamal Vista Blvd., Corte Madera, CA
Sign up on FB.



May 29, Oakland, CA
3 to 4 p.m., David Swanson interviewed by Cindy Sheehan, at Diesel: A Bookstore, 5433 College Avenue at Kales (near Manila), Oakland, CA
Sign up on FB.



May 29, Berkeley, CA
7:30 to 9 p.m., David Swanson and Cindy Sheehan at Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists, sponsored by the Social Justice Committee and Cynthia Papermaster, 1606 Bonita Ave. (at Cedar), Berkeley, CA
Sign up on FB.



May 30, Fresno, CA
2 to 4 p.m., David Swanson and Cindy Sheehan at a Peace Fresno event

 


June 11 St. Paul, MN, 6 p.m. at Macalester Plymouth Church Social Hall 1658 Lincoln, St. Paul, MN.
Sign up on FB.

 

June 12 Minneapolis, MN, 9 and 11 a.m. at St. Joan's 4533 3rd Ave So, Minneapolis, MN, plus peace pole dedication at 2 p.m.
Sign up on FB.

 

Other Events Here.

CHOOSE LANGUAGE

Support This Site

Donate.

Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.

 

Sponsors:

Speaking Truth to Empire

***

Families United

***

Ray McGovern

***

Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.