You are hereBlogs


Focus: Clinton, Biden, Sanders - Sep 2, 2015

State Department releases thousands of Clinton emails, 125 contain classified information - Fox News

Clinton wrote classified e-mails sent using private server - The Washington Post

State: No way to know if Clinton emails should have been classified at the time they were sent - Washington Examiner

VIDEO: Full State Department Briefing, Emails Questions Begin at 24 min thru 42 min -

Sources: Clinton email markings changed to hide contents, shielding extent of classified info - Fox News

Clinton Told Special Envoy for Middle East Mitchell to Send 'Born Classified' Info to Her Private Email Account - National Review

Hillary Clinton may have broken US secrecy rules with emails from Tony Blair and Downing Street - Telegraph

Tony Blair Shows up in Latest Clinton Emails, Discrediting Hillary's Private Server Excuses - National Review Online

Hillary Clinton emails: Cherie Blair lobbied for Qatari crown prince - The Guardian

Text of all released Secretary Clinton emails - U.S. Department of State

Hillary Clinton emails compromised spy satellite data on North Korean nukes - Washington Times

Hillary's Email Crashed: State Dept IT Staff Didn't Know The Account Was Hers! - Breitbart

State Dept Still Does Not Know Whether Clinton’s Server was Breached - Washington Free Beacon

Exclusive: Hillary Shared An Email Network With The Clinton Foundation - Breitbart

Clinton Enlisted State Employees to Steer Funds to Clinton Foundation Partner - Washington Free Beacon

Feds move to consolidate lawsuits over Hillary Clinton emails, dozens of Freedom of Information Act cases could be placed in front of a single judge - POLITICO

Emails Show How Hillary Clinton Valued Input From Sidney Blumenthal - The New York Times

Blumenthal: Being Hillary Clinton's Private Spy Was a Full-Time Job -

Huma complained she wasn't paid enough, the Clinton’s closest aide was able to change her fortunes with a little help from friends: her pay reached $490,000 - The Weekly Standard



POLL: Biden is top choice of Democrats if Clinton falters: Reuters/Ipsos poll - PhillyVoice

POLL: Only One Quarter of Undecided Democratic Primary Voters Have Favorable View of Hillary Clinton - Washington Free Beacon

AFL-CIO’s Trumka to walk with VP Joe Biden on Labor Day - The Boston Globe

Trumka: Democratic field 'still wide open,' Biden has time, early AFL-CIO endorsement conceivable - Yahoo News

VIDEO: AFL-CIO’s Trumka Explains Low Labor Enthusiasm For Clinton, Urges Her To Reject Pacific Trade Agreement - YouTube

Draft Biden super PAC names Eaton New Hampshire director, more staff to be hired - WMUR

Stephen Colbert's Late Show lands Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders - Orlando Sentinel

Sanders to introduce bill targeting high drug prices - TheHill

Bernie Sanders applied for ‘conscientious objector’ status during Vietnam, campaign confirms - ABC

Apple Co-Founder Steve Wozniak Tweets Support For Bernie Sanders -

Elizabeth Warren says potential vice presidential bid 'something I'm not talking about’ - AP

Women explain why they're anti-Hillary Clinton in the anonymous posting platform Whisper - AOL


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

Talk Nation Radio: Eve Spangler on Israel/Palestine

Eve Spangler is a sociologist and a human and civil rights activist.  For the last decade, her work has focused on the Israel/Palestine conflict. We discuss her new book, Understanding Israel/Palestine: Race, Nation, and Human Rights in the Conflict.

Total run time: 29:00

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

Download from Archive or LetsTryDemocracy.

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

and at

Tell U.S. Institute of Peace to Work for Peace

The U.S. Institute of Peace has a great name, our tax dollars, and a terrible record. Let’s move it in a better direction.

If you’ve never heard of the U.S. Institute of Peace, please keep reading. It works everyday with your money in a fancy new building next to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. It just doesn’t work for peace.


If you know the USIP’s record and consider it a lost cause, please keep reading. This institute can be made to do some good. A number of us will be meeting with USIP in late September and bringing along this petition. Please click here to sign it.

The petition to USIP reads: “We urge you to oppose U.S. militarism and begin working for an end to U.S. war-making by providing to Congress and the public information on the disastrous results of recent U.S. wars and the superior results of nonviolence and diplomacy. We ask that you recommend to the President of the United States the removal from your board of Stephen Hadley, Eric Edelman, and Frederick M. Padilla, and their replacement by three seasoned peace activists, along with a recommendation to maintain at least three seasoned peace activists on your board at all times — right now there are none.”

The U.S. Institute of Peace is a federal government institute created by a bill signed into law in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan and funded annually by Congress as well as sometimes receiving funding from the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the military.[1] The law states that the “Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the Director of Central Intelligence each may assign officers and employees of his respective department or agency, on a rotating basis to be determined by the Board, to the Institute.”

The Institute has never opposed a U.S. war and claims that it can only support things, not oppose them. But in fact, the law only forbids it from seeking “to influence the passage or defeat of legislation … except that the personnel of the Institute may testify or make other appropriate communication when formally requested to do so by a legislative body, a committee, or a member thereof.” Most U.S. wars, including the war on Libya, the newly revived war on Iraq (and Syria), and the drone wars on Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, have been launched without legislation. And, even if there were legislation involved, it would not be at all difficult for USIP to ask a single member of Congress to request its opinion, thereby freeing it to provide its views and its research. USIP makes no claim that it cannot provide the public with information on the negative results of U.S. wars; it simply fails to do so.

The Institute in fact makes recommendations to Congress, including in formally presented testimony, it just recommends things like supporting the Syrian opposition, training and arming troops to fight both ISIS and the Syrian government, and creating a “no fly zone” in Syria, rather than working toward an arms embargo or aid or diplomacy.[2] The Institute has recommended diplomacy with Iran, and could do so in a dozen other cases, although its notion that weapons sales is part of diplomacy may be less than helpful.[3]

The law requires that the USIP Board include 15 voting members, including the Secretaries of State and “Defense,” the President of the National “Defense” University, and 12 members appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and each having “practical or academic experience in peace and conflict resolution.” The law also states that “No member of the Board may participate in any decision, action, or recommendation with respect to any matter which directly and financially benefits the member or pertains specifically to any public body or any private or nonprofit firm or organization with which the member is then formally associated or has been formally associated within a period of two years.” There are a number of mechanisms for removing a board member, including 8 or more board members making that recommendation to the President.

The USIP does do some work aimed at peace, including hosting speakers and producing publications aimed at peace, sending skilled mediators into conflict zones, making research grants, holding essay contests, and conducting conflict-resolution trainings, but such efforts are deeply compromised by the following concerns:

USIP board member and chairman, Stephen Hadley, urges the bombing of Syria and the militarization of Ukraine, while encouraging European nations to double their military spending, and himself profiting from war as a board member of Raytheon.[4]

USIP board member Eric Edelman, a former undersecretary at the Pentagon, promotes higher military spending, an attack on Iran, and deployment of nuclear weapons to nations on Russia’s border.[5]

USIP board member Major General Frederick M. Padilla, USMC, is career military.

USIP promotes the overthrow of the Syrian government.[6]

USIP is not known to have ever opposed a U.S. war, U.S. weapons exports, U.S. foreign bases, or U.S. military spending.[7]

USIP promotes trade embargoes, economic austerity programs, and electoral interventions as tools of aggression, not peace building.[8]

USIP funds many more supporters than opponents of militarism.[9]

USIP hosts pro-war talks by leading war advocates.[10]

Appropriate board members for USIP exist in large numbers, and many of them would no doubt be happy to serve. Here are a few examples of the many possible names: Kathy Kelly, Michael McPhearson, Ann Wright, Paul Chappell, Noura Erekat, Dennis Kucinich, David Vine, Matt Daloisio, John Dear, Bruce Gagnon, Phil Donahue, Mel Duncan, David Hartsough, Mubarak Awad, Leslie Cagan, Roy Bourgeois, Cornell West, Lennox Yearwood, Osagyefo Sekou, Phyllis Bennis, Andy Shallal, Helena Cobban, Noam Chomsky, Elliott Adams.

Appropriate events that USIP could host might include:
How to Finally End the Korean War,
Abolition of Armed Drones,
A Plan to Close Overseas Bases,
Why Does NATO Still Exist?,
How Can the Kellogg-Briand Pact Be Complied With?,
What Could $2 Trillion a Year Buy Instead of War?,
Military Abolition and the Costa Rican Model,
Pondering Polling: How Did the U.S. Become Seen as the Greatest Threat to World Peace?,
Pinkerism and the Myth that War Is Vanishing,
WMD Tales From Iraq to Iran,
Vietnam Syndrome: Illness or Health?,
Benefits of Joining the International Criminal Court,
If War Makes Us Less Safe Why Can’t We Stop?,
The Economic and Moral Benefits of Transition to Peaceful Industries,
The ICCPR Ban on War Propaganda,
Diplomacy in Iran: Why Not in Eight Other Places?,
Why Arm Dictatorships?,
Whose Land Is Guantanamo?,
The Convention on the Rights of the Child – Why Not?,
What Is Preventing Spacefaring Powers from Banning Weapons in Space?,
Why Not Reinstate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty?,
Should Palestinians Have Human Rights?,
Remembering the Maine, the Lusitania, Tonkin Gulf . . . What Would Accurate History Change?,
What Would Compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Look Like?

Reports USIP could usefully write include:
U.S. arms sales to each foreign nation, as compared to the sales of other nations — a report the Congressional Research Service has ceased producing.
U.S. military spending, as compared to non-military government spending — a report the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency has ceased producing.

Initial Signers of the Petition Are:
David Swanson
Coleen Rowley
Heinrich Buecker
Robert Fantina
David Hartsough
Medea Benjamin
Gael Murphy
Kevin Zeese
Jodie Evans
John Heuer
Norman Solomon
Elizabeth Murray
Thomas Drake
Ann Wright
Todd Pierce
Alice Slater
Kent Shifferd
Jeff Cohen
William Binney
Ray McGovern
Kevin Martin
Barbara Wien
Leah Bolger
Patrick Hiller
Jim Haber

5. ibid
9. ibid

The Psychology of Projection in Conflict


Understanding human conflict requires us to understand human psychology. And it is only when we understand the psychology that drives conflict that we can take intelligent steps to address it.

Fascism From West Point

This headline in the Guardian is completely accurate: West Point professor calls on US military to target legal critics of war on terror.

But it hardly covers to content of the 95-page paper being reported on: see the PDF.

The author makes clear that his motivation is hatred of Islam. He includes the false myth of origins of Western Asian violence toward the United States lying in antiquity rather than in blowback. He includes the lie, now popular on all sides, of Iran pursuing nuclear weapons.

He announces, after the recent U.S. losses in Iraq and Afghanistan, that U.S. armies always win. Then he admits that the U.S. is losing but says this is because of insufficient support for the wars and for making the wars about an "economic system, culture, values, morals, and laws."

The key weapon in this war, he says, is information. U.S. crimes are not the problem; the problem, he writes, is any information distributed about U.S. crimes -- which information is only damaging because the United States is the pinnacle of support for the rule of law. It wouldn't matter if you spread news about crimes by some more lawless nation. But when you share news about crimes by the United States it hurts the U.S. cause which is upholding the rule of law and leading the world to lawfulness. The United States is the all-time world champion of the rule of law, we're told, in a 95-page screed that never mentions the Kellogg-Briand Pact and only belatedly brings up the United Nations Charter in order to pretend that it permits all U.S. wars.

You can pack a lot of existing lies about U.S. wars and some new ones into 95 pages. So, for example, Walter Cronkite lost the Tet Offensive (and by the logic of the rest of this article, should have been immediately murdered on air). The mythical liberal media is busy reporting on the U.S. killing of civilians, and the worst voices in public discourse are those of treasonous U.S. lawyers. They are the most damaging, again, because the United States is the preeminent leader of lawibidingness.

The treasonous antiwar lawyers number 40, and the author hints that he has them on a list. Though whether this is a real list like Obama's kill list or something more like McCarthy's is not clear. I lean toward the latter, primarily because the list of offenses run through to fill up 95 pages includes such an array that few if any lawyers have been engaged in all of them. The offenses range from the most modest questioning of particular atrocities to prosecuting Bush and Cheney in court. Nobody doing the latter has any voice in U.S. corporate media, and a blacklist for Congress or for the U.S. Institute of "Peace" would hardly be needed if created.

The 40 unnamed treasonous scholars are, in this treatise, given the acronym CLOACA, which in good fascist form of course means a sewer or an orifice for excreting feces or urine. Their supposed crimes include:

  • failing to concede that violations of the Laws of Armed Conflict by Muslims permit the waiving of those laws for the U.S. government;
  • interpreting the supposed standards of "distinction" and "proportionality," which the author admits are totally open to interpretation, to mean something the author doesn't like;
  • opposing lawless imprisonment and torture;
  • opposing murder by drone;
  • supporting the supposed duty to warn people before you kill them;
  • counting dead bodies (which is too "macabre" even though the U.S. is supposedly devoted to "minimizing civilian casualties" not to mention Western scientific superiority);
  • upholding laws; pointing out facts, laws, or counterproductive results;
  • filing suits in court;
  • or criticizing war advocates.

The heart of the matter seems to be this: opposing war amounts to supporting war by an enemy. And, nonetheless, among the reasons offered to explain CLOACA joining the enemy are "anti-militarism," and "pernicious pacifism." So actual opposition to war drives people to oppose war, which amounts to supporting war for the enemy. I think I've got it.

The prescriptions to heal this illness center on waging total war. The author proposes both dropping nuclear bombs and capturing hearts and minds. No doubt as part of his leading support for lawfulness, he demands that there be no restraint on U.S. warmaking against Muslims. That means no limit in time or place, a rewriting of any laws of war by the U.S. military, and no trust in the "marketplace of ideas." The U.S. must use PSYOPS, must impose loyalty oaths, must fire disloyal scholars from their jobs, must prosecute them for "material support of terrorism" and for treason, and must proceed to murder them in any time and place.

I suppose that when I point out that this illustrates the madness of militarism I should breathe a deep sigh of relief that I have no law degree.

Focus: Clinton, Sanders, Biden - Aug 31, 2015

POLL: Bernie Sanders close to 7 points of Hillary Clinton in the Iowa Poll, She's the pick for 37 percent, he for 30 percent -

POLL: Without Declaring His Candidacy Biden Places Third in Iowa, with 14 Percent of Likely Democratic Caucus-Goers - Bloomberg Politics

VIDEO: Iowa pollster Ann Selzer joins "Face the Nation" to discuss the latest Bloomberg/Des Moines Register poll - CBS

POLL: Presidential Candidates on Both Sides Confronting Angry Iowans - Bloomberg Politics

POLL: Read the methodology and questions of the Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll -


VIDEO: Bernie Sanders Reflects on Iowa Poll Momentum: Full interview - CNN

Sanders fires off long list of policy disagreements with Clinton - Washington Examiner

Sanders: Dems ‘dead wrong’ on limiting the number of debates to just four before the first round of voting takes place - TheHill

Activists turn up heat on DNC for more debates - TheHill

Bernie Sanders Defends Gun Control Record, Brags About D-Minus NRA Grade -

VIDEO: Raddatz Grills Bernie Sanders on Lack of Foreign Policy Positions - ABC

Sanders says he would be prepared to use military force in world affairs, 'But that should be a last resort' - AP

Sanders: I wouldn’t end drone program, but limit their use so that they do not end up killing innocent people - TheHill

VIDEO: Bernie Sanders addresses the Democratic National Committee’s summer meeting in Minneapolis -

Draft Biden Reaction to new Iowa Poll - Mark Halperin on Twitter

Top donors to President Obama's two national campaigns are galvanizing around a potential run by Joe Biden - Washington Examiner


Bill Clinton parties with rock stars while Hillary baby-sits - Page Six



Source: FBI ‘A-team’ leading ‘serious’ Clinton server probe, focusing on defense info - Fox News

Emails show Bill Clinton asked State Dept. for OK on N. Korea, Congo invites - Fox News

State Dept. bypassed ethics officers on some Bill Clinton talks, Grassley says - Miami Herald

Group: Clinton and her aides mixed State Department business with the Clinton Foundation's fundraising efforts - CNN

Panel: Who do the Clinton staff really work for? Abedin worked simultaneously for the State Dept, the Clinton Foundation and controversial consulting firm Teneo Strategies - Washington Examiner

What's Inside The Newly Released Huma Abedin State Department Emails - The Times

Elite Fundraiser for Obama and Clinton Linked to Justice Department Probe - Foreign Policy

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

Militarism Run Amok: Russians and Americans Get Their Kids Ready for War

In 1915, a mother’s protest against funneling children into war became the theme of a new American song, “I Didn’t Raise My Boy to Be a Soldier.”  Although the ballad attained great popularity, not everyone liked it.  Theodore Roosevelt, a leading militarist of the era, retorted that the proper place for such women was “in a harem―and not in the United States.”

Roosevelt would be happy to learn that, a century later, preparing children for war continues unabated.

We need peace officers, not pinkertons: What’s Wrong with Police in America

By Dave Lindorff


            Americans got a glimpse of what policing is like in a more humane and civilized society last year when four young Swedish cops, on vacation in New York City and riding on a subway, found themselves faced with a bloody fight in the aisle by two angry black men.

The Weak Tough Sell of the Iran Deal

Airing on PBS on September 12 will be an interview I watched taped at the Miller Center at the University of Virginia on August 28 with Wendy Sherman, the U.S. Under Secretary of State who played the key role in negotiating the Iran agreement.

The Miller Center has cut public questions and answers out of the portion of its events that are broadcast, so what will air will only include questions from the host, Doug Blackmon, but he asked I think most of the questions, some reasonable, some absurd, that have been asked by CNN, Fox, and the Associated Press. The elderly, wealthy, white audience asked questions at the end too, and the first one was about supposedly secret side agreements that would allow Iran to build nuclear weapons. My impression was that the audience was won over by Sherman's answers to everything she was asked.

In fact, Blackmon was about to call on me to ask a question when I had to leave to go meet with a staffer of Senator Mark Warner to urge him to oppose the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, and the first thing I did was give the staffer Sherman's information and ask him to ask the Senator to call her. Warner is, of course, undecided on whether the Iran deal is preferable to the course toward war that so many of his colleagues openly prefer.

My concern, which I had most hoped to ask about, would not have been a concern for Warner, I suspect. My concern was this: the White House Press Secretary has suggested, and Politico has reported that the White House has been telling Congress, that the agreement will allow the U.S. to learn useful information about Iranian facilities that will make it easier to launch an effective war against Iran in the future if "necessary." Sherman on Friday repeatedly violated the U.N. Charter by stating that the United States could launch a war on Iran, and that she had no doubt President Obama would do so, if "necessary" to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. How is that sort of talk heard in Iran?

Sherman should know. She spent two years getting to know and negotiating with Iranians. She describes friendly moments. Both she and her Iranian counterpart became grandparents during the course of this negotiation. She also describes yelling and walking out. How does she think the Iranians she knows hear threats of war? For that matter, how does she think they hear accusations of having had and desiring to have a nuclear weapons program -- accusations repeated by Sherman on Friday but for which she was not asked for any evidence. For that matter, she accused Iran of wishing death to the United States and Israel -- again, without being asked for any evidence.

Sherman was quite articulate and to-the-point and convincing in arguing every detail of the inspections. Those who want a "better deal" had better avoid listening to her at all costs if they want to maintain their belief system. But pushing for peace while threatening war is a weak sort of advocacy, even if its advocates view it as being tough. Sherman, like her former colleague Madeline Albright, brags about how much damage sanctions have done to people -- in this case Iranians. She wants to be tough. But is she being strategic? What happens when the U.S. changes presidents or Congresses or some sort of incident occurs or is alleged to have occurred? The U.S. public will have been taught to think about Iran in the least helpful manner possible.

Asked if she trusts Iran, Sherman says no way. She goes on at length about how trust is not even part of her profession, doesn't enter into it at all, that these negotiations were aimed at and achieved a regime of verification based on total mistrust. A moment later, asked if she trusts in the good faith of Benjamin Netanyahu, Sherman does not hesitate to exclaim "Oh, of course!" What does that example tell people to think about Iranians? Compared to an openly racist militarist who orders the slaughter of civilians, the Iranians are untrustworthy? If that were so, I'd oppose the agreement myself!

Sherman also says that Iran knows how to make a nuclear weapon. I'd have liked to ask her whether she learned this before or after the CIA gave Iran nuclear weapons blueprints -- for which Jeffrey Sterling sits in prison as the alleged and convicted whistleblower. And how did she learn it?

Sherman says the United States is the one indispensible nation that must lead the global fight against "terrorism." She declares that if needed the U.S. can re-impose not only its own sanctions on Iran but also those of its partners and the EU. I wouldn't be so sure. A stronger, reality-based case for this agreement would recognize that the threat is not from Iran but from the United States, that the world understands that to a huge extent, and that other nations are not going to easily re-impose sanctions on Iran. In fact they're already opening embassies there. For the United States to go back on this agreement, now or later, would indeed isolate one nation from the rest of the world. I wonder, however, if Sherman is able to allow herself to realize which nation that will be.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power wrote this week: "if the United States rejects this deal, we would instantly isolate ourselves from the countries that spent nearly two years working with American negotiators to hammer out its toughest provisions." Power goes on to explain that such isolation would be undesirable because it would prevent the United States from getting other governments to join in new sanctions to harm any other country or new wars against any other countries.

Hey, now that I think about it, I have to wonder whether U.S. isolation would be such a bad thing after all.

Our quadrennial reality TV show: Sorting Through the Bullshit in America

By John Grant

“One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. ... The realms of advertising and of public relations, and the nowadays closely related realm of politics, are replete with instances of bullshit so unmitigated that they serve among the most indisputable and classic paradigms of the concept.”

Focus: Clinton, Biden - Aug 28, 2015

POLL: Hillary declines sharply in Quinnipiac poll, 45% down from 55% a month ago, Sanders has 22% and Biden 18% -

POLL: Joe Biden polls better than Hillary Clinton against all Republicans, beating them by a larger margin - New York Post

POLL: The top three words voters think of to describe Hillary are 'liar', 'dishonest' and 'untrustworthy' - Washington Examiner

POLL: List of 50 Words Americans Used to Describe Hillary Clinton - Breitbart

POLL: Full results of the Quinnipiac Poll - Quinnipiac Poll

POLL: Biden 'Honest,' 'Genuine' in Reuters/Ipsos poll - The Times

POLL: Donald Trump would beat Hillary Clinton in Utah, BYU poll says - The Salt Lake Tribune

Biden to meet with AFL-CIO chief as he weighs White House run - TheHill

Biden to Meet With Jewish Leaders to Make Case for Iran Nuclear Deal - WSJ

Possible Biden run puts Obama fundraising network on high alert - The Washington Post

DNC chair: Biden 'would be welcomed' to presidential race - POLITICO

DNC to honor Beau Biden - TheHill

DNC announces fundraising agreement with Clinton, says it’s pursuing similar agreements with the other Democratic primary campaigns - POLITICO

O'Malley: Rallying around Clinton a 'big mistake' - TheHill

Christie: Hillary Clinton should quit presidential race -

Obituaries Keep Requesting Loved Ones Not Vote for Hillary - Washington Free Beacon

Progressive groups press Hillary on Wall Street's golden parachutes, Two former Clinton aides received bonuses from banks when they left to join her at the State Dept -

VIDEO: Clinton equates GOP stance on women to terrorists - TheHill

Clinton, Sanders united in call for more federal spending on higher ed, vary on college affordability approach - InsideHigherEd

Hamptons home rented by the Clintons could be yours for $32.5M - New York Post

How Chronic Disease Could End Hillary Clinton’s White House Run - The National Enquirer



Clinton Data Went Unsecured For Over a Month After ‘Classified’ Data Discovered - Washington Free Beacon

Clinton's attorney got security clearance just before handling emails - Washington Examiner

GOP senator accuses Clinton of improperly passing state secrets to her lawyer - McClatchy DC

Hillary Clinton emails: Chuck Grassley questions lack of permanent IG at State Department - Washington Times

Hillary Clinton’s State Department IG Was More Lapdog than Watchdog, Its Oversight Was Toothless, Lax - National Review Online

Top senator presses State on whether Clinton has security clearance despite FBI probe - Fox News

Group: Hillary Clinton mixed State, foundation business -

Clinton ally accused of running interference on email scandal - Washington Examiner

How Huma Abedin operated at the center of the Clinton universe - The Washington Post

Former AG Mukasey says he was wrong to suggest that if Clinton was ever convicted of destroying government records by erasing her server, she would be legally unqualified for the presidency - NBC

Hillary Clinton’s Handling of Email Issue Frustrates Democratic Leaders - The New York Times

Dems: Grassley's probe of Clinton's email gives Biden wide opening - Washington Examiner

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

War: Legal to Criminal and Back Again

Remarks in Chicago on the 87th anniversary of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, August 27, 2015.

Thank you very much for inviting me here and thank you to Kathy Kelly for everything she does and thank you to Frank Goetz and everyone involved in creating this essay contest and keeping it going. This contest is far and away the best thing that has come out of my book When the World Outlawed War.

I proposed making August 27th a holiday everywhere, and that hasn't yet happened, but it's begun. The city of St. Paul, Minnesota, has done it. Frank Kellogg, for whom the Kellogg-Briand Pact is named, was from there. A group in Albuquerque is holding an event today, as are groups in other cities today and in recent years. A Congress member has recognized the occasion in the Congressional Record.

But the responses offered to some of the essays from various readers and included in the booklet are typical, and their failings should not reflect poorly on the essays. Virtually everyone has no idea that there is a law on the books banning all war. And when a person finds out, he or she typically takes no more than a few minutes to dismiss the fact as meaningless. Read the responses to the essays. None of the responders who were dismissive considered the essays carefully or read additional sources; clearly none of them read a word of my book.

Wall Street reporting is a joke: The Stock Market is Getting Harder to Rig

By Dave Lindorff

It’s entertaining to watch and to read reports in the corporate media about the current stock market decline, which over the course of the last six business days erased $2.1 trillion in the market value of stocks of publicly-traded US corporations (and in a lot of ordinary Americans’ retirement savings). 

Focus: Clinton, Biden, Sanders - Aug 26, 2015

Exclusive: State Dept.-released Clinton email had classified intel from 3 agencies, possibly violating Obama order (VIDEO) - Fox News

DHS has no record of State Dept. giving info for Clinton server audit, despite rules - Fox News

Trey Gowdy frustrated by State Dept stonewalling on Clinton and her aides - Washington Examiner

Clinton's emails discuss conversations with foreign diplomats, embassy security and countries from Russia to China - Washington Examiner

POLL: 46 percent of voters believe Clinton should suspend her campaign amid email scandal, 44 percent disagree -  Washington Free Beacon

POLL: Should Hillary Clinton Suspend Her Campaign? - Rasmussen Reports

Former attorney general says classified email scandal 'disqualifies' Hillary Clinton from serving as president – IF she's broke federal law - Daily Mail Online

Memo Analyzes Possibility Hillary Clinton Prohibited From Holding Office -

President Bill Clinton's top spy blasts alleged Hillary email cover up -

Hillary Clinton’s lawyer had 'top secret' clearance - POLITICO

Hillary Clinton Used Email-Monitor Linked to Personal Tax Lawyer -

Hillary Server Firm Employs Top Clinton Operative -

Questions arise about existence of second, private Clinton email server - Fox News

Hillary Clinton E-mails Reveal Inner Circle of Yes Men - National Review Online

Emails Draw Huma Abedin, a Clinton Aide, Back Into the Spotlight - The New York Times

Occupy Argues Clinton Unfit To Run For President - The Moderate Voice

4 State Parties Sign Fund-Raising Pacts With Clinton Campaign - The New York Times

Maserati, Ferrari, Bentley and Porsche at Hillary Clinton fundraiser - Daily Mail Online

POLL: Hillary Clinton lagging against Republicans in summer target state polls - Washington Examiner

POLL: Michigan poll shows Hillary Clinton trails Jeb Bush; barely leads Donald Trump -

POLL: Clinton trouncing Trump, edging rest of GOP in Virginia - Washington Examiner

POLL: Hillary Clinton still a strong frontrunner in Iowa - CBS News



Obama gives Joe Biden 'blessing' for 2016 bid -


POLL: Yes He Can! 64% of Dems say VP Biden can win presidency in the  Economist/YouGov Poll - Washington Examiner

Joe Biden to Hold Unusual Conference Call With Hundreds of DNC Members - The New York Times

Joe Biden 2016: Draft Biden group circulates pro-Joe memo to DNC members - POLITICO

Draft Biden on track to be up in 50 States by next week, the super-PAC hopes to raise $3 million by the end of September - Bloomberg

Top Democratic fundraisers invited to meet with Joe Biden at Naval Observatory - The Washington Post

Joe Biden 2016: Big donors being courted by advisers - POLITICO

Hedge funder asked to host Joe Biden luncheon - Page Six

CBS: Citing Email Scandal, Major Clinton Donor Would Flip Support to Biden If He Ran (VIDEO) - Washington Free Beacon

More Democrats crack open door for Biden presidential run - Reuters

Joe Biden hires communications chief with campaign experience, she comes to the White House from the Motion Picture Association of America - Washington Examiner



POLL: Bernie Sanders surges ahead of Hillary Clinton in second striking New Hampshire poll - Business Insider

POLL: Sanders is gaining ground on Clinton, but he has little support among non-white Democrats - Economist/YouGov Poll

Bernie Sanders Grassroots Planning Huge March on Washington in October, this Facebook RSVP movement has garnered so far over 87,000 signatures - Observer

Bernie Sanders Gets Stamp of Approval From Cornel West - The New York Times

Bernie Sanders’s Success in Attracting Small Donors Tests Importance of ‘Super PACs’ - The New York Times

Deez Nuts endorses Bernie Sanders and John Kasich for presidential nomination, meet the 15-year-old presidential candidate (VIDEO) -

Talk Nation Radio: Salt Rebellion in U.S. Colonies and Sailing Food from Maine to Boston

Why sail food from Maine to Boston, and what do salt and the British colonies in North America have in common with Gandhi's India?

Rivera Sun is the author of The Dandelion Insurrection, Billionaire Buddha, and Steam Drills, Treadmills, and Shooting Stars, the cohost of Occupy Radio, and the cofounder of the Love-In-Action Network. She tours nationally speaking and educating in nonviolent civil resistance. Her essays on social justice movements appear in Truthout and Popular Resistance. See

Marada Cook is a food entrepreneur who can be found at Crown O'Maine Organic Cooperative, Northern Girl, and Fiddler's Green Farm.

Read Rivera Sun's article "Maine Sail Freight Revives: A Salty History of Revolution, Independence."

Find the Maine Sail Freight at

Total run time: 29:00

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

Download from Archive or LetsTryDemocracy.

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

and at

The Rise of the Permanent Prisoners of War

If someone has had the good fortune not to encounter the world of U.S. police and prisons, and the misfortune to learn about the world from U.S. schools, entertainment, and "news" media, a great place to start understanding one of the worst self-inflicted tragedies of our era would be with James Kilgore's short new book, Understanding Mass Incarceration: A People's Guide to the Key Civil Rights Struggle of Our Time, followed up by Radley Balko's longer Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces.

Both books tell a story of gradual change over the past half-century that has resulted in the police going to war against people they were supposed to serve (call it a war on crime, a war on drugs, a war on terror, it's always in fact a war on people). And what do you do with people captured alive during a war? You lock them away as prisoners of war until the war ends. And if the war never ends? Well, then you bring back the death penalty, create life sentences for lots of crimes including for kids, impose mandatory minimums and three-strikes, and transform parole and probation from rehabilitation to reincarceration services.

The story of this gradual change is one of legal changes (court rulings and legislation), behavior, and popular belief -- with each of these influencing the other two in a vicious cycle. You can't quadruple a prison population in 40 years without instituting a different belief system. You can't ship black prisoners to be guarded by rural whites employed by for-profit companies, or lock up immigrants indefinitely while they await hearings, and not alter the belief system further. You can't run several successive election campaigns as contests in meanness and not see changes in policy and behavior. You can't give police military weapons and not expect them to adopt military attitudes, or give them military training and expect them not to want military weapons. You can't give crime 10 times the coverage on the "news" and not expect people to imagine crime is increasing. You can't start smashing in doors without alienating the police and the people from each other.

Kilgore reminds us that the popular movements of the 1960s had an impact on popular thought. Opposition to the death penalty peaked in 1965 and was over 50% from 1957 to 1972, dropping to 20% in 1990. In 1977 only 37% of people polled rated police officers' ethics as high, a number that rose to 78% in 2001 for no apparent substantive reason. As late as 1981 most Americans thought unemployment was the main cause of crime. We've since learned of course that crime is caused by evil demonic forces that possess the bad people of the earth.

The creation of the world's largest ever collection of permanent prisoners of war -- a trend that would translate perfectly to the war "on terror" abroad -- developed through cycles, including partisan cycles. That is to say, Nixon had a horrible impact, Carter briefly slowed the mad rush to prisonville, and Reagan and Bush built on Nixon's policies. The war on drugs was created as a means to militarize the police and involve the federal government in more local law enforcement, not the other war around. Reagan's attorney general announced early on that, "the Justice Department is not a domestic agency. It is the internal arm of the national defense." The end of the Cold War saw the military looking for new excuses to exist, and one of them would be the war on drugs.

When Clinton came along it again made a difference to have a Democrat in the White House, only this time for the worse. Bill Clinton and his would-be president wife and allies such as would-be president Joe Biden accelerated the march to suburban Siberia rather than slowing it. Under Clinton it became possible to throw people out of public housing for a single drug offense of any kind by anyone in the house. And yet Clinton was never evicted from his public housing despite the near certainty that someone in the White House used some kind of drug. Clinton brought us huge increases in incarceration, war weapons for police, and the shredding of social supports.

When the War on Terra began in 2001 whole new pathways to profit and police militarization opened up, including the beloved Fatherland's Department of Homeland Security, which has handed out tens of billions of dollars in "terror grants" that fund the terrorizing of the U.S. public. In 2006 the Buffalo, NY, police staged a series of drug raids they called "Operation Shock and Awe." Adding truly military grade incompetence to meanness, the New York Police Department raided an elderly couple's home over 50 times between 2002 and 2010 because their address had randomly been used as a placeholder in a computer system and remained in any report that had failed to include an address.

The arrival of Captain Peace Prize at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue continued the trends and added an escalation of the war on immigrants, as well as of the war weapons for the police programs.

But the partisan cycles are more subtle as well. As Balko recounts, Congress members and others opposed police militarization when the president was of the other party and supported it when he was from theirs, or opposed it when the discussion focused on drugs but supported it in matters of gun-control (or vice versa). Yet, each acceptance was two steps forward and each resistance one step back, so that what was outrageous one decade became the norm in the next.

National partisan tides and vicious cycles of ever increasing militarization interacted over the years with local advances. Los Angeles, and the leadership of Darryl Gates, brought SWAT teams to U.S. policing. The name originally stood for Special Weapons Attack Teams and the tactics were literally a bringing of the war on Vietnam home as Gates consulted with the military to learn what was supposedly working in Vietnam.

Let me close with the question with which Balko begins his book: Are police constitutional? The police, prisons, parole, and probation did not exist when the U.S. Constitution was created any more than did drones or the internet. The first thing in the United States like police was the slave patrol. The first modern police force in the United States was begun in New York City in 1845. I've argued at length elsewhere that drones are incompatible with the Bill of Rights. What about police?

The Third Amendment grew out of resistance to allowing soldiers to engage in any of the abuses that constitute the work of police. Need we accept those abuses? I think we can at the very least radically reduce them. To do so we will have to declare an end to the wars abroad and the wars at home. Balko quotes former Maryland police officer Neill Franklin on what changing police attitudes will require:

"Number one, you've signed on to a dangerous job. That means that you've agreed to a certain amount of risk. You don't get to start stepping on others' rights to minimize that risk you agreed to take on. And number two, your first priority is not to protect yourself, it's to protect those you've sworn to protect." But that would mean not being at war with people.

Which U.S. Senators Really Want War on Iran -- An Update


Stabenow Yes takes potential No list down to 14. But Blumenthal is still undecided, so it's 15.


This is an update to "Which U.S. Senators Want War on Iran." But Blumenthal is still undecided, so it's 15.

I've found there isn't really any way to touch on this topic without misunderstanding, but here's a try. Iran has never had a nuclear weapons program or threatened to launch a war against the U.S. or Israel. Many opponents of the Iran deal in the U.S. Congress and nearly every, if not every single, proponent of the agreement in the U.S. Congress has proposed war as the alternative. Some examples are here. The White House is even telling Congress that the agreement will make a future war easier -- as a selling point in favor of the deal.

Of course, war is NOT the only alternative to the agreement. The threat of war comes from the U.S. An alternative to that would be to simply stop threatening it. No deal is actually needed. The purpose it serves is to slow down a U.S. push for war.

Of course, many ordinary supporters and opponents of the agreement do not want a war. But with Washington offering two courses of action toward Iran: a deal that imposes tougher inspections than anyone else has to deal with, or bombs, one has to choose the inspections.

That is, a moral person does. The "I want a better deal" argument is cynically put forward by people who want no deal at all, even if supported by well-meaning people who have the misfortune to own televisions or read newspapers.

Of course, the Iranian government can be criticized in many areas, none of which are subject to improvement by bombing.

Here are people who have said they oppose the agreement or can't make up their mind about it yet:

Every Republican in the U.S. Senate plus these Democrats (the first two have said No, the rest Undecided):
Menendez (NJ)
Schumer (NY)
Wyden (OR)
Bennet (CO)
Booker (NJ)
Cantwell (WA)
Cardin (MD)
Casey (PA)
Coons (DE)
Heitkamp (ND)
Mikulski (MD)
Murray (WA)
Peters (MI)
Stabenow (MI)
Warner (VA)

This is a much shorter list than what it was when I previously wrote on this topic. In fact, it's at 15, which is almost down to the 13 needed to kill the agreement. Get it down to 12 and the agreement survives. That means two more Democratic senators can come around to the Yes position on the Iran deal and the deal still die. Almost certainly at least those two will. Whether a third does, or more do, is the real question.

When measures voted on are popular with funders but unpopular with the public, they very often pass with no more than exactly the votes needed. Sometimes word leaks out about the deals that have been cut. Senators and House members take their turns giving the unpopular votes demanded by funders and "leadership." The trick here is that the "leadership" is split between Obama's and Biden's YES and (would be Senate leader) Schumer's NO.

The fifteen people named above have had PLENTY of time to conclude that many of their colleagues want to risk a war and to understand that the agreement is preferable to that. It's time for us to let them know we will not stand for them getting this wrong and will never forget it if they do. Here's what I'm asking about my senator, Mark Warner:

Here's what World Beyond War is doing to try to correct the myth that Iran is the origin of the threat of war in this affair:


We must uphold the Iran agreement, but upholding it while pretending that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, or is threatening anyone, will not create a stable and lasting foundation for peace. Upholding an agreement with both proponents and opponents threatening war as an alternative is perilous as well as immoral, illegal, and — given the outcome of similar recent wars based on similar recent propaganda — insane.

You can spread the above message on Facebook here, Twitter here, Instagram here, Tumblr here, and Google+ here.

In the U.S. sign these petitions: one, two, and join these events.

More events all over the world, and tools for creating your own are here.

Outside the U.S., people can contact the nearest U.S. Embassy.

Environmentalist Writer Claims Military Saves Lives

Jeremy Deaton seems to be a fine writer on the subject of climate change right up until he stumbles across the propaganda of the U.S. military. I highlight this as the latest example of something that is so typical as to be nearly universal. This is a pattern across major environmental groups, environmental books, and environmentalists by the thousands. In fact, it's in no way limited to environmentalists, it's just that in the case of environmentalism, blindness to the damage done by the U.S. military is particularly dramatic in its impact.

Focus: Hillary Clinton - Aug 22, 2015

Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest - Reuters

Declassify Dates of Some Clinton's Emails Raise Questions - VOA

Snipers, vehicle moves among classified data emailed to Clinton - Bloomberg

U.S. said to probe how classified data got on Clinton’s Server, blending info from multiple sources that included classified content - Bloomberg

Court says Clinton emails broke 'government policy', orders State Department to get FBI findings on Clinton e-mails - Washington Times

State Department did nothing to protect Clinton emails after hack - McClatchy DC

Critics say new State Department guidelines meant to 'chill' employee speech - Fox News

Denver-based Platte River Networks questioned by U.S. Senate over Hillary Clinton email server - 7NEWS Denver

Clinton’s Email Server Firm Scrubs ‘Data-Disposal’ References from Website, Hiding a Partnership with a Company Specialized in '100 Percent Data Destruction' - Washington Free Beacon

VIDEO: The IT Firm That Managed Hillary Clinton's Private Server Speaks Out - Fox News

Clinton Blames The Fed's 'Ridiculous Classification Rules' - The Daily Caller

The Real Clinton Email Scandal: Our Ridiculous Classification Rules - POLITICO Magazine

Intel, Military Officials Fire Back At Hillary’s Over-Classification Tweet - The Daily Caller

Watchdog: Two National Security Laws Appear Broken in Clinton Email Scandal - Washington Free Beacon

Everything you need to know about how the State Department classifies information - The Washington Post

VIDEO: Hillary For America's campaign Press Secretary, Brian Fallon, is here to fact check tweets about the emails controversy - YouTube

Déjà Vu: When Bill Clinton Pardoned His Former CIA Director over Classified Documents on His Home Computer - National Review Online



Decision nearing, Biden games out mechanics of a 2016 run - Chicago Tribune

Biden buzz grows amid new polling, ‘draft’ movement picks up key adviser - Fox News

VIDEO: Draft Biden movement gains momentum, Interview with former Obama campaign adviser Steve Schale - MSNBC

Hollywood Panic: Hillary Clinton's Email Scandal Has Some Donors Whispering, 'Joe Biden' -

Swing-State Quinnipiac Poll Suggests Joe Biden Opening - Bloomberg Politics

POLL: Quinnipiac: Clinton Has Nearly 2-to-1 Dishonesty Ratings in Key Swing States - Washington Free Beacon

Full text of results of the 2016 Presidential Swing State Polls Poll - Quinnipiac University 


POLL: A Fox 2 Detroit/Mitchell Research poll shows Republicans beating Clinton in Michigan - Washington Examiner

Democrats urge Clinton to offer better explanation of emails - AP

NBC: Democrats Think the Clinton Campaign Is ‘In Denial’ Over Email Scandal (VIDEO) - Washington Free Beacon


Fellow diplomats question Clinton's email defense - POLITICO

VIDEO: Email controversy sheds lights on Clinton's confidante Huma Abedin - CNN

Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin tried to force past Secret Service without ID - Daily Mail Online

Bernie Sanders Draws Big Crowds to His ‘Political Revolution’ - The New York Times

Martin O’Malley puts pressure on Clinton with new Social Security plan - POLITICO

Clinton Campaign On Alert For Undercover Conservative Sting -

The Hamptons where Hillary feels at home, Clintons prefer to vacation next to the rich one percent - POLITICO

The joke third-party presidential candidate Deez Nuts tops Trump, Clinton in Internet traffic - TheHill

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

When $8.5 Trillion is Chump Change

Three cheers for Reuters pointing out that the Pentagon can't explain what it did with $8.5 trillion that taxpayers gave it between 1996 and 2013.

Three trillion cheers for a blogger who is pointing out that this fact renders many other concerns ludicrous, and recommending that people bring it up at every opportunity:

"What's that? Body cameras for all cops will be too expensive? How about we find 1/10,000th of the money we sent to the Pentagon."

"Oh really? There's 500 million in provable food stamp fraud going to poor people how about the $8.5 TRILLION the pentagon can't account for?"

"Oh really? You think Obamacare is going to cost us almost a trillion dollars over 15 years? How about the 8.5 Trillion that just disappeared into the ether at the Pentagon? What's your take on that?"

"Oh really, you're concerned about deficit spending and the debt? Fully 1/3 of the national debt is money we sent the Pentagon and they can't tell us where it went. It's just gone."

"College for everyone will cost too much? You must be really pissed at the 8.5 Trillion, with a 't', dollars the pentagon's spent and can't tell us where it went."

This is all very good as far as it goes, whether you like the body cameras or corporate health insurance or other items or not. We could add an unlimited number of items including some expressing our concern for the other 96% of humanity:

"You can end starvation and unclean water for tens of billions of dollars; what about that $8.5 trillion?"

Et cetera.

But here's my real concern. The $8.5 trillion is just the bit that the Pentagon can't account for. That's far from all the money it was given. U.S. military spending, spread across several departments with the biggest chunk of it to the Department of so-called Defense, is upwards of $1 trillion every year. Over 17 years at the current rate, which rose sharply after 2001, that's upwards of $17 trillion.

Imagine that the Pentagon accounted for every dime of that missing $8.5 trillion, named every profiteer, documented the life history of every man, woman, and child killed, and passed the strictest audit by an independent team of 1,000 accountants reporting to 35 Nobel Laureates -- if that happened, I ask you, exactly what difference would it make?

Why is the $8.5 trillion that went to unknown purposes worse than the other trillions that went to known and named weapons and dictators and militants and recruitment campaigns? The documented and accounted for spending all went to evil purposes. Presumably the unaccounted for "waste" did the same. What's the difference between the two?

As World Beyond War points out, war has a huge direct financial cost, the vast majority of which is in funds spent on the preparation for war — or what's thought of as ordinary, non-war military spending. Very roughly, the world spends $2 trillion every year on militarism, of which the United States spends about half, or $1 trillion. This U.S. spending also accounts for roughly half of the U.S. government's discretionary budget each year and is distributed through several departments and agencies. Much of the rest of world spending is by members of NATO and other allies of the United States, although China ranks second in the world.

Wars can cost even an aggressor nation that fights wars far from its shores twice as much in indirect expenses as in direct expenditures. The costs to the aggressor, enormous as they are, can be small in comparison to those of the nation attacked.

It is common to think that, because many people have jobs in the war industry, spending on war and preparations for war benefits an economy. In reality, spending those same dollars on peaceful industries, on education, on infrastructure, or even on tax cuts for working people would produce more jobs and in most cases better paying jobs — with enough savings to help everyone make the transition from war work to peace work.

Military spending diverts public funds into increasingly privatized industries through the least accountable public enterprise and one that is hugely profitable for the owners and directors of the corporations involved -- thus concentrating wealth.

While war impoverishes the war making nation, can it nonetheless enrich that nation more substantially by facilitating the exploitation of other nations? Not in a manner that can be sustained.

Green energy and infrastructure would surpass their advocates’ wildest fantasies if the funds now invested in war were transferred there.

Tomgram: Noam Chomsky, Rogue States and Nuclear Dangers

 This article originally appeared at

Most Disgusting Game Ever

IMG_3703-v01No, I’m not referring to the U.S. election. I’m referring to “Bycatch.” The name refers not to fish accidentally caught and killed while trying to catch and kill other fish, but to humans murdered in a game in which the player hopes to murder certain other humans but knows that he or she stands a good chance of murdering some bycatch.

The Nazis never reached this height of banality in the general German public, but had they done so it would be a sinister feature of tens of thousands of Hollywood movies. If Russians sat around playing a board game that involved blowing up Ukrainian children, the Washington Post would have already published several front-page articles.

This is a game that puts you in the shoes of one particular human being, thus far, but imagines several engaging in the same activity in competition. In Bycatch you become Barack Obama going through his Tuesday murder list. But Bycatch imagines as many nations as people playing the game, each engaging in a drone murder spree against the others. Here’s an excerpt from the rules:

“How to strike

“Suspects hiding in other nations can be eliminated by means of a strike. You choose the opponent you wish to target and go through these steps:

“Discard two identical citizens who are not suspects from your hand.

“Remove three consecutive citizens from your chosen opponent’s hand.

“Show these cards to the other players.

“Place them face down in front of you.

“Failed Strike: If none of the eliminated citizens are suspects, they are all collateral damage.

“Successful Strike: If at least one eliminated citizen is a suspect, do the following:

  • Place the current intelligence card face 
down on top of the eliminated citizens.
  • Reveal a new intelligence card.

“The remaining citizens are collateral damage.”

IMG_3688-v01Thrilling! I wonder how one wins such a game of easy murder?

“Add 100 points for each suspect eliminated by a strike. Use the intelligence cards to identify eliminated suspects.

“Collateral Damage: Detract 10 points for each citizen in a strike who was not a suspect.”

So, if you casually murder three “wrong” people, you lose 30 points. But if you only murder two “wrong” people and murder one “right” person, you gain 80 points. I wonder what people will do?

This is a game to be played by well-off people who can afford to purchase such crap and to sit around playing with it. And it’s being marketed to them with a wink by people who know better. The game’s would-be profiteers have this to say about it:

“Appealing artwork helps you empathize with your citizens and the horrors of drone strikes and collateral damage.”

Right. Because tossing lives around on playing cards and making more points the more you murder is a well-established path to empathy.

I thought I couldn’t grow any more disgusted with the human race. I was wrong.

Focus: Hillary Clinton - Aug 20, 2015

Hillary Clinton Email Scandal: State Department Allowed Clinton to Use Personal Device - National Review Online

Judicial Watch Statement: State Department Did Not Provide Secure BlackBerry to Hillary Clinton - Judicial Watch

State Department admits it wiped clean and likely DESTROYED Blackberry devices used by top Hillary Clinton aides - Daily Mail Online

Hillary Clinton E-Mail Scandal: Federal Judge Expresses Frustration with State Department - National Review Online

Judicial Watch Statement: Federal Judge Orders State Department Early Hearing for Hillary Email Case - Judicial Watch

Attorney overseeing the State Dept's handling of Hillary emails worked for law firm representing Hillary over her same emails - Washington Examiner

State Department issuing new policy designed to keep employees from freely speaking to Congress or press? -

FBI optimistic it can recover some deleted data from Clinton server - MSNBC

Besides emails, forensic exam of Clinton's server may yield security, access clues - AP

Records of Clinton aides' travel to Chappaqua, Denver sought - Washington Examiner

Hillary Clinton's email firm Platte River Networks was run from a loft in Denver with its servers in the BATHROOM closet - Daily Mail Online

With unsecured Hillary emails, hackers worry Senate Homeland Security Chairman - The Daily Caller

As the intelligence community officials pour over thousands of Clinton unreleased emails, the overclassification issue could become a political problem -

VIDEO: Former CIA Director: Clinton Server ‘Dangerous to the Republic and to State Secrets’ - Washington Free Beacon

VIDEO: This Aspect of Hillary Clinton Email Scandal That Has Left Even Former NSA Director Stunned: ‘I Don’t Even Think It Was Legal’ -

VIDEO: Giuliani: Hillary Should Be the Subject of a Criminal Investigation - Fox News Insider

VIDEO: Clinton pulls plug on testy presser over emails questions - TheHill

James Carville Blames Email Scandal on 'Stupid Media People’ (VIDEO) - Mediaite



POLL: Hillary Clinton losing ground to Bernie Sanders, Trump trails her by just 6 points in CNN poll - POLITICO

POLL: More on the CNN Democratic polling -

POLL: Full text of the results for CNN Democratic polling -

POLL: Hillary Clinton's Mentions Online Are Running 75% Negative -

POLL: Hillary trails Trump in North Carolina - TheHill

Some Hillary Clinton supporters in South Carolina are starting to get nervous - The Washington Post

Has Clinton's email controversy impacted her donors? - CBS News

Clinton camp warns Democrat donors: keep checkbook closed for Joe Biden - Boston Herald

Hillary Clinton Wants Donors to Pay for Food and Drinks at Her Fund-Raisers - The Washington Post

Huma Abedin Received Over $40K From Hillary’s Former Leadership PAC - Washington Free Beacon

Donald Trump Blasts Hillary Clinton 'Deleter of the Free World' in New Attack Ad over Email Issues (VIDEO) -

VIDEO: Trump: Hillary emails 'devastating' for election -

Black Lives Matter Activist Tells Hillary to Her Face That She's Responsible for Mass Incarceration -

Hillary Clinton Addresses Her Husband's Crime Policies And Mass Incarceration -

VIDEO: Hillary Clinton Talks With BlackLivesMatter (Part 1) - YouTube

VIDEO: Hillary Clinton Talks With BlackLivesMatter (Part 2) - YouTube

'Do not vote for Hillary': NJ woman makes last request in obit - Fox News

How Hillary Clinton plans to spend campaign break in $50k-a-week Hamptons home - Daily Mail Online

Hillary Clinton Is Hiding Multiple Sclerosis And A Series Of Strokes, The National Enquirer Claims - Radar Online

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

Redemption Remains

It is possible for people to behave well in a crisis. It is possible for people to maintain their dedication to good and kindness in the face of fear and horrific loss. The loved one of a murder victim can love and comfort the murderer. This fact is going to become ever more crucial to understand and demonstrate as the crises of a collapsing climate engulf us.

In 1943 six residents of Coventry, England, bombed by Germany, wrote a public letter condemning the bombing of German cities. Imagine if they — and what they asserted was the general view of their neighbors — had been listened to. We’ve had seven decades of endless revenge, including a particular new burst of it that began around September 12, 2001. But some have pushed back.

A new film called In Our Son’s Name provides a powerful example. Phyllis and Orlando Rodriguez, whose story the film tells, published a letter shortly after September 11, 2001, that read:

“Our son Greg is among the many missing from the World Trade Center attack. Since we first heard the news, we have shared moments of grief, comfort, hope, despair, fond memories with his wife, the two families, our friends and neighbors, his loving colleagues at Cantor Fitzgerald/ESpeed, and all the grieving families that daily meet at the Pierre Hotel.

“We see our hurt and anger reflected among everybody we meet. We cannot pay attention to the daily flow of news about this disaster. But we read enough of the news to sense that our government is heading in the direction of violent revenge, with the prospect of sons, daughters, parents, friends in distant lands, dying, suffering, and nursing further grievances against us. It is not the way to go. It will not avenge our son’s death. Not in our son’s name.

“Our son died a victim of an inhuman ideology. Our actions should not serve the same purpose. Let us grieve. Let us reflect and pray. Let us think about a rational response that brings real peace and justice to our world. But let us not as a nation add to the inhumanity of our times.”

That was their immediate response when it mattered, and of course it ought to have been heeded. Orlando Rodriguez taught a course on terrorism at Fordham University after the death of his son, trying to reach at least a small number of people drowning in the sea of patriotism and militarism.

Phyllis Rodriguez wanted to meet Aicha el-Wafi, the suffering mother of the indicted Zacarias Moussaoui; and when they met they helped each other through their grief. Phyllis comforted Aicha during her son’s trial, at which Orlando and a dozen others testified for the defense.

“Our son’s life is not worth more than her son’s life,” said Phyllis, articulating both an obvious truth and an idea that millions of people would find incomprehensible, due to the power of nationalism and hatred.

The Rodriguezes began speaking publicly. Phyllis and Aicha spoke at events together.

Zacarias Moussaoui was reportedly amazed that any American would speak up for him. If he were to meet with and get to know people like Orlando and Phyllis he might come to oppose the ideology he had embraced. But that might not happen any time soon. He’s locked away for life, and the judge reportedly told him as he left court that he would “die with a whimper” and “never get a chance to speak again.”

As a substitute for meeting with people responsible for their son’s death, the Rodriguezes met at Sing Sing prison with five men convicted of kidnapping and murder. The men expressed their desire to meet with their victims and apologize, something they are denied the right to do. They also expressed the need to tell their stories and have someone listen. Phyllis and Orlando understood this perfectly, going into the meeting with the belief that while they had had ample opportunity to tell their story, these men hadn’t.

Orlando said the meeting with prisoners helped release some of his anger. He began teaching in prison, wishing he could teach the people who killed his son, wishing he could teach them not to do it. Of course that’s not really possible, but we can collectively compel the U.S. government to end policies that “create further grievances against us.”

What if every dead child were, in some sense, our son or daughter? Can we allow ourselves to think like that? Can we understand the grief and pain? Can we respond collectively with the wisdom and magnanimity that we long to see and occasionally do see in individuals.

Here’s a way to start. Buy a giant popcorn to share and show In Our Son’s Name to everyone you can.

Speaking Events


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


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.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.