You are hereElections

Elections


Bernie v. Media

Originally published by American Herald Tribune

Bernie Sanders 14b15

Major corporate media outlets in the United States are reporting on a new viability for Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, based on his rise in the polls nationally and in Iowa and New Hampshire -- and possibly, though this goes largely unmentioned, based on his big new advertising purchases from major corporate media outlets. In independent progressive media as well, there's a small flood of maybe-he-can-really-win articles.

Whether this goes any further or not, something remarkable has happened. The Donald Trump campaign (in many ways outlandish and uniquely dangerous) more or less fits the usual mold in terms of media success; the data are very clear that the media gave Trump vastly disproportionate media coverage, following which he rose in the polls -- the same polls later used anachronistically to justify the coverage. This was the story of how the media created Howard Dean's success before tearing him down in 2004, and it has been the story of most candidates, successful and otherwise: the polling closely follows the coverage, not the other way around.

Bernie is something new. The major media has given him ridiculously little coverage, and belittled him in most of that coverage. Yet he has surged in the polls, in volunteers, in small-donor fundraising, and in real world events. While television news has shunted aside actual events, crises, social movements, the state of the natural environment, any number of wars, countless injustices, and most legislative activities in order to focus more than ever on the next election, and has done so ever since it was nearly two years away, the media has also given wildly disparate attention to certain candidates, in a way that bears no correlation to polling or internet searching or donors or any such factor. As of last fall, Bernie Sanders had received a total of 8 minutes of coverage from broadcast evening news, less than Mitt Romney or Joe Biden got for deciding not to enter the race.

And yet, Bernie polls better against Donald Trump (now that a pollster finally asked that question and released the results) than does Hillary Clinton. And Bernie is gradually catching up to Clinton in polls of Democrats. If he wins New Hampshire (very likely) and Iowa (pretty likely), all sorts of bandwagon jumpers could switch their support to him, and uninspired voters become inspired to vote in the next several primary states, snowballing the magical force of "momentum" into an upset victory with great media ratings, even if horrifying political implications from the point of view of major media outlets' corporate owners.

According to Ted Rall, we are seeing the failure of propaganda: "Everyone in a position to block Sanders' campaign did everything they could to sabotage him. ... Marginalization always used to work. Remember John Edwards? His 2008 primary campaign was doomed because TV networks refused to cover him. But the media's cold shoulder isn't hurting Bernie."

As Glenn Greenwald sees it, Sanders is riding the same wave of backlash against the establishment that Jeremy Corbyn has surfed in Britain. Part of that tidal wave may also motivate Trump supporters who, in some cases, admit that they don't like his views but simply love that he says whatever he feels like saying. Sharp policical observer Sam Husseini pointed out to me that the more the media demanded Bill Clinton's impeachment, the more the public opposed it. Sometimes what the media wants backfires. As the media shifts from ignoring Sanders to attacking him, that could benefit him, or it could hurt him. As Dave Lindorff and others have pointed out, "socialist" is actually a popular word now. Pundits in whose world "socialist" is equated with traitor, could actually hurt the cause of derailing the Bern inferno if they keep labeling him a socialist.

Some observers are far less sanguine about the defeat of propaganda. "If Bernie wins the nomination," media critic Jeff Cohen told me, "I suspect we'll see a barrage of mainstream news media bias and smear and distortion against Bernie and his platform on healthcare and Wall Street and taxes and government-funded jobs that will be at a level rarely witnessed in history. Not to mention a new level of attack ads bought by dozens of GOP and corporate SuperPACs. And all this will have impact, partly mitigated thanks to social media and indy media."

Cohen draws on history, which he clearly believes has not ended: "The anti-Bernie barrage will be reminiscent of 1934 when former Socialist Party leader Upton Sinclair left that party and stunned the nation by winning the Dem nomination for governor of California on a totally progressive platform; Sinclair was defeated in the general election by new innovations in smear politics from business interests, especially the Hollywood studios. If Bernie somehow gains the nomination, we'll see whether, aided by new media, the public is any smarter 80 years later in seeing through and fighting back against the distortions."

For the better part of a year I have shared Cohen's expectations for what the media might try to do to Sanders in early 2016. I assumed it would wait this long because a contest makes for better ratings than a coronation. But I did not predict this level of success for Sanders. I think we will see media support for all kinds of lies coming from the Clinton campaign, like those issued recently around healthcare. We'll see smears about sexism, and all variety of molehills turned into mountains. We'll also see Sanders denounced as a cowardly pacifist endangering us all by refusing to bomb enough people.

The tragic and ironic flaw in Sanders' strategy may be this. He'll take criticism as a socialist because he is one. And he'll take criticism as a pacifist although he's become a dedicated militarist at heart, intent on continuing drone kills and "destroying" ISIS, and unwilling to say he'll cut military spending. Not only is cutting military spending incredibly popular, not only would proposing to cut it lead to people like me knocking on doors for Bernie, but if Bernie were willing to cut a small fraction of the military that he routinely says is loaded with fraud and waste, he wouldn't have to fund healthcare or college or anything else with any sort of tax increases.

The U.S. government does not need more money in order to provide world-class social services. It needs to tax multi-billionaires in order to reign in their power. But it can fund our wildest dream by shifting money out of the military. And Bernie knows this. Yet he has opened himself up wide to what will likely be the most common criticism: "He wants to raise taxes!" He can explain that you'll save more by ending private health insurance than you'll pay in higher taxes, but how will he fit that in 4 seconds? How will he repeat it as often as the accusation? How can we be sure people are both mad at the establishment and intelligent enough to see through its deceptions?

Incidentally, peace groups have tried everything short of interrupting a Sanders event on the Black Lives Matter model. The Black Lives Matter activists who did that may have looked ill-informed, but they improved Bernie's campaign and benefited his campaign and thereby the country. Peace activists should consider that.

Most media deceptions are somewhat subtle. Look at this Time magazine video and text. The video at the top of the page is remarkably fair. The text below it, including an error-plagued transcript apparently produced by a robot, is less fair. Time says of Bernie: "[H]e's so far been unable to convince most Democrats he'd make a better candidate against a Republican than Clinton." By no stretch of the English language is the 48% or 52% backing Clinton in polls "most Democrats." The polling story should be that Sanders has climbed from 3% to 37% or 41% without any help.

Here's Time's summary of Sanders' platform: "He talked taxes (he'd raise them), turning points (he thinks he's at one) and tuxedos (he's never owned one)." Notice that two of the three items are sheer fluff and the only serious one is that he'll raise your taxes. Time follows that by linking to an article making the case that Sanders cannot win. Time of course has no "balancing" argument that he can win.

Time then links to an article on "The Philosophical Fight Underlying the Democratic Debate," which presents this very serious, well-researched reporting: "If Sanders and Clinton were in business together, he'd be the dreamy one pitching the next big thing while she'd be the hard-nosed one arguing that they need to stay within their budget. The decision voters will have to make is: do they want big dreams or clear-eyed realism?" Gosh, I want clear eyes and a hard nose, doesn't everyone?

What weighs against this steady stream of bias on the Time website is the transcript of Sanders' own comments, and his willingness to push back against the media. Pushing back against the media is even more popular than taxing billionaires or cutting the military. Here's Sanders replying to a cheap shot from Time: "Someone says oh you're raising taxes by $5,000. No, I am lowering your healthcare costs by $5000. So you can take a cheap shot, say I'm just trying to raise taxes. That's a distortion of reality. We are substantially lowering healthcare costs." Fewer people will hear his reply than hear the accusation, but they'll hear it in the context of media criticism, and that could inspire them. Check out this exchange:

Time: "So as president you're calling rallies—"

Bernie: "It's not just rallies, don't be sarcastic here."

The media mocks popular assembly, free speech, and petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, and Sanders instructs the media not to be sarcastic. That's a plus for Bernie.

Will it get him past the onslaught? If it does, will the super delegates outvote the people? Will the DNC outmaneuver him? Is the voting process itself rigged? If he gets elected will anything get through Congress? Let's Bern those bridges when we come to them.

Clinton now red-baiting Sanders: Desperation in Hillary Camp as Bernie Gains in Iowa and New Hampshire

By Dave Lindorff

 

Someone should have warned Hillary Clinton and the goon squad at the Democratic National Committee that old-fashioned red-baiting isn't going to cut it in today's United States. It's not the 1950s anymore and the Soviet Union and Comintern are ancient history.

Focus: Bernie Sanders on Assad - Jan 19, 2016


Sanders on Assad at the Democratic debate: "And we all know, no argument, the secretary is absolutely right, Assad is a butcher of his own people, man using chemical weapons against his own people. This is beyond disgusting. But I think in terms of our priorities in the region, our first priority must be the destruction of ISIS. Our second priority must be getting rid of Assad through some political settlement, working with Iran, working with Russia.”


Assad is not a ‘butcher of his own people'. Evidence suggests that a Syrian opposition group carried out the Ghouta sarin attack occurred on Aug 21, 2013 that killed hundreds of people. Since the beginning of the civil war the Syrian government and people has been the target of a ferocious, ruthless assault by armed rebel groups, Nusra, Islamic State, etc. The Syrian military bombs and sieges rebel-controlled areas killing civilians but the death toll has been exagerated by sources affiliated with opposition factions.


The language of the Sanders statement, ‘getting rid of Assad through some political settlement’, will be perceived as offensive by the counterparts, not facilitating a diplomatic solution. Assad is supported by Iran and Russia. Iraq share with Syria government the same enemy, i.e. Islamic State, and the same Shite religion. Assad is supported by a significant sector of the population comprised of Alawites, Christians and secular Sunnis. Syrian Kurds, who are battling Islamic State and Nusra, warn that “if the [Assad] regime collapses because of the salafis [fundamentalist Islamic militants] it would be a disaster for everyone.”


The Syrian State institutions are functioning, not near collapse. With Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah help the Syrian military is gaining territory. The Syrian government is open to talk with the opposition about a political settlement leading to U.N. supervised democratic elections. So far the opposition has refused any dialogue by setting the ouster of Assad and his inner circle as pre-condition which is not acceptable by the Syrian government, Russia and Iran.


Note: In general, unlike Clinton, the Sanders diplomacy-driven foreign policy platform is in sync with the world.


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

Rethinking Bernie Sanders: Attacking Wall Street and the Corrupt US Political System Makes Sanders a Genuine Revolutionary

By Dave Lindorff

 

            I admit I’ve been slow to warm up to the idea of supporting Bernie Sanders. Maybe it’s because I publicly backed Barack Obama in 2008 and quickly came to rue that decision after he took office.

 

Focus: Clinton, Sanders, Obama, Trump, Cruz on Iran - Jan 18, 2016


VIDEO: Hillary Clinton on Iran: 'They continue to destabilize Middle East governments and use proxies and terrorist groups' - NBC News


Hillary Clinton Statement on Iran - hillaryclinton.com


Clinton calls for new sanctions on Iran - TheHill


Former Iranian Prisoner Accuses Hillary Clinton of ‘Inflaming Tensions’ with Iran - Mediaite


VIDEO: Hillary Clinton Respond to Former Iranian Prisoner Shane Bauer - CNN


Sanders Suggests Clinton Wouldn't Have Gotten Iran Deal, Prison Swap - huffingtonpost.com

 

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

Obama hails diplomacy with Iran over "another war" in Middle East - CBS News


VIDEO: President Obama Delivers Remarks on Iran Deal: It Makes the World Safer - White House


TRANSCRIPT: President Obama addresses the Iran nuclear deal and U.S.-Iran swap - The Washington Post


U.S., E.U. lift Iran nuclear sanctions after Tehran complies with nuclear deal - slate.com


U.S. Imposes new limited sanctions on some Iranian citizens and companies for violating United Nations resolutions against ballistic missile tests - The New York Times

 

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

Trump thinks Iran deal was not fair to the U.S.: 'We give them $150 billion, we give them 21 people and we’re getting back four people' - TheHill


VIDEO : Donald Trump comments on U.S-Iran prisoner swap - YouTube


Cruz blasts 'dangerous' prisoner swap with Iran, "it reflects a pattern we've seen in the Obama administration over and over again of negotiating with terrorists" - TheHill


VIDEO: Cruz Talks Iran - YouTube


What we know about the seven Iranians offered clemency, U.S. official says they are not 'people who have been prosecuted for offenses related to terrorism . . . or violent crime' - Washington Post


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

Sanders campaign offers a historic opportunity: We Need a Mass Movement Demanding Real Social Security and Medicare for All

By Dave Lindorff

 

            The rising fortunes of presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, the self-described democratic socialist US senator from Vermont, in the Democratic presidential primaries, provides a unique opportunity for organizing a new radical movement around key political goals including a national health care program for all Americans, not just the elderly and disabled, and a national retirement program that people can actually live on.

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 .)

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.

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.

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 .)

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.

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.



Focus: Clinton and Sanders and the Quinnipiac Poll - Dec 23, 2015

I am going to compare the attitudes of the Independents, Democrats and Republicans towards Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in the Quinnipiac poll released today. Clinton has a very solid lead among Democrats while Sanders is the choice of Independents who instead dislike Clinton by a large margin. Republican swing voters may lean to vote for Sanders, not for Clinton.

If the primary for President were being held today, 61% of Democrats would vote for Clinton and 30% for Sanders. Among Democrats, Clinton gets 82% favorable opinion and 13% unfavorable; Sanders gets 69% favorable and 8% unfavorable. Only 3% of Democrats have not heard enough about Clinton while 21% have not heard enough about Sanders. Democrats overwhelming think that Clinton has the ‘right experience' compared to Sanders, 82% by 12%. Also they regard Clinton as a 'strong leader' compared to Sanders, 69% to 21%. Moreover 57% of Democrats say that Clinton ‘cares' about their problems, only 34% say the same about Sanders. Being honest and trustworthy is a characteristic won by Sanders over Clinton, but it is not a priority for the Democrats.

Focus: Democratic Presidential Debate - Dec 20, 2015

 

I urge Sen. Sanders to be friendly and accommodating with Hillary Clinton during the presidential debate regarding the data breach. He should admit that a serious mistake was done by his campaign staff and say that he will do everything to remedy the damage done to the Clinton campaign including an investigation and disclosure of the incident. This way he will avoid arguing with Clinton and spending debate time on this issue. Clearly the wrong is on the Sanders camp who should have not search and retrieve the Clinton campaign data. At stake is not only Sanders reputation as honest and trustworthy but also as a leader who can manage a crisis situation in a balanced and objective manner.


During the debate, Hillary Clinton hawkish foreign policy should be denounced as posing a great danger for US and the world as demonstrated on Iraq, Libya, Syria, Russia and Ukraine. On the other hand her domestic policy of limited reforms is weak and inadequate. Sen. Sanders should emphatically call for adding more Democratic debates and on TV prime time to give the voters essential information on the candidates’ reactions to the fast breaking pace of evolving US and world events. Today's debate, running against Christmas shopping, an NFL game and the opening weekend of the new "Star Wars” movie, will limit the number of potential viewers. The Hill reports that with current averages the 12 Republican debates will reach about 200 million viewers  compared to about 75 million for the 6 Democratic events. The current DNC debate schedule clearly favors frontrunner Hillary Clinton shielding her from more challenging questions and answers. In general limiting debates is a detriment to the national discussion and hampers Democrats’ ability to build excitement for their issues. 

 

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

Focus: Sanders and the Clinton Data Breach - Dec 19, 2015


According to news reports listed below, Sanders campaign staff conducted searches of data stored by Hillary Clinton's campaign and saved some of the files related to 10 early primary states, including Iowa and New Hampshire. "The staffers who secured access to the Clinton data included national data director Josh Uretsky, who was fired on Thursday, and his deputy, Russell Drapkin. The two other usernames that viewed Clinton information were “talani" and "csmith_bernie," created by Uretsky's account after the breach began. Though the Sanders campaign initially claimed that it had not saved Clinton data, the logs show that the Vermont senator’s team created at least 24 lists during the 40-minute breach, which started at 10:40 a.m., and saved those lists to their personal folders. The Sanders searches included New Hampshire lists related to likely voters, "HFA Turnout 60-100" and "HFA Support 50-100," that were conducted and saved by Uretsky. Drapkin's account searched for and saved lists including less likely Clinton voters, "HFA Support <30" in Iowa, and "HFA Turnout 30-70"' in New Hampshire.”


If this is true, Sen. Sanders owns an apology to the Democratic National Committee and to Hillary Clinton. Sen. Sanders should order a full investigation. All the staff involved should be removed from their jobs, fired or disciplined. It is possible that Sanders was unaware of the Clinton data breach and the staff members involved acted on their own without orders or knowledge from above. Sanders should abide by the DNC recommendations that, in order to regain access to the his voter file, he should provide "a full accounting of whether or not this information was used and the way in which it was disposed.”


Reports: 4 Sanders Staffers Searched Clinton Data And Saved Files - talkingpointsmemo.com


More on the Clinton Data Breach and Theft by the Sanders campaign staff - Democratic Underground


DNC's full statement on the voter data breach by the Sanders Camp - talkingpointsmemo.com


VIDEO: Debbie Wasserman Schultz Defends Suspending Sanders Access To DNC Data System - RealClearPolitics


Statement by IT company NGP VAN on DNC data security and privacy - blog.ngpvan.com


Sanders campaign manager Weaver threatens to sue DNC - TheHill


Statement by Jeff Weaver, Bernie Sanders 2016 Campaign Manager - Bernie Sanders


VIDEO: Bernie Sanders campaign manager Weaver threatens to DNC to court if data access not restored - YouTube

 

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

In Midst of ExxonMobil Climate Denial Scandal, Company Hiring Climate Change Researcher

Cross-Posted from DeSmogBlog

Caught in the crosshairs of an ongoing New York Attorney General investigation exploring its role in studying the damage climate change could cause since the 1970's and then proceeding to fund climate science denial campaigns, ExxonMobil has announced an interesting job opening. 

Focus: Terrorism and the U.S. Presidential Campaign - Dec 13, 2015

 

NYT/CBS poll shows that terrorism is voters' top pick for the biggest issue facing America. It may be a temporary trend due to the shocks of the San Bernardino and Paris tragedies. "Last month only 4% of Americans said terrorism was the most important problem.... Now nearly one in five -- 19% -- believe it is. Previous recent NYT/CBS polls found the economy was the top challenge." Terrorism is taking center stage in the presidential campaigns. Hillary Clinton vows to defeat Islamic State if elected and will outline her strategy for homeland security next week. The Independent reports today that Islamic State has released a new video; digitally altered footage shows IS tanks advancing towards the Colosseum in Rome and St Peter's Basilica in Vatican City is also filmed.

 

To be successful against terrorism, U.S. and Europe must forge a new partnership with Russia on equal terms to address the world conflicts and security threats. Russia should not be treated as an adversary or worse as an enemy. Putin should be respected as world leader, not disparaged. The new partnership could involve also China which usually teams up with Russia on foreign affairs. The Bernie Sanders proposal to create a new international organization like NATO, that will include Russia and Arab nations, may be the way forward securing world stability and peace. Sanders says: "We must create an organization like NATO to confront the security threats of the 21st century, an organization that emphasizes cooperation and collaboration to defeat the rise of violent extremism and importantly to address the root causes underlying these brutal acts. We must work with our NATO partners, and expand our coalition to include Russia and members of the Arab League.”

 

Next January talks between the Assad government and the Syrian opposition may take place if the parties agree. A Nov 13 statement from the International Syria Support Group, which includes among others U.S., Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran, calls for a Syria constitutional reform process leading to presidential elections under U.N. supervision within 18 months. Opposition groups, meeting this week in Saudi Arabia, insist as a precondition for talks that Assad and his aides quit power "with the start of the transition period." This is a non-starter because Russia and Iran do not accept the removal of Assad from power before the new presidential elections. The balance of power in Syria favors Russia and Iran. Russian massive military intervention in Syria is a game changer. Its top priority is to defend its historical ally, to preserve the Syrian state institutions from collapsing and avoid an Iraq and Libya scenarios. It sends a message to those who want regime change by military means that they will not succeed.

 

According to some reports State institutions and private donors in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf nations provide weapons supplies and cash flows to the jihadi terrorists in Syria, allow oil trade with them and influx of foreign fighters. They may also provide training, transport, logistical support and medical assistance. This is in the contest of the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran which fuels the conflict between the Sunni and the Shia. It is also a struggle for the control and distribution of oil and gas. In addition Turkey opposes the formation an autonomous Kurdish region in Syria which could be replicated within its own land. Until these nations aid and abet jihadi terrorism, there will always be security risks in the Middle East and beyond. References:

State Sponsors Of The Islamic State: The Turkey, Saudi, Qatar Connection

America's Allies Are Funding ISIS

Report: Turkey collaborating with the Islamic State

ISIS gets men and $800 million from Turkey

 

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

 

Focus: Bernie Sanders, gun control and hunting - Dec 11, 2015

 

I urge Bernie Sanders to stop talking about hunting in the framework of his gun control plan. He comes from rural Vermont where hunting is common. He says, "In Vermont, New Hampshire and all over this country we have a lot of people who hunt. I support people's rights to hunt, it's part of our cultural heritage. But people do not go hunting with assault weapons.” He adds, "I can understand if some Democrats or Republicans represent an urban area where people don't hunt, don't do target practice, they're not into guns. But in my state, people go hunting and do target practice.” He could just avoid this reference to hunting altogether while talking about gun control. Video of Sanders speech which calls for gun safety legislation after the San Bernardino massacre and does not mention hunting. 


Hunting hurts of the feelings animal rights supporters and in general of pet owners who amount to great numbers. Besides the ethical question of killing animals for recreation, it is also politically convenient not to alienate these voters. According to a poll, more than three in five Americans (62%) have at least one pet in their household, with ownership highest among the two youngest generations tested (65% among Millennials, 71% among Gen X). What's more, 95% of pet owners consider their pets to be members of the family. In addition growing percentages of pet owners frequently or occasionally buy birthday presents for their pets (45%) and cook for them (31%), let their pets sleep in bed with them (71%) and buy them holiday presents (64%).


Animal rights is now a mainstream movement like civil and human rights, environmentalism, feminism, etc. This is an article by Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals): Why Sport Hunting Is Cruel and Unnecessary.


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

Focus: Bernie Sanders - Dec 8, 2015


Sen. Sanders should consider the option of running as independent candidate in the presidential elections if Hillary Clinton is nominated by the Democratic party. The nomination of Clinton is not yet a fait accompli. Something may happen to turn the tide against Clinton and in favour of Sanders. But she may lock up the nomination with the help of the Democratic party machine, superdelegates, the endorsements of top Democratic politicians and major unions, super PACs, the Democratic National Committee, a favorable coverage by some big media outlets, etc. It may well be that Sanders will not win the Democratic nomination by virtue of  his superior political platform and his activism; there are powerful interests that are opposing and trying to torpedo his candidacy. This is an aspect of the corrupt and rigged electoral system Sanders is talking about. There is also the possibility of a political cover up of Clinton misconducts regarding the private email server, the dealings of the Clinton Foundation and the Benghazi attack.

 

I believe that Sanders can win the November elections unlike past independent and third party candidates. First of all he has the backing of a progressive mass movement which will largely stick with him until the end. There is no other candidate that can represent it. Sanders is very popular; one more proof is that he has won the online readers’ poll for TIME Person of the Year, 'topping some of the world’s best-known politicians, activists and cultural figures as the most influential person of 2015 among those who voted.’ Sanders has the funding that will allow him to endure a protracted campaign. Democrats who will vote for Clinton in the November elections are a minority. A Gallup poll shows independents are the largest sector of the electorate, they are a key factor to win the Presidency. By running as independent Sanders will have more time to present his case to the American people, to make himself known to those that have not ‘heard enough’ of him, to gain political legitimacy and reputation as national and world leader.

Focus: Hillary Clinton and Wall Street - Dec 8, 2015


Clinton pens NYT op-ed 'to rein in Wall Street', does not go as far as Sanders who calls for breaking up the biggest banks - Guardian


Clinton offers new 'exit tax' on US-foreign company mergers - AP


Hillary Clinton Op-Ed: How I’d Rein In Wall Street - The New York Times


The NYT readers aren't buying Hillary Clinton's "How I’d Rein In Wall Street” - Althouse


Clinton's Commitment to Wall Street Crackdown Questioned - Fox Business


The US financial industry should listen to leftwing reformers, and reinstate the Glass-Steagall act - FT.com


Why this financial industry insider is rooting for Bernie to take the whole thing apart (AUDIO) - Public Radio International


VIDEO ARCHIVE: FDIC’s Hoenig talks about his proposal to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act and regulation of the financial industry - Bloomberg Business


ARCHIVE: Shoot Bank Of America Now—-The Case For Super Glass-Steagall Is Overwhelming - David Stockman's Contra Corner


Clinton opened State Department to fundraisers, campaign staff and corporate donors - AP


Hillary Clinton defends her meetings with corporate executives and Wall Street donors while Secretary of State, says she can't be bought (VIDEO) - Newsmax


Opinion: let's have a look at how hard it is to buy Hillary - Frontpage Mag


ARCHIVE: Wall Street has made Hillary Clinton a millionaire (VIDEO) - CNN


Clinton Super PAC Donor Is Former Goldman Exec and Foreclosure Crisis Profiteer - theintercept.com

 

A Revolving Door Helps Big Banks’ Quiet Campaign to Muscle Out Fannie and Freddie - The New York Times


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

Focus: Hillary Clinton - Dec 6, 2015

 

According to this article, "Ninety-one percent of Democratic respondents to Quinnipiac’s poll said they thought Hillary had “strong leadership qualities,” and 96 percent said they thought she had the right experience. About 30 percent less of those respondents thought the same about Bernie.” Clearly the Democratic voters did not get the message that Hillary Clinton record and experience as leader is abysmal. I am talking about foreign policy which is my field, not domestic issues. From Iraq to Libya to Syria she has been pro-war and pro-regime change through violent means. 


Unfortunately Obama followed her advice on Libya when she urged the President to wage a war against Gaddafi. To date she defends her position and characterizes it as “smart power at its best.” The spectacle of what is Libya today is in front of our eyes: oil field shutdowns, economic decline, disintegration of central authority, soaring number of refugees some of them dead on the sea before arrival to the countries of destination, rising power of armed militias including the Islamic State and Qaeda which pose a security risk to Africa, Europe and also United States. Her "leadership qualities" were again tested on Benghazi when the State Department denied repeated requests by Ambassador Stevens and others to improve security of the American compounds in Libya, when Clinton failed to send any assistance to protect Stevens and his aides while they were under attack, never speaking at all to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta or Joint Chiefs Chairman Dempsey to request such military assistance.


On Syria she promoted the hardline strategy of massively arming the Syrian rebels in their struggle against Assad, establishing a Libyan-style no-fly zone and coordinating the action with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar which are fomenting the war and supporting the Islamic estremists . This time Obama said no to Hillary, leaving open the door to a diplomatic political solution of the Syrian crisis. Given her past “experience", is she going to pursue regime change also in Venezuela and other Latin American countries?


Clinton takes a tough line on Russia, refusing to recognize its legitimate interests in Ukraine and Syria. Her animosity towards Putin is well known likening the moves of the Russian President to the actions of Adolf Hitler and faulting European leaders for being “too wimpy” about challenging him. Regarding the Russian military intervention in Syria she said: "I think it's important too that the United States make it very clear to Putin that it's not acceptable for him to be in Syria.” According to the Washintgton Times, Hillary Clinton’s hawkish position on Russia troubles even the GOP. With this foreign policy record what kind of world are we going to live under President Clinton?


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

Focus: Sanders's chief strategist Tad Devine - Dec 3, 2015


I checked the Twitter account of Tad Devine, the chief strategist of Bernie Sanders. I was surprised by some of his tweets. 


On Dec 2 he tweets a Washington Post article which talks about the future of the Democratic Party without delving into the substance of the crucial issues affecting society. No distinction between the the Clinton and Sanders plans. Just a reference to the "progressive economic agenda that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have begun to talk about in their campaigns.” Why Sanders’s chief political strategist called attention to this article?


He Tweets"Iowa (IA) Poll - November 25, 2015 - Clinton Leads Iowa Dem Caucus, | Quinnipiac University Connecticut https://t.co/jed8huwkRK”. In his tweet, Devine does not mention 42 percent for Sen. Bernie Sanders in the same poll, compared with 51 percent for Clinton. Furthermore the poll shows that 47 percent of Democrats say Sanders can best handle the economy, while 42 percent say Clinton is best on this issue. 


On Nov 7 he retweeted: "Clinton proposes changing marijuana from a Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 drug so researchers can study impact of medical marijuana.” Why he did not reply that changing marijuana from a Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 is weak proposal compared to Bernie Sanders' support for repealing federal prohibition. Quoting Sanders, marijuana must be legalized “if we are serious about criminal justice reform and preventing many thousands of lives from being impacted because of criminal convictions for marijuana possession."


On Nov 15 he tweeted a New York Time articleAs Mayor, Bernie Sanders Was More Pragmatist Than Socialist. I am not going to comment on this because I have no knowledge of Sanders mayorship. Maybe Sanders should take a look at it to see if it is truthful.


I checked the political work of Tad Devine on Wikipedia. He worked for Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis in the field of delegate tracking and selection in their nomination campaigns. Later he served as a senior strategist to the campaigns of Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. Without entering into the merits of each presidential candidate, it is a long string of failed campaigns. Regarding the 2008 Democratic presidential primary he was noncommittal about Obama and Clinton supporting neither candidate.


Devine also advised foreign leaders which I will not mention except Bolivian President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada in 2002. Protesters, angry for his gas policy, sparked a rebellion which forced him to flee to the U.S. Reportedly more than 60 people died and hundreds were injured as the military cracked down on opposition protests. De Lozada was the architect of the energy sector privatization and an unpopular income tax recommended by the IMF. To date Devine defends the former Bolivian President.


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

 

Regime change in Chicago!: Cover-Up of a Police Murder Requires Resignation of Chicago Mayor Emanuel

By Linn Washington, Jr.

 

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel made a bold yet belated move when he fired his embattled police superintendent in the wake of a national uproar surrounding the release of a chilling video that captured the police killing of a teen--a ward of the city of Chicago.

Almost a Century Ago, another Democratic Socialist Ran for President of the United States—from His Prison Cell

In the early twentieth century, roughly a century before Bernie Sanders’s long-shot run for the White House, another prominent democratic socialist, Eugene V. Debs, waged his own campaigns for the presidency.

Warmongers & Peacemongers: Learning How Not to Rule the World

By John Grant

 

[Al Qaeda’s] strategic objective has always been ... the overthrow of the House of Saud. In pursuing that regional goal, however, it has been drawn into a worldwide conflict with American power.

Speaking Events

January 10 and 11:
Events in Washington DC to present a petition telling president elect to end wars:
https://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=12501

January 20-21 Occupy the Inauguration
 
January 29 David Swanson speaking in Arlington, Va.
 
February David Swanson debating a war supporter in Boston, Mass.
 
April 21-23 UNAC's annual conference in Richmond, Va.

April 29 possible multi-issue protest in DC.

Find 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.