Sunday, June 12, 2016


Compiled by Dick Bennett.  June 12, 2016.
(#2 Feb. 19, 2016)

Contents 3rd Anthology
(I supported Bernie during the primaries.  –Dick)

Get the Facts
Clinton a Progressive?
Sierra Club (with Joyce’s satire)
President Obama 
Elizabeth Warren 

     Dick, Joyce, Art
National Criticism
Johnstone, Queen of Chaos
Kreitner, ed.  Who Is Hillary Clinton?
William Blum, He’ll Vote for Trump
Common Dreams, Sanders Better for World Peace
Karlin, Clinton Supported Military Coup in Honduras
Hillary and Israel: She is Pro-Netanyahu
Blacks Should Support Bernie
Greenpeace Asks HC to Oppose Fossil Fuel Money


Checking the Facts
PolitiFact: Fact-checking US politics is a project of the Tampa Bay Times to help you find the truth in Washington and the Obama presidency.
Truth-O-Meter TM   Pants on Fire! - False - True
Barack Obama  Joe Biden's file
Hillary Clinton
 Donald Trump
PolitiFact (@PolitiFact) | Twitter

Google Hillary Clinton's Progressive Values for a bit of the debate.  She defines it differently.


List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 ...

This is a list of notable individuals and organizations who have voiced thei r endorsement of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee for the .

Sierra Club, NOW (and Planned Parenthood and NARAL),
      President Obama, Elizabeth Warren, et al.

Print all
In new window


Accompanied by Joyce’s poem

Joyce Hale  June 10

4:33 PM (5 minutes ago)
to Louise, Fran, Robert, Edward, Ned, Art, Gladys, Herb, me
Let's all kiss and make up in a group Hillary Hug!  

Drill, Baby, Drill.  
Forgive Miss Franking Shill.
Our air is bad 
'Cause we've been had;
Our water is like swill.

Drill, Baby, Drill
I'll make it safe," says Hill.
"Just vote for me!"
But you will see
Taxpayers foot the bill.

Drill, Baby, Drill.
There are pipelines yet to fill.
Some may be old
(That we've been told)
We hope there's not a spill.

Drill, Baby, Drill.
The thought gives me a chill! 
Our globe is warm
With methane harm.
It's climate's poison pill.


From: "Michael Brune, Sierra Club" 
Jun 9, 2016 9:33 AM 
Subject: We have a big announcement!
Dear Louise,

This year's presidential election is truly the most important of our lifetimes for the safety of our planet, our families, and future generations.

The choice we face in this election could not be more clear: America can elect a leader who will continue and build upon President Obama's climate legacy, or we'll watch as the first-ever climate-denying president strips away decades of hard-fought progress.

Donald Trump has said that climate change is a "hoax," and vowed to bring back coal, approve Keystone XL, eliminate the EPA, and "cancel" the Paris climate agreement. Trump wants to wipe out the critical environmental protections that are reducing carbon emissions and keeping our air and water safe. It's a wish-list straight from the fossil fuel executives and climate deniers that are advising him and writing his speeches.
1 As if that weren't enough, Trump has built his campaign around racism, xenophobia, misogyny, childish bullying, and inciting violence. Trump is fundamentally unfit for the presidency and stands in direct opposition to everything we value.

In stark contrast, Hillary Clinton has a strong, detailed plan to tackle the climate crisis, protect our public lands, and accelerate the clean energy revolution underway across the U.S.
2 She's listened to the voices of the millions of Americans who've spoken out for action, and she's responded by siding with our movement against the toxic TPP trade deal, saying no to Keystone XL, opposing dangerous oil drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic, ending the extraction of fossil fuels from public lands, and supporting a just transition to a clean energy economy that works for everyone in America.

It's clear that Hillary Clinton will work to tackle the climate crisis, which is why the Sierra Club is proud to endorse her for President of the United States. Stand with us and be a #ClimateVoter this year -- add your name now to show you're ready to stop climate deniers like Trump!

The principled debate we've seen in this year's Democratic primary has put the urgent need for climate action in the national spotlight. Senator Bernie Sanders has elevated this issue on the agenda and has made this a robust debate with his tireless advocacy to protect our climate and our communities. The Sierra Club wholeheartedly applauds Senator Sanders' historic campaign, and we are eager to continue fighting alongside him to protect our planet.

This movement is stronger and better than ever before because of the passion and engagement of grassroots members like you throughout the primaries. But now, with a demagogue like Trump as the Republican nominee, we must set our sights on the general election and unite to elect climate champions up and down the ballot. There is far too much at stake for us to not come together now.

With more than 2.4 million members and supporters, and chapters in all 50 states, the Sierra Club is ready to organize and mobilize Americans in every corner of the country. We will speak out against climate deniers like Donald Trump, and we will support Hillary Clinton and other climate champions to win on Election Day.

We can't afford to sit on the sidelines. I hope you'll stand with us and be a #ClimateVoter this year. Add your name now to show you're ready!


Michael Brune
Executive Director, Sierra Club

[1] Steven Mufson, Washington Post, How a North Dakota oil billionaire is helping shape Trump's views on energy, June 6, 2016.
[2] David Roberts, Vox, Hillary Clinton's climate and energy policies, explained, May 9, 2016.

This email was sent to:
This email was sent by the Sierra Club
2101 Webster St Suite 1300 Oakl

NOW Statement on Hillary Win

NOW Media Relations  6-8-16 via 

9:30 PM (13 hours ago)
to James
For Immediate Release
Press Inquiries Contact: 202-255-2054
Statement of NOW President Terry O’Neill on Hillary Clinton’s Historic Victory 

June 7, 2016
Washington, DC - Women have always known that this day would come — but that doesn’t make Hillary Clinton’s victory any less momentous, or inspiring.
When I was a little girl, I used to hear people say things like, “In America, anyone can be elected President, ”and a little voice in my head would respond, “yeah, right.” The words weren’t there, but the sexism — and racism — was implied. White men only need apply.
Hillary’s achievement brings us that much closer to the equality envisioned by women’s rights leaders nearly two centuries ago. The women who gathered in 1848 in Seneca Falls, NY to convene the first women’s rights convention in the U.S. believed a woman could some day be elected President of the United States. So did NOW’s founders in 1966, who said, “the time has come for a new movement toward true equality for all women in America, and toward a fully equal partnership of the sexes, as part of the world-wide revolution of human rights now taking place within and beyond our national borders.
Hillary Clinton has won the nomination despite the double standard routinely applied to strong, talented women. She has shown us that not only can we break through the glass ceiling; we can also shatter the prism that distorts the view of women in politics.
Today’s news is tomorrow’s history, and Hillary Clinton is making both.

For Press Inquiries Contact

Laura Gross, lgross@scottcircle.com202-255-2054
View this statement online by clicking here.

Was this email forwarded to you? Subscribe to NOW's emails.



Obama endorses Hillary -‎
Stand with Barack Obama & help elect Hillary Clinton in November!
Official campaign website · Shop the official store · Help make history
·         Why Support Hillary?
·         Get Texts from Hillary
·         Attend an event
·         Donate Today


Elizabeth Warren Endorses Hillary Clinton on Rachel Maddow Show ...
3 days ago - Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a hero to liberal progressives ideologically aligned with Bernie Sanders' anti-Wall Street rhetoric, endorsedpresumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton Thursday night on MSNBC's the Rachel Maddow Show. ... Warren's endorsement comes the same ...


Tyler, if Clinton wins the Primary.   2-17-16
     I hope the first thing you do if Clinton wins is to reach out to Sanders’ supporters, particularly the youth.    He has attracted a large, strong number of people who aspire for a better nation he refers to as “democratic socialism,” or the way people live and are governed in domestic policy especially in the Scandinavian countries.   Ms. Clinton demonstrably shares some of Sanders’ aspirations and has promised more, and therein could be the bridge to the transition of their loyalty from Sanders to Clinton.  
    The many young people who support Sanders must not be allowed to drop out in disappointment, but Clinton Democrats should make truly sincere and persistent efforts to retain their loyalty to the values and practices we share and those we aspire to in our Party’s future.   For people like me, at my age, it’s easy to be for Sanders now and contemplate working for Clinton later if my first choice loses, because my loyalty is to the historical values, for me to the New Deal in what it accomplished and what it was yet to achieve.  But to many of the young people to whom I have talked, the candidate is foremost, and if Sanders loses, they’re outahere.   I hope you will make this danger to our Party and therefore to our nation a high priority right now despite your understandable preoccupation with the campaign at hand.
For freedom and equality,   Dick Bennett
TO Tyler Clark and Washington County Democrats  
     Last Feb. I wrote you that if Ms. Clinton won the Primary our Party should try to avoid losing our many young Bernie supporters.  Now, if she wins and we are only superficially informed about her, we will want to study her past carefully in order not only to hold her to her campaign debate promises with Senator Sanders but to urge her to strengthen them.   Our Party cannot endure a repetition of Bill Clinton’s Republican deflection from our historical values, nor should we allow a repetition of the disappointments inflicted on us by Barack Obama, who in some ways is worse than Pres. Bush (books by Hodge and Press).
      It should be no surprise that many people and some Democrats perceive the two Parties as the Corporate/War Party.   There is no excuse for any Democrat to be ignorant of this history nor any necessity given the ample publication of the facts.   So I urge our leaders, if Ms. Clinton wins, to convene a series of talks and panels that convey to us her full political history, some of which does not deserve our respect.   By providing such reality we become a beacon to our Party.   If we fail to do this and, like Obama, she fails to represent the best in our Party despite her campaign promises, we will be complicit in our Party’s sad inadequacy since the 1980s to turn back the force of the anti-democratic, anti-equality, anti-compassionate Republicans.
Dick Bennett
I have published online two collections of writings about Clinton and two about Sanders.  Here’s link for my second Clinton collection:
Here are two 2015 books and one 2016 about Clinton, plus one 2010 and one 2016 about Obama.     Clinton:  Doug Henwood, My Turn.    Liza Featherstone, ed.  False Choices.    Diane Johnstone, Queen of Chaos.   Obama:   Roger Hodge, The Mendacity of Hope.   Bill Press, Buyer’s Remorse .

From: Dick Bennett <>
Sent: Sunday,
April 3, 2016 4:39 PM
 In early 2015 I urged Sr Dems to spend that year and 2016 studying the candidates, and then work for the best one, and then work equally hard for whoever won the Primary.  We now know the US public was not acquiescent but only temporarily defeated.  They want the decent lives people have in Scandinavia.   Now let's step in late as it is and push for Bernie, but be equally energetic in helping young Bernie supporters not feel defeated if he loses the election, because he has significantly altered our sense of what is possible in the US despite the tsunami of self-interest money.
Dick Bennett <>

Hillary Clinton and the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations - In These Times

Apr 19, 2016 - DONATE. BY Theo Anderson.
This is a thumbnail portrait of an idealistic young woman who lowered her expectations and possibilities and then ran for president against an elderly man who advocates all she once hoped for.  It is also a mirror to hold up to the Democratic Party today.
I recommend In These Times for anti-war, civil liberties, women, colored, unions, working people.    –Dick

Reply to Anderson by Joyce Hale, who never averts her eyes from hard truth.
 "her election wouldn’t be a tragedy."
I wish I could believe this article's final assessment to be true.  I fear that any election that does not fully return the Democrat's former New Deal policies and more to address our litany of problems ASAP would be a tragedy of the first order.  It would be the missed opportunity we will not have again in time to make an impact.  Time is not on our side as climate change and the buildup of military activity continue at an increasing rate.  We are creating enemies faster than we can kill them off.  Once the TPP and TTIP are locked down the erosion of our sovereignty with the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) tribunals will be assured.  As more voters desperate for change see for themselves the suppression and fraud blatantly practiced in the 2016 Democrat primaries and caucuses, the revulsion will make it hard if not impossible to unite the Party.  The policy of incrementalism that is advocated by Hillary does not recognize the urgency to change course.  It is that same incrementalism that has slowly altered or removed New Deal policies and shifted the Democratic Party into Republican Light.  

ART HOBSON REPLYING TO STANTON (sorry I failed to copy Stanton, but Art’s essay can stand alone)

Art Hobson  4-28-16

9:55 AM (1 hour ago)
to samuel, Michael, Kathleen, Jill, Jim, kgeneau, Brian, John, Robert, Stephen, William, David, Herb, Henry, SMITH, William, Greenbaum, me
Dear Sam, Michael, and others - 

John Stanton's article shows signs of being written too hastily despite being published online for millions to read, which always makes me suspicious.  John Stanton is strongly committed to a particular ideological “side,” which again rouses suspicions that the article is over-the-top.   And introducing, based on David Talbot’s book, the old chestnut about CIA involvement in the Kennedy assassination doesn’t help.  

Nevertheless, the stories about Hillary’s history ring true and are in line with my own meager knowledge.  The emailed comments of Herb Hirsch, John Weiss, and Michael Totten all provide confirmation of the basic truth of the article.

Hillary is clearly committed to America’s long-term, overly aggressive, overly militarized foreign policy.  She has made huge mistakes, so far as I can tell, in supporting the Iraq war, helping to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya, and advocating the U.S. establish a no-fly zone in Syria.   Her foreign policy will reverse the relative (but still too hawkish) sanity of Obama’s pull-back from all-out Mideast war all the time, providing further encouragement and support for the Islamic State and heightening our present situation of permanent war.

But what does Stanton propose we do about it?  Bernie is not going to get nominated.  I’m glad he’s staying in the race, but it’s now only in order to get more delegates in order to influence the Democratic convention.  And I doubt that Bernie would have been able to turn around America’s permanent war culture.  America's commitment to being tough goes much deeper than mere politics, and even deeper than the financial interests that Stanton points to.  It is centuries old, extending at least to pre-revolutionary 18th-century days when we inherited the Scots-Irish “borderer” culture via massive immigration from central England and Northern Ireland.  It is religious, cultural.  It’s the culture of the South and the Midwest and it’s had us by the throat for centuries.  Its most prominent legacy was the Civil War.  It’s expressed in America's delight (which I must confess I often share) with John Wayne movies, football, and military heroes.  If you want to quickly learn where we’re coming from, google on “Drink, Pray, Fight, Fuck” by Joe Bageant.  

Am I supposed to not vote?  Am I supposed to vote for Trump?  The first would be self-defeating, and the second would be even worse.   I will vote for Hillary, although I might simultaneously be in the streets protesting against her warlike foreign policy.  Those who want to do something about the Hillary dilemma need to look far beyond the coming election.  If the planet is to survive, American culture must be changed.  There are signs (for instance in the pro-Bernie movement among young people, the growing atheism of young people, and the beginning of realism about global warming and its fossil-fuel source) that things are changing.  A specific feature of the American system that we can quickly change and that would make a huge difference would be promotion of more political parties by requiring run-off votes for Senate and House elections.  We need at least two additional parties:  progressive on the left (Bernie), and conservative on the right (Cruz). 

Cheers - Art   
I hope you all will build a structure of facts about HC and send them to Arkansas Democrats.  We must block Trump, but we need a much better HC.  Thanks, Dick

Monday, May 16, 2016
Who is the world-renowned political dissident Noam Chomsky voting for? "In the primaries, I would prefer Bernie Sanders," Chomsky says. "If Clinton is nominated and it ... Read More →

We speak with world-renowned political dissident Noam Chomsky about where the Democratic presidential candidates stand on the issue of Israel and the Boycott, ...


Diane Johnstone, Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton.  AK, 2016.
U.S. wars are getting repetitive. Always the same old scenario. The mainstream media alert public opinion to the latest "villain" supposedly threatening to slaughter "his own people". The U.S. does the job instead with its drones and missiles. The new "villain" is soon forgotten, but his country is left in a shambles, with competing fanatics vying to dominate the chaos. Something new is needed. How about a woman War President? Hillary Rodham Clinton has painstakingly groomed herself for the role. Her record as Secretary of State shows that she is fully qualified to be the first woman to be known as the "mother of all drones" or even to launch World War III.
Praise for Queen of Chaos:
“Veteran journalist Diana Johnstone captures the imperial worldview of Hillary Clinton in memorable detail. Hillary the Hawk, as U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, never saw a weapons systems she did not support nor a U.S. war practice she did not endorse. This included her hyper-aggressive launch of the war on Libya (against the opposition of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates) and the resulting sprawling chaos, violence and weapons dispersal spilling beyond Libya’s war-torn society to larger regions of central Africa. Johnstone documents Hillary Clinton as ‘the top salesperson for the ruling oligarchy’ and ‘the favorite candidate of the War Party.’ That is what is at stake in November 2016.”—Ralph Nader, author of Return to Sender: Unanswered Letters to the President
"If you are still fooled by Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as the Democratic Party, then Diana Johnstone's book will dispel the myth that either they or the party are redeemable. Hillary, like her husband, Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership, are controlled by corporate money and willing accomplices in the crimes of empire. Her appeal to gender holds no more promise for the poor, the working class or the wretched of the earth we tyrannize around the globe than Obama's appeal to race. The predatory engines of corporate capitalism and the security and surveillance state will run as smoothly under her direction as they did under her predecessor. If you doubt this, read this book." —Chris Hedges, author of Wages of Rebellion
“Diana Johnstone's Queen of Chaos is an excellent source of information for Hillary Clinton's political rivals.   But it's much more than that. It offers very perceptive accounts of US foreign policy of the last 25 years, particularly the complex and highly controversial cases of Libya, Yugoslavia, Honduras and Russia, as well as the issue of women in power. 'Is there something wrong with American women,' Johnstone asks, 'that they need Hillary Clinton as President to make them feel better?'" —William Blum, author of Killing Hope

Who is Hillary Clinton? Two Decades of Answers From the Left
Who is Hillary Clinton? is a fascinating time-lapse depiction of the leading Democratic presidential candidate as seen from the left. But it is also much more than that. A carefully-edited anthology of The Nation’s coverage of Clinton’s career, it’s a rigorous and painstaking study of one our most enigmatic public figures. It is a history of our time, and a must-read for the 2016 election season.
Contributors include David Corn, Erica Jong, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Tomasky, William Greider, Ari Berman, Barbara Ehrenreich, Chris Hayes, Jessica Valenti, Richard Kim, Joan Walsh, Jamelle Bouie, Doug Henwood, Heather Digby Parton, Michelle Goldberg, and many more.
“Hillary Clinton is a Rorschach test of our attitudes—including our unconscious ones—about women, feminism, sex and marriage, to say nothing of the Democratic Party, progressive politics, the United States and capitalism,” writes Nation columnist Katha Pollitt in the book’s introduction. “This collection of Nation articles won’t answer all the readers’ questions, but at the very least in brings the Rorschach blot into clearer focus.”

William Blum   The Anti-Empire Report #144  
By William Blum, March 11th, 2016

American exceptionalism presents an election made in hell

If the American presidential election winds up with Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump, and my passport is confiscated, and I’m somehow FORCED to choose one or the other, or I’m PAID to do so, paid well … I would vote for Trump.
My main concern is foreign policy. American foreign policy is the greatest threat to world peace, prosperity, and the environment. And when it comes to foreign policy, Hillary Clinton is an unholy disaster. From Iraq and Syria to Libya and Honduras the world is a much worse place because of her; so much so that I’d call her a war criminal who should be prosecuted. And not much better can be expected on domestic issues from this woman who was paid $675,000 by Goldman Sachs – one of the most reactionary, anti-social corporations in this sad world – for four speeches and even more than that in political donations in recent years. Add to that Hillary’s willingness to serve for six years on the board of Walmart while her husband was governor of Arkansas. Can we expect to change corporate behavior by taking their money?
The Los Angeles Times ran an editorial the day after the multiple primary elections of March 1 which began: “Donald Trump is not fit to be president of the United States,” and then declared: “The reality is that Trump has no experience whatsoever in government.”
When I need to have my car fixed I look for a mechanic with experience with my type of auto. When I have a medical problem I prefer a doctor who specializes in the part of my body that’s ill. But when it comes to politicians, experience means nothing. The only thing that counts is the person’s ideology. Who would you sooner vote for, a person with 30 years in Congress who doesn’t share your political and social views at all, is even hostile to them, or someone who has never held public office before but is an ideological comrade on every important issue? Clinton’s 12 years in high government positions carries no weight with me.
The Times continued about Trump: “He has shamefully little knowledge of the issues facing the country and the world.”
Again, knowledge is trumped (no pun intended) by ideology. As Secretary of State (January 2009-February 2013), with great access to knowledge, Clinton played a key role in the 2011 destruction of Libya’s modern and secular welfare state, sending it crashing in utter chaos into a failed state, leading to the widespread dispersal throughout North African and Middle East hotspots of the gigantic arsenal of weaponry that Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi had accumulated. Libya is now a haven for terrorists, from al Qaeda to ISIS, whereas Gaddafi had been a leading foe of terrorists.
What good did Secretary of State Clinton’s knowledge do? It was enough for her to know that Gaddafi’s Libya, for several reasons, would never be a properly obedient client state of Washington. Thus it was that the United States, along with NATO, bombed the people of Libya almost daily for more than six months, giving as an excuse that Gaddafi was about to invade Benghazi, the Libyan center of his opponents, and so the United States was thus saving the people of that city from a massacre. The American people and the American media of course swallowed this story, though no convincing evidence of the alleged impending massacre has ever been presented. (The nearest thing to an official US government account of the matter – a Congressional Research Service report on events in Libya for the period – makes no mention at all of the threatened massacre.) 
The Western intervention in Libya was one that the New York Times said Clinton had “championed”, convincing Obama in “what was arguably her moment of greatest influence as secretary of state.”   All the knowledge she was privy to did not keep her from this disastrous mistake in Libya. And the same can be said about her support of placing regime change in Syria ahead of supporting the Syrian government in its struggle against ISIS and other terrorist groups. Even more disastrous was the 2003 US invasion of Iraq which she as a senator supported. Both policies were of course clear violations of international law and the UN Charter.
Another foreign-policy “success” of Mrs. Clinton, which her swooning followers will ignore, the few that even know about it, is the coup ousting the moderately progressive Manuel Zelaya of Honduras in June, 2009. A tale told many times in Latin America. The downtrodden masses finally put into power a leader committed to reversing the status quo, determined to try to put an end to up to two centuries of oppression … and before long the military overthrows the democratically-elected government, while the United States – if not the mastermind behind the coup – does nothing to prevent it or to punish the coup regime, as only the United States can punish; meanwhile Washington officials pretend to be very upset over this “affront to democracy”. (See Mark Weisbrot’s “Top Ten Ways You Can Tell Which Side the United States Government is On With Regard to the Military Coup in Honduras”.) 
In her 2014 memoir, “Hard Choices”, Clinton reveals just how unconcerned she was about restoring Zelaya to his rightful office: “In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere … We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.”
The question of Zelaya was anything but moot. Latin American leaders, the United Nations General Assembly, and other international bodies vehemently demanded his immediate return to office. Washington, however, quickly resumed normal diplomatic relations with the new right-wing police state, and Honduras has since become a major impetus for the child migrants currently pouring into the United States.
The headline from Time magazine’s report on Honduras at the close of that year (December 3, 2009) summed it up as follows: “Obama’s Latin America Policy Looks Like Bush’s”.
And Hillary Clinton looks like a conservative. And has for many years; going back to at least the 1980s, while the wife of the Arkansas governor, when she strongly supported the death-squad torturers known as the Contras, who were the empire’s proxy army in Nicaragua. 
Then, during the 2007 presidential primary, America’s venerable conservative magazine, William Buckley’s National Review, ran an editorial by Bruce Bartlett. Bartlett was a policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan, a treasury official under President George H.W. Bush, and a fellow at two of the leading conservative think-tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute – You get the picture? Bartlett tells his readers that it’s almost certain that the Democrats will win the White House in 2008. So what to do? Support the most conservative Democrat. He writes: “To right-wingers willing to look beneath what probably sounds to them like the same identical views of the Democratic candidates, it is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is the most conservative.” 
During the same primary we also heard from America’s leading magazine for the corporate wealthy, Fortune, with a cover featuring a picture of Mrs. Clinton and the headline: “Business Loves Hillary”. 
And what do we have in 2016? Fully 116 members of the Republican Party’s national security community, many of them veterans of Bush administrations, have signed an open letter threatening that, if Trump is nominated, they will all desert, and some will defect – to Hillary Clinton! “Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin,” says Eliot Cohen of the Bush II State Department. Cohen helped line up neocons to sign the “Dump-Trump” manifesto. Another signer, foreign-policy ultra-conservative author Robert Kagan, declared: “The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.” 
The only choice? What’s wrong with Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate? … Oh, I see, not conservative enough.
And Mr. Trump? Much more a critic of US foreign policy than Hillary or Bernie. He speaks of Russia and Vladimir Putin as positive forces and allies, and would be much less likely to go to war against Moscow than Clinton would. He declares that he would be “evenhanded ” when it comes to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (as opposed to Clinton’s boundless support of Israel). He’s opposed to calling Senator John McCain a “hero”, because he was captured. (What other politician would dare say a thing like that?)
He calls Iraq “a complete disaster”, condemning not only George W. Bush but the neocons who surrounded him. “They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.” He even questions the idea that “Bush kept us safe”, and adds that “Whether you like Saddam or not, he used to kill terrorists.”
Yes, he’s personally obnoxious. I’d have a very hard time being his friend. Who cares?

While I don't have an article to compare Hillary directly on the five top points named as to why Bernie Sanders would be a peace president, I thought you would appreciate this list.  It clearly deals with the military budget.

Clinton Betrayed Democracy, Economic Justice, and Women and Children in Honduras
Mark Karlin, BuzzFlash at Truthout 3-13-16: The repercussions to Honduras of Clinton siding with the military have led to it becoming one of the most corrupt and violence-ridden nations in the world.


Friday, March 11, 2016 - 2pm to 5pm  Federal Bldg, 35 E. Mtn. St Fayetteville, AR
Environmental activist Berta Caceres was assassinated in her home last week on March 3, 2016 while her good friend and fellow activist, Gustavo Castro Soto, from Chiapas, Mexico was visiting. The Honduran military also shot Gustavo twice & assumed he was dead. He feigned death and found his way to the Mexican embassy in the Honduran capitol and received medical attention. When the Mexican ambassador took him to the airport the Honduran military seized Gustavo and has held him against his will since March 4th.  We gather to demand the US govt make their agent Honduras military release Gustavo. Allow him to return to his home-Mexico.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during Obama's first term in 2009 made no objection to the June 28, 2009 military coup ousting progressive Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. Honduras became the deadliest country in the Western Hemisphere since then.
this action sponsored by Central America Peace Action (CAPA)
Amnesty International also has issued an Urgent Action Appeal that can be downloaded at:

Hillary working for Netanyahu...


Greenpeace Asks Hillary Clinton to Say No to Fossil Fuel Money
Cassady Sharp, Greenpeace | February 18, 2016 10:50 am | Comments
Whether on Twitter or on the rope line at a campaign event, people are using any means necessary to ask Hillary Clinton to stop taking money from the fossil fuel industry. This week, Greenpeace tried a new method—flying a banner attached to a thermal airship launched 1,000 feet into the Las Vegas skies days before the Nevada caucus.
The Greenpeace A.E. Bates thermal airship flies over Las Vegas, Nevada Feb. 16, 2016 urging Hillary Clinton to reject fossil fuel money. The airship carried two messages, one for all candidates and local politicians which reads “Don’t Gamble With Our Democracy” and a second message to Secretary Clinton urging her to “Say No To Fossil Fuel Money”. Photo credit: Steve Marcus / Greenpeace.
Last month, Greenpeace and more than 20 partners launched a pledge asking all candidates to commit to fixing democracy by rejecting campaign contributions from fossil fuel companies and protecting voting rights. After outreach to all the presidential campaignsSen. Sanders is still the only Democratic candidate to sign the pledge. No Republican candidates have signed it.
Secretary Clinton responded to Greenpeace’s request last week committing to initiate a process that would reverse the effect of the Citizens United decision and restore the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. However, the statement did not include a commitment to reject fossil fuel money. Secretary Clinton will attend a fundraiser tomorrow afternoon in Las Vegas and we’ll be there too asking her to say no to fossil fuel money.
Tell all the presidential candidates to say no to fossil fuel money and protect voting rights—two big steps on the way to fixing our democracy!

Contents 2nd Anthology for 2016 Democratic Presidential Contender, Hillary Clinton, Feb. 19, 2016  

Contents 1st Anthology June 12, 2015
Dick, Introduction
Ms. Clinton’s Campaign Letter
Breaking Good News: Clinton vs. Citizens United
Google Search: Biography
Google Search:  Families and Children
Rev. of Two Biographies
     Gerth and Natta
Rev. of Parry-Giles, Hillary Clinton in the News
Essay by Susan Douglas, Clinton and the Patriarchy


No comments:

Dick's Wars and Warming KPSQ Radio Editorials (#1-48)

Dick's Wars and Warming KPSQ Radio Editorials (#1-48)