In about two weeks, America will once again visit polling stations and participate in a soon-to-be archaic ritual called voting. As a tiny reward, and also to remind others to participate in the ritual, those who do it old-style - in a booth - will be given a tiny oval-shaped sticker that says "I Voted". I have often asked for a second sticker to bring home for the kiddo, and a weird feeling of pride has always come over me when I gave it to her. I fantasized that I was making an imprint on her young psyche, that she would grow up to fully understand that voting is important, it is how free people who live under democracy make important decisions and choose their leaders. Now I almost want to cry, considering the state of our "democracy". On the day we vote, many of us will also pause for a moment to reflect on our love for our country; this has always also somehow been part of the ritual. Visions of the Fourth of July, hamburgers, fireworks, a flag with 50 stars and 13 stripes, and stories of how our country came to be will dance inside our heads. And many if not most of us will also remember, quietly, the many soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf in order to keep America safe.

I recently found a website, Surfnetkids.com, that tries to explain the Declaration of Independence in a way that children can understand. Cool. Tell me, what adult on earth does not appreciate the beauty and the power of the words Jefferson strung together on that particular piece of parchment? And who could have possibly guessed all that would follow after he penned those words?

As people that have founded this land we believe certain truths and those should not be questioned: we believe that everyone is created equal in the sight of God; God has given us certain rights; the rights of each person need to be respected and cannot be taken from them. We believe in the right to Life; the right to Liberty; and the right to pursue our own happiness. We also believe that governments are formed to protect these certain rights and that the power of the government comes from the power of the people.

We also believe that if the government fails to protect the rights of its people that they have the right to change the government. The government can be totally changed if it needs to be. This happens so that everyone can be happy and safe.

Notice in the text above, I have emboldened a few phrases. Why? I want to make two key points:

1. Americans disagree about many serious issues today. But just like the founding fathers - who could not agree about one of the most serious issues of all, slavery – most of us agree that keeping our country safe is perhaps government’s most important role.

   In fact, a key reason why the Constitution was even written in the first place involved a matter of national security. Did you know that? England continued to pose a dangerous threat for many years after the American Revolution, and the infant country knew that it urgently needed an army in order to defend itself. But armies cost money, and our forefathers soon discovered that their ability to raise funds for one was seriously compromised by certain glaring problems in the Articles of Confederation, which defined the first version of our government. Under America's "first Constitution", each state had much more political power than it does today; each state was almost its own little kingdom. The net result was that instead of raising funds, the states primarily squabbled among themselves over who exactly should be picking up the tab. The situation was dire; if funds had not been raised, it is highly doubtful that America would even exist today. And so state leaders convened for a long summer in a hot room in Philadelphia, to make a second attempt at drafting an architecture for a government. The rest, as they say, is history. Think about the enormity of what they did, and why they did it. Each of "the kingdoms" made huge sacrifices in order to SURVIVE as a country because they knew they had no choice. The moral of the story: keeping a country safe is a fundamental objective, we would be wise to remember the struggle and the deeds of those who came before us; if we forget this basic truth, our way of life shall certainly perish. I worry that in all of the recent discussions about emails and hackers, many voters have lost track of the fundamental concepts behind the words "extremely careless with classified information." Instead, they simply hear buzzwords devoid of meaning, the equivalent of "blah, blah, blah".

2. When words such as national security, national defense, classified information, etc., are used, the discussion involves a gravely important topic, namely one related to America's ability to keep "we the people" safe from our enemies. We live in a strange time. We are currently at war and have been so engaged for many years now; however those proceedings have been so compartmentalized and sanitized by our leaders that the reality of war is not evident in the lives of many or most of us. We don't mean to, but we often forget we are at war and even what war is. We must remember that the lives of living, breathing human beings are often literally at stake when the above words are used, and also that courageous field agents may have died in service to their country to obtain precious knowledge that might help us win. The matter is extremely serious and NEEDS TO BE treated as such. To be sloppy with information related to such a matter, to be reckless with it, or even to make an innocent mistake with it is ... how do I say this? It is similar to a child who insists on playing with matches against their parent's stern warnings, and ends up burning the house down. What does one say to such a child? "It's okay sweetie, we're just glad you weren't hurt"? Only the situation is actually much worse ... imagine that the child has not just burned their own family's home, they have also burned down the entire city ... or the entire state ... or the entire country. Now what does one say to such a child? And how do you respond to them if they say, "Well, I've said I'm sorry, what else do you expect me to do?"

I recently put certain puzzle pieces together and realized that Hillary Rodham Clinton actually has a long history of being sloppy and careless over matters that affect national security. I am talking about Email-gate, yes, but that is merely one example. I can and will describe at least five others. Taken one at a time, perhaps some voters are willing to forgive and overlook what they see as a "mistake". However, when all of these examples are taken together, a very shocking and dangerous picture begins to emerge. I humbly submit that the very idea of someone being "extremely careless" over matters of NATIONAL SECURITY bothers me tremendously. How do I say this? As a country, how on earth could we allow a soul who has a record of not only playing with matches, but also of BURNING THINGS DOWN and then BLAMING OTHERS for it, to lead our country? To do so seems insane.

A scandal known as Email-gate is upon us. The FBI recently concluded an investigation into Hillary's use of a private email server in the basement of her home for official government business while she served as Secretary of State. I have many comments on this example, but I am saving most of them for another essay. Today I want to focus on the bigger and more dangerous picture of which Email-gate is simply one piece, but in order to do that, I will start by discussing key elements of this scandal.

On July 7, 2016, FBI Director James B. Comey read a now infamous statement to announce the FBI's findings. To better understand those words, one needs to understand what exactly was being examined by the FBI. In an early report, the Washington Post described the investigation as "looking into the security of Hillary Clinton's private e-mail setup"; it began after the inspector general from the intelligence agencies, I. Charles McCullough III, did a quick test and found troubling stuff. Can we step back for a moment and really think about what this means? An inspector general is a watchdog position designed to ensure that federal agencies operate with the kind of integrity we all expect from them; the watchdog for the agencies that have the responsibility to collect information about actors who might want to seriously harm America had seen a bright red flag, and was taking the proper steps that was expected from him, as defined by law, when he filed a referral to the FBI. What exactly was the bright red flag?

[McCullough] had found information that should have been designated as classified in four e-mails out of a “limited sample” of 40 that his agency reviewed. As a result, he said, he made the “security referral,” acting under a federal law that requires alerting the FBI to any potential compromises of national security information.

“The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government’s possession,” McCullough said in a statement, which was also signed by the State Department’s inspector general, Steve A. Linick. — link

I want to spell this out so that everyone can understand. Classified information is not supposed to be stored ANYWHERE outside of the government's control. Why? As I tried to explain earlier,

"The lives of living, breathing human beings are often literally at stake ... and courageous field agents may have died in service to their country to obtain precious knowledge that might help us win. In other words, the matter is extremely serious and NEEDS TO BE treated as such."

It is a FUCKING BIG DEAL to find classified information in a place where classified information should not be, and it is even MORE OF A FUCKING BIG DEAL when that place happens to be a computer stored in the basement of a person who is four heartbeats away from the presidency. McCullough's face probably turned white when he found those four emails, the situation is so horrific. I worry that many voters do not truly comprehend the magnitude of the seriousness of McCullough's discovery. And after the WikiLeaks scandal, every American should now hopefully realize that ALL OF THE INFORMATION that was stored on Clinton's privately owned machine in her basement must surely now be in the hands of our enemies: her computer system was not in the hands of qualified persons who had the knowledge or ability to keep the information on her system properly secure.

This situation is bad, folks, it is very very bad. How do I explain Clinton's recklessness and naivete in terms most persons can understand? Imagine that you have purchased a brand new laptop and decided to connect it to the Internet and run it without bothering to set up anti-virus software or a firewall ... imagine you aren't sophisticated enough to even know what those are or what they do, so you don't bother with them. Sure, plenty of people don't understand computers, but they also realize that they need help from persons who do; they seek out folks who can help them set them up the way they need to be set up. What happens if a computer is used on the Internet but is not properly safeguarded? It quickly becomes infected with "viruses" and "mal-ware." Most of us understand that the Internet is a dangerous place where hackers lurk, so we need to take steps to keep ourselves safe.

Now let's consider what Clinton did: she INTENTIONALLY DECIDED to use a special computer in her basement for her emails INSTEAD OF using the SAFE solutions provided by her IT department. Does this sound more than a little strange to you? Why would she do that? Is she secretly an ace computer programmer on the side? No, of course not. Was it common for others in the state department to set up and use computers in THEIR basements for THEIR emails? No. So why did she, especially when she was a person who continues to be tremendously unskilled with computers? Why indeed. Those who understand computers can read the famous report issued on May 26, 2016 by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the State Department and see that Clinton was in fact HIGHLY UNCOOPERATIVE with the IT Department that she SHOULD HAVE been working with, the folks who had an actual job responsibility to keep all computers in the State Department safe.

BTW, for those who might be interested: I also wrote an essay called Email and Cybersecurity for Dummies: a Primer to help w/OIG report about Hillary's Private Server (caucus99percent.com).

OIG found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server. According to the current CIO and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according to these officials, DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM and the security risks in doing so.

During Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM also instructed employees that they were expected to use approved, secure methods to transmit SBU information and that, if they needed to transmit SBU information outside the Department’s OpenNet network on a regular basis to non- Departmental addresses, they should request a solution from IRM. However, OIG found no evidence that Secretary Clinton ever contacted IRM to request such a solution, despite the fact that emails exchanged on her personal account regularly contained information marked as SBU. (p. 37)

Before moving on, I want to mention that recent complaints by those in the DNC about being hacked by "the Russians!" ring completely false; they remind me of the homeowner who always leaves their front-door wide open and unlocked, and then screams loudly when they are robbed. Reasonable people understand that if they themselves fail to take reasonable precautions, then they themselves bear a great deal of responsibility if certain harms come to them. In the year 2009, a person who spoke regularly with the President of the United States should have comprehended that any computer they might use would be a highly attractive target to hackers. Curiously, evidence has emerged that Clinton did in fact have awareness of this risk, because as the head of the State Department, she actually lectured all department employees on their 'special duty' to maintain cyber security in an internal video.

'The bureau of diplomatic security and IT staff work around the clock to defend us against cyber attacks, but the real key to cyber security rests with you.

'Complying with department computing policies and being alert to potential threats will help protect all of us.'

Failing to take proper precautions to safeguard America's secrets is nothing short of dereliction of duty. And in the year 2016, trying to escape political consequences for one's own poor decisions by blaming others (Russia!) in ways that increase the likelihood that America might go to war, is both horrifically irresponsible and also the act of a person who views American troops like a plaything to be used and abused for their own personal amusement. If you don't want to be robbed, lock your doors. If you don't want to be hacked, secure your computer system. If you don't actually know how to secure your computer system, don't arrogantly ignore the advice and warnings of those who do.

TYT's Jimmy Dore: Democrats Are Restarting The Cold War To Hide From WikiLeaks (realclearpolitics.com)

NSA Whistleblower: US Intelligence Worker Likely Behind DNC Leaks, Not Russia. CIA and NSA had access to all of Clinton's emails. (zerohedge.com)

NSA Whistleblower Says DNC Hack Was Not Done By Russia, But By U.S. Intelligence (investmentwatchblog.com)

The "Fact" That 17 Intelligence Agencies Confirmed Russia is Behind the Email Hacks Isn’t Actually…A "Fact" (zerohedge.com)

Now that you have a better idea of what the investigation was about, we can move on to the FBI's findings. But before we do, let me remind you that when Comey testified before Congress, he mentioned that the investigation was VERY NARROWLY focused on McCullough's referral, and that referral alone. So hypothetically speaking, if the team of FBI agents happened to come across evidence of any kind of misdeed that was not explicitly mentioned on the referral (for example, oh, how about something completely random, like maybe an attempt to avoid FOIA requirements, or even perjury maybe?) they essentially said to themselves "Woah, look at that. That sure does looks funny. Hey Joe! Come over here! Can you even believe this? Wow. Oh well, since THAT ISSUE IS NOT EXPLICITLY MENTIONED ON THE REFERRAL we will just completely ignore it, just like we always do for every other citizen that we investigate!" Wink wink, nudge nudge. Do you think that the FBI ignores issues in this way for average citizens who are not on speaking terms with the president? Me neither.

The video below (6.33 min) shows Comey explaining the narrow focus of the investigation, and Jason Chaffetz being shocked and amazed at what Comey was saying. FYI, in the intro from the guy who made it, Bravo Von Muller, which comes before the congressional testimony (at the 2:40 mark), I think Bravo might be "saying" what Chaffetz is "thinking", but would of course never say. The combination of the two is surprisingly enjoyable. So Bravo to Bravo!

Published on Jul 7, 2016

Everybody knows that Hillary Clinton created a secret hidden computer server to evade the "Freedom of Information Act". James Comey knows she violated that Federal Law but he did not even look in to it. Plus he did not even look in to her lying to Congress ! Bravo to Congressman Jason Chaffetz drilling Comey

WARNING! SPOILER ALERT! IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE FBI FOUND RE HILLAY'S SERVER, STOP HERE!

Ha, ha, just kidding, since today is late October and Comey spoke in early July, I suspect you already know what Comey said in his statement; in a nutshell, his never-ever-to-be-forgotten words were "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" against Clinton. But since his statement was ever-so-carefully crafted in legalistic weasel words intended to bamboozle the public, I strongly suspect that most listeners didn't actually "hear" what Comey "was saying." Here is my best translation (paraphrased): Comey told us that America's system of Justice has a deeply engrained double-standard that allows those in the elite class to escape prosecution. Because no elites have EVER before been prosecuted in the past for Clinton's same alleged crimes, at least that he could find (and he looked very hard, believe me, he looked VERY VERY hard, pinky-swear), in his view all of those lack of prosecutions establishes a SOLID LEGAL PRECEDENT, which is a very important "law thing", as we all know. Based on that precedent, Clinton should not be prosecuted either, neiner neiner, because if SHE were prosecuted, that wouldn't be fair to HER. Got that? Everyone else in her social circle (except for Martha Stewart, of course, but EVERYONE hates her because she's so Little Miss Perfect) gets off free, so she should get off free too. Did you hear all of that? If you did, then of course you now understand why "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" against Clinton. Guilt or innocence under the law? Ha ha ha, that's funny. That has NOTHING to do with it, baby. Nothing.

Ok, so like one or two or maybe seventy-thousand-kajillion other citizens, I was a bit miffed by Comey's words; so I wrote an essay: One Law for Thee, and Another for Me - Comey actually said it out loud: if Clinton had been someone else, his decision would likely have been different (caucus99percent.com)

Below is a clip where Comey says (paraphrased): "Hey you, Peons! Just because Hillary got this super duper great once in a lifetime get-out-of jail-free card, does not mean that YOU or ANYONE ELSE YOU KNOW will get it too. If your last name ain't Clinton, you NEED to UNDERSTAND that YOU WILL BE SEVERELY PUNISHED if you try to pull the same stunt that she pulled. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200." Clip is 17 seconds ... go on, watch it a few times, and remember: "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"

FBI Director James Comey Just Explained Why America Doesn’t Prosecute The Rich And Powerful

The Rich Are Different From You and Me: They Don’t Care About Jobs and Their Money Buys Politicians

Ok, now let me tell you a funny story. I have no idea how it happened, but the Clinton machine watched the exact same episodes of "Comey Speaks Live!" but they reached an entirely different conclusion about what happened. Isn't that wild? They are all saying that the FBI found Clinton to be innocent. Innocent! And apparently that is because ... I think this is how it goes ... she wasn't found "guilty", so ... ipso facto, she must be INNOCENT! Ta-dah!

The machine didn't seem to notice a few things that other alert viewers did, however. To save time, let me just quote from this handy-dandy article written by the National Review:

"Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie: The Quick List of Clinton’s Eight E-mail Lies" :

Actually, a truly quick list is not possible, because she told so many, so often.

James Comey, the FBI director, said in a statement Tuesday that the FBI would not recommend Hillary Clinton for indictment for using a private e-mail address and server for work communication while secretary of state. But he also detailed the findings of the FBI investigation into Clinton’s private server — disproving several of eight major lies she has told multiple times since the investigation into her private server began.

1. Lie: She didn’t send or receive any e-mails that were classified “at the time.” ...
2. Lie: She didn’t send or receive any e-mails “marked classified” at the time. ...
3. Lie: She turned over all of her work-related e-mails. ...
4. Lie: She wanted to use a personal e-mail account for convenience and simplicity, streamlining to one device. ...
5. Lie: Clinton’s use of a private server and e-mail domain was permitted by law and regulation. ...
6. Lie: All of Clinton’s e-mails were immediately captured by @.gov addresses. ...
7. Lie: There were numerous safeguards against security breaches and “no evidence” of hacking. ...
8. Lie: Clinton was never served a subpoena on her e-mail use. ...

Have to admit, at first I thought that some items on this list sounded a little "bad". But kindhearted Comey explained before Congress (very gently, you could tell, he was using his best "compassionate and understanding" voice) that his team had concluded that Clinton was not actually quote unquote "LYING" when she made certain claims, especially the bits about never ever ever sending or receiving CLASSIFIED messages. Some of us remember hearing Hillary say those words, over and over quite a lot, so we heard Comey's words and said to each other, "What?!?!?". For those who might have forgotten, here is a video montage of Hillary making claims that are "false" but "not lies", according to the FBI. Links and partial transcripts appear below.

EVERYTHING BELOW IS FALSE, BUT IT IS NOT "A LIE" ... EVERYTHING BELOW IS FALSE, BUT IT IS NOT "A LIE"

http://time.com/3739541/transcript-hillary-clinton-email-press-conference/

First, when I got to work as secretary of state, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.

Looking back, it would’ve been better if I’d simply used a second email account and carried a second phone, but at the time, this didn’t seem like an issue.

Third, after I left office, the State Department asked former secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies of work- related emails from our personal accounts. I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related, which totalled roughly 55,000 printed pages, even though I knew that the State Department already had the vast majority of them. We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work- related emails and deliver them to the State Department. At the end, I chose not to keep my private personal emails — emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/Fact-Check-Did-Hillary-Break-The...

“In meeting the record keeping obligations, it was my practice to email government officials on their state or other ‘dot-gov’ accounts, so that the emails were immediately captured and preserved,” Clinton explained.

http://time.com/3739541/transcript-hillary-clinton-email-press-conference/

And what I did was to direct, you know, my counsel to conduct a thorough investigation and to err on the side of providing anything that could be connected to work. They did that, and that was my obligation. I fully fulfilled it, and then I took the unprecedented step of saying, “Go ahead and release them, and let people see them.”

CLINTON: Well, the system we used was set up for President Clinton’s office. And it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.

QUESTION: Were you ever — were you ever specifically briefed on the security implications of using — using your own email server and using your personal address to email with the president?

CLINTON: I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.

So I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.

Again, Comey testified before Congress and said that his organization concluded that HRC DIDN'T LIE AT ALL about the sending and receiving of the classified messages. And then he went on to explain why her many outrageously false statements (which is a judgement on my part, I suppose, using things like "facts" to evaluate the "accuracy" of her "words"), were not lies.

Are you ready for this? Are you sitting down? What I am going to share now is almost unbelievable. It is also closely related to another example which shows that "extremely Careless" Hillary is a DANGEROUS THREAT to the safety of all Americans, that is, if what Comey said under oath before Congress was "true".

Comey tried to be as tactful as he could when he explained that the FBI's judgement was that

So in the FBI's view, Hillary was simply mistaken, not lying, when she made multiple demonstrably false statements. I encourage you to go back and watch the previous video again, and take a close look at what Hillary's face and voice look like when she is "mistaken" but not "lying".

Speaking with Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), Comey disputed the Republican lawmaker’s assumption that Clinton was well-versed in the world of classification levels and related information.

"I don't think that our investigation established she was actually particularly sophisticated with respect to classified information and the levels and treatment," Comey said.

"Isn't she an original classification authority though?" DeSantis asked, to which Comey responded, "Yes, Sir, yes, Sir."

DeSantis exclaimed, “Good grief.”

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen, the alleged reasoning behind the FBI's recommendation "that no charges are appropriate in this case": Hillary was not "particularly sophisticated" when it came to classified information. As Maxwell Smart might say, "Ah yes, it's the old, she wasn’t lying, she was just stupid" defense. The woman who served as Secretary of State, the head of the federal organization that is responsible for all international relations involving the United States, did not fully comprehend all details related to "the levels and treatment" of highly sensitive information that affects the national security of all Americans.

FBI releases Hillary Clinton email report

Washington (CNN) - Hillary Clinton repeatedly told the FBI she couldn't recall key details and events related to classified information procedures, according to notes the bureau released Friday of its July interview with the Democratic presidential nominee, along with a report on its investigation into her private email server.

Clinton told the FBI she "could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information," according to the bureau's notes of their interview with Clinton. The documents indicate Clinton told investigators she either does not "recall" or "remember" at least 39 times — often in response to questions about process, potential training or the content of specific emails.

Well, duh, I guess that would explain how Hillary could have repeatedly made false claims about sending and receiving classified information, even to the FBI, and not have committed perjury while doing so. On all of those occasions, she didn't actually know what the fuck she was talking about.

Friends, please spend time to think about the implications of what Comey is saying. Hillary was interviewed by the FBI in 2016. She served as Secretary of State between 2009 and 2012. If Hillary was not "particularly sophisticated with respect to classified information and the levels and treatment," in July 2016 when she was interviewed by the FBI,

it means that during her entire tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary also lacked this understanding.

Now some might say that Hillary is clearly not a stupid woman, and that she merely SAID she "could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information" because that is a bit of a legal trick to avoid admitting under oath something a defendant would prefer not to admit. Of course, if that is true, then apparently Hillary would be guilty of lying to the FBI, which is a crime.

On the other hand, there may be an explanation as to why Clinton lacks a proper understanding of classified information for someone in her position: according to Richard Pollock, a reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation, there is no evidence that Clinton completed all required security training mandated by the State Department for all employees. DCNF made a FOIA request to obtain evidence that Hillary and her top aides had "completed required training on the handling of “Special Compartmented Information” (SCI) when they entered the department". Only after a federal judge ordered the State Department to begin producing the relevant information did they turn over signed documents from Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin; however, no such document was provided for Hillary herself. According to Pollock,

Classified documents in the SCI category cover some of the nation’s most deeply guarded secrets, including material obtained by U.S. intelligence agencies through signals intelligence, human intelligence and satellite intelligence.

He goes on to quote retired Col. Jim Waurishuk, a former member of the White House National Security Council staff,

“It’s hard to believe, particularly as it was her first year in office as Secretary of State,” he said. “The standard process is you will get all your security indoctrination done immediately upon taking office,” he said. “I don’t care if you’re a GS-1 or a private or a four-star general or President of the United States. You’re going to go through your security indoctrination, particularly in the position of Secretary of State.”

Pollock also quotes James Comey, who said that the FBI investigation produced

“evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.”

Assuming that Comey and Clinton are being truthful on this matter, which might be an overly big assumption, if Hillary did indeed fail to take the SCI- level security training, it might explain some of Clinton's "I don't remember" answers to the FBI. However, it also provides additional evidence of Hillary being "extremely careless" regarding classified information and America's national security. I'm having more than a little difficulty comprehending

To borrow a phrase from Clinton herself, "I mean, who does that?" And adding insult to injury, from the time when she was responsible for the training and the work of all of her underlings in the State Department, we actually have video, shown earlier, of Hillary saying:

'The bureau of diplomatic security and IT staff work around the clock to defend us against cyber attacks, but the real key to cyber security rests with you.

'Complying with department computing policies and being alert to potential threats will help protect all of us.'

How could she utter these words ... furthermore, how could she have accepted the critically important responsibilities of Secretary of State, and not bothered to gain the understanding about handling sensitive information that is REQUIRED to do her job? The mind boggles. I can almost literally feel my blood pressure rising just thinking about this negligence on her part; but then I am the child of a career military officer, and actually cringe at the thought of a hero's blood being spilled needlessly (especially when a spouse or a child might be left behind). To be careless with matters of national security is to blatantly disrespect the lives of those who are willing to give so much for all of us. Not bothering to learn the various "levels and treatment" of classified information is merely yet another example of her extreme carelessness. Close your eyes for a moment and think about all of the brave men and women who have died in the service of our country. Tell me, how is Hillary's decision to skip mandatory security training any different from spitting on all of their graves? Seriously, WHAT KIND OF PERSON WOULD DO THAT? What kind of person would be so thoughtless regarding information that can affect whether other human beings live or die?

Combine Clinton's history of being careless with the fact that one of Hillary's former aides (and a member of her inner circle) has said "Almost no one knows better me that her instincts can be terrible," one needs to seriously ask themselves the question: should a person with bad instincts and a track record of being less than fully thoughtful regarding matters affecting the safety of millions and millions of people ... what might happen if such a person becomes the leader of the entire free world?

Time is short and this essay grows long, so I will discuss one last example and leave the rest for another day. This example has nothing to do with emails, security training, or leaks of any kind. In fact, it is almost guaranteed to get your mind off of those subjects, which is rather the entire point. The Clinton machine doesn't want anyone to spend time thinking about what she may have done or continue to be doing; no, the Clinton machine wants to shut down all of those thoughts using a nifty trick that almost always works. All that is necessary is to invoke our childhood fears and memories of the scary monsters that WE STILL KNOW are alive and well under the bed.

I'd like to ask Glenn Greenwald, at The Intercept, to get the party started here ... Glenn, what can you tell us about monsters?

In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots

Donald Trump, for reasons I’ve repeatedly pointed out, is an extremist, despicable, and dangerous candidate, and his almost-certain humiliating defeat is less than a month away. So I realize there is little appetite in certain circles for critiques of any of the tawdry and sometimes fraudulent journalistic claims and tactics being deployed to further that goal. In the face of an abusive, misogynistic, bigoted, scary, lawless authoritarian, what’s a little journalistic fraud or constant fearmongering about subversive Kremlin agents between friends if it helps to stop him?

But come January, Democrats will continue to be the dominant political faction in the U.S. — more so than ever — and the tactics they are now embracing will endure past the election, making them worthy of scrutiny. Those tactics now most prominently include dismissing away any facts or documents that reflect negatively on their leaders as fake, and strongly insinuating that anyone who questions or opposes those leaders is a stooge or agent of the Kremlin, tasked with a subversive and dangerously un-American mission on behalf of hostile actors in Moscow.

Hmmm ... you sound a tad anti-monster, Glenn. What makes you so sure that the Podesta Emails are actually legitimate and that the Kremlin isn't involved with them, Mr. Smarty-Pants?

On Friday, WikiLeaks published its first installment of emails obtained from the account of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. Despite WikiLeaks’ perfect, long-standing record of only publishing authentic documents, MSNBC’s favorite ex-intelligence official, Malcolm Nance, within hours of the archive’s release, posted a tweet claiming — with zero evidence and without citation to a single document in the WikiLeaks archive — that it was compromised with fakes.

Well, maybe you have a bit of a point there, Glenn. Myself, I don't care for claims made with zero evidence, and you say that WikiLeaks has a perfect record? I didn't know that, thanks. I guess I'll maybe need to look into it a little more.

I'm starting to think that what we have here might be an attempt to smear the messenger. I suppose that politicians have tried to demonize their opposition since the dawn of time. But modern Americans seem to embrace this approach with special gusto. The net result is a tribalistic kind of competition. Identity politics is used heavily to attract members to Team Red or Team Blue, and once one realizes which side they are on, one picks up the cues from their preferred dear leaders and then behaves accordingly. "We" of course are the good guys who stand for everything that is reasonable, good, and holy, and "They" of course are nothing less than children of the devil. I yearn for a day when "we the people" are perhaps smart enough to recognize when we are being played like rubes by crafty men and women who are operating out of THEIR OWN best interests instead of OURS. Ok, now that I've gotten that bit of sermonizing out of the way, I guess I'll move on.

Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray (more about Ambassador Murray), would you like to say a few words?

I left Julian after midnight. He is fit, well, sharp and in good spirits. WikiLeaks never reveals or comments upon its sources, but as I published before a fortnight ago, I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is not any Russian state actor or proxy that gave the Democratic National Committee and Podesta material to WikiLeaks. The claim is nonsense. Journalists are also publishing that these were obtained by “hacking” with no evidence that this was the method used to obtain them.

The control of the Democratic party machinery deliberately to unfairly ensure Clinton’s victory over Bernie Sanders is a matter of great public interest. The attempt by the establishment from Obama down to divert attention from this by a completely spurious claim against Russia, repeated without investigation by a servile media, is a disgrace.

The over-close relationship between the probable future President and Wall Street is also very important. WikiLeaks has done a great public service by making this plain.

The attempts by the mainstream media to portray WikiLeaks as supporters of Trump and Putin because they publish some of Clinton’s darker secrets is completely illogical and untrue in fact. The idea we must pretend Clinton is a saint is emetic.

But the key point is that WikiLeaks is a publisher. It is a vehicle for publishing leaks, and is much more of a vehicle for whistleblowers than for hackers. It does not originate the material. I have often seen comments such as “Why has WikiLeaks not published material on Israel/Putin/Trump?” The answer is that they have not been given any. They publish good, verifiable material that they are given by whistleblowers. They are not protecting Israel, Putin, or Trump. Nobody has given them viable material.

So Craig, it sounds like you pretty much feel the same way as Glenn, huh? You don't think that a monster actually exists, and if I get up out bed to get a glass of water, I'll be okay? I guess I'd like to believe you, but I'm still not sure ... I wish I could find more information to help me decide what is actually true ... oh look ...

Alexis Simendinger: Clinton Casting Herself As A Victim Of The Russians To Sidestep WikiLeaks Revelations

AMY WALTER: She's been able to ignore this because we have talked about Donald Trump. How does she talk about this in the debate when she is directly asked about what went on in these emails?

SIMENDINGER: What we get back to is the Russians. Since the convention, the campaign has been talking about the Russians' desire to override the will of the American people, and that the Russians want Donald Trump to be president, and this is massive intereference in the American election to keep her from the presidency.

She is making herself a victim of Russian interference, and kind of sidestepping around what she did as a political candidate who couldn’t figure out how to apologize for her emails, and did a flip-flop on trade, and, you know, all the things politicians do.

Caitlin Johnstone, you've become one of my absolute favorite writers. Would you please weigh in with your thoughts, and then I'll try to wrap this thing up?

Are You Willing To Gamble All Life On Earth Over Hillary's Beef With Russia? (inquisitr.com)

The drums of war are beating. Hillary Clinton isn’t telling everyone that she’s going to establish a no-fly zone in Syria in order to win votes, Hillary Clinton is telling everyone that she’s going to establish a no-fly zone in Syria because she’s going to establish a no-fly zone in Syria. That’s one thing she’s said that we can trust, because while she is (as usual) saying it to manipulate the public narrative, she isn’t saying it in order to win our approval. She’s saying it to get the war drums beating. [...]

A standoff between Clinton and Putin cannot possibly end well. They’re the two biggest egos in world politics, after the fat guy in North Korea. Since going through a lot of these new leaked emails, it’s become clear that Hillary only has one position: she is never wrong, and it’s never her fault. Everything else is just figuring out the most politically advantageous thing to say, but everyone in her campaign is acutely aware that she will never, under any circumstances, humble herself and back down, and they’ve learned to conduct themselves accordingly.

There will be no guiding wisdom involved in the event of escalation. In the driver’s seat will be ego, and only ego, interested only in mental stories and stupid political agendas. If we fail this test and slip into extinction like so many other species before us, it will likely be because of these very aspects of humanity.

Or maybe I’m wrong about all this.

Are you prepared to take that gamble?

Near the beginning of this piece I shared the moral of a very important story ... Do you remember?

The moral of the story: keeping a country safe is a fundamental objective, we would be wise to remember the struggle and the deeds of those who came before us; if we forget this basic truth, our way of life shall certainly perish.

I humbly submit that a president that beats the drums of war against a country in order to distract Americans from her own sloppy deeds, careless acts, or dare I say it, crimes ... such a president is not making it her priority to keep her citizens safe. Such a president is playing a game of cowboy in the same exact way that President George W. Bush once did when he invaded Iraq under false pretenses.

Have we so soon forgotten the enormous price we have paid for Iraq, both in blood and treasure? Are we actually going to stupidly and blindly enter into another war based on hearsay and propaganda, a war that the 99% will pay for with both their taxes and their lives? To be followed by another war, and another, and another? Is that what we honestly want for our future?

The FBI investigated Hillary, and proclaimed that she was "extremely careless with classified information." I hope that I have helped you see that the FBI's verdict was not an isolated incident. Hillary, the woman HERSELF, repeatedly acts in ways that show that she does not give much thought to the consequences of her actions on THE LIVES of everyday Americans. Those who do not move in her golden circle are merely pawns, to be used and discarded as she wills. Those who vote for her will soon have blood on their hands, and they will have to live with themselves forever after. I only hope that "we the people" can recognize this truth before it is too late.

WikiLeaks: A vote today for Hillary Clinton is a vote for endless, stupid war - by Julian Assange

Hillary didn't just vote for Iraq. She made her own Iraq. Libya is Hillary's Iraq and if she becomes president she will make more.

I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgement and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. Her personality combined with her poor policy decisions have directly contributed to the rise of ISIS.

Pentagon generals objected to destroying the Libyan state. They felt Hillary did not have a safe post-war plan. Hillary Clinton went over their heads. Libya has been destroyed. It became a haven for ISIS. The Libyan national armory was looted and hundreds of tons of weapons were transferred to jihadists in Syria. Hillary's war has increased terrorism, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and has set back women's rights in the Middle East by hundreds of years. Having learned nothing from the Libyan disaster Hillary then set about trying do the same in Syria.

Hillary publicly took credit for the destruction of the Libyan state. On hearing that the country's president had been killed by her handiwork, she became wild-eyed and gloated "We came, we saw, he died!". In the momentary thrill of the kill, she had aped, of all people, Julius Ceaser.

Hillary's problem is not just that she's war hawk. She's a war hawk with bad judgement who gets an unseemly emotional rush out of killing people. She shouldn't be let near a gun shop, let alone an army. And she certainly should not become president of the United States.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y]

Thank you, Julian Assange, for all you've done to help normal, everyday Americans avoid stupid, endless war.

Friends, I wrote this with a fervent hope that it might be shared. If you know of someone who is on the fence leaning for Hillary, or is even more solidly committed to that vote, please consider and feel free to share this document with them, if you think it might help. We are living in strange times. Let's all do what we can, and hope and pray for the best, okay?

Think about what Julian Assange has publicly done because he knows that Hillary as President would be a disaster that would cause pain and even death for so many people. Let's fight this thing to the end. Thank you.