Jesse Ventura, Cynthia McKinney Running In 2016?

Posted on October 31, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to my conscience, above all liberties.”

– JOHN MILTON (1608-1674) English poet

Book2Alphabet Would it be presumptuous to predict that Jesse Ventura and Cynthia McKinney will become the next President and Vice President of the United States of America? From what Mr. Ventura said in his recent interview on “Breaking the Set” with host Abby Martin, it looks like a Ventura – McKinney run in 2016 is a distinct possibility. For the rapidly increasing numbers of men and women around the world frustrated with the lack of truthful debate and discussion on major world issues, the prospect of a man and woman dedicated to truth running for perhaps the most powerful political positions on Earth creates a buzz of invigorating excitement.

There are a number of reasons why Jesse Ventura and Cynthia McKinney need to announce their plan to run as quickly as possible. First is the precarious situation the world is in now, primarily caused by an emerging, previously non-existent competition between formerly monopolistic private central banking institutions such as the Federal Reserve, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Bank for International Settlements, etc. and recently established financial entities of the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa).

This potentially very dangerous competition is occurring around the world now, as those dynastic families at the top of historic monopoly power pyramids have decided to go on the military offensive to keep and add as much international financial/business power as possible before the world’s people decide to no longer deal with them. At the heart of today’s conflicts around the world is the evolution from a unipolar to multipolar world system, a transition which is most effectively articulated by Mr. Ventura, Ms. McKinney, and a growing number of political leaders in regions across the Earth.

Another equally important reason for Mr. Ventura and Ms. McKinney to announce their candidacy as soon as possible is that their voices – along with the voices of those who share their vision – are absolutely needed now, not later. While media-driven propaganda wars push politically unaware populations toward acceptance of major military escalation, truth provided by Ventura, McKinney, and a growing number of others offers the only counter-balance which can prevent or stop such potential military escalation with possibly catastrophic consequences for humanity.

John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Robert F. Kennedy, Paul Wellstone and others in the United States became the victims of political assassination for their efforts to bring about peaceful, cooperative change in the world, and both Jesse Ventura and Cynthia McKinney know the extreme risks of following their paths. JFK became President of the United States, his brother probably would have become president if not murdered while campaigning for that highest office, and Paul Wellstone was on virtually every list of potential presidential candidates for 2004.

When running for President in 2008, Barack Obama use Martin Luther King’s term, “the fierce urgency of now” to successfully attract great numbers of supporters who voted for him and anticipating King-like completion of the “dream”. Unfortunately, those many once-inspired supporters have experienced profound disappointment after illusions and promises of change proved to be false. Just exactly when Barack Obama became fully aware of the extrajudicial consequences of walking in the footsteps of JFK, MLK, RFK, Paul Wellstone and others is not certain.

It may have been before announcing his candidacy for President, during the campaign, or after he took the oath of office for the first time in 2008. But without concern for exactly when that extreme risk awareness occurred, it is obvious Barack Obama has at some point made the conscious decision not to follow the courageous, self-sacrificial, visionary paths of America’s assassinated leaders. A little known fact is that John F. Kennedy and then Soviet Union leader Nikita Khrushchov were having secret meetings between them during the Cuban missile crisis, and that, if JFK had lived, relations between the United States and the Soviet Union were on the road to greatly improve.

In stark contrast to JFK and Khrushchov, before the United Nations 69th General Assembly Barack Obama named Ebola, Russia, and terrorist groups like ISIS as the three most important world threats, giving conclusive evidence of his conscious decision to avoid the path taken by America’s murdered visionaries – particularly intentions and actions focused on reducing international tensions while improving communication and increasing understanding and cooperation. Mr. Obama’s UN address further emphasizes the need for Mr. Ventura and Ms. McKinney to announce now, thus enabling their truthful, reconciling message to offset/provide a de-escalation balance to the current provocation-laced, dangerous debate.

To Jesse Ventura and Cynthia McKinney: don’t wait any longer to announce your decision to run in 2016. Unlike Barack Obama’s uncommitted, politically motivated use of Martin Luther King’s philosophical words, act in the true spirit of MLK’s phrase – “the fierce urgency of now”.

In the history of the United States, Ross Perot as an independent candidate for President came closest to winning election. Before Ross Perot, John Anderson was one of the few independent candidates allowed to participate in presidential debates with Democrat and Republican nominees. Ralph Nader, during his number of runs for president, was completely blocked each time from participating in televised debates. Would the team of independents Jesse Ventura and Cynthia McKinney be given the opportunity to share their message during what has been the exclusive “property” of the two-party system/duopoly: presidential/vice presidential debates?

If allowed into the debates, would their ideas resonate more deeply with American citizens? Only evolutionary developments in the areas of political free speech and democracy from now until the 2016 presidential election allow an answer to that question.


(Thank you to breakingtheset at YouTube)



Editor of, Mr. Clive Menzies, delivers an excellent, wide-vision analysis of global economic and social conditions, which one could safely estimate corresponds to, and expounds upon, views held by Jesse Ventura, Cynthia McKinney, and many, many other critical thinking men and women around the Earth.


Where The Voter Meets The Democracy Road.

Posted on October 29, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

aaa-26Alphabet With United States midterm elections only days away, election reform seemed a timely topic. It’s surprising that in the United States the standardization of voting systems/processes has yet to become implemented which leads to nearly perfect symmetry between voters’ true intentions and the final results. Many writers and activists concerned about clean elections point to Canada, where apparently paper and pencil ballots, hand counted across the country, results in final tallies after 5 hours.

In voting and elections, simplest is best. Paper and pencil ballots are as close as one can get to total transparency and confidence that the people’s votes/intentions became accurately expressed, and the men and women elected were the ones which the democratic majority of citizens thought best qualified for public service. Other election reform measures worthy of consideration include the banning of all money – down to the last penny – from the process, banning all advertising in lieu of debates on radio, television, and the internet, Sunday and/or weekend voting instead of Tuesdays, and strong enforcement of election laws related to political corruption.

Paper ballots filled out with a pencil offers the chance for accurate recounts with a paper trail, while eliminating any opportunity for criminal hacking of votes through either electronic voting machines or counting scanners. Banning all money from elections benefits citizens who will become much more informed on the issues and more apt to vote for the candidates whose positions reflect their own. Elections should be all about whose ideas make it better possible to improve the health and well-being of citizens, not about whose advertising consultants have the best marketing tricks up their sleeves.

Banning money from elections eliminates the need for elected representatives to spend too much time raising money, to cast their votes with prejudice toward their largest contributors, and allows that time to become spent on solving problems. Voting on the weekend would result in higher voter participation as most people have Sundays or Saturdays off from work, and Tuesday voting makes many voters not bother because of the pull between work and voting.

Of course, media corporations may hold a much different view about eliminating $multi-billions of spending on advertising during elections, as well as providing free primetime airspace for debates. Very large-money, billionaire election donors may have an even more intense opposition to removing every last red cent from elections, and/or could have a problem with citizens becoming more greatly informed about real issues affecting their family, neighbors, and friends’ lives. All these reform measures and more could come into existence after the United States held a Constitutional Convention.

Perhaps after viewing the following video clips from the Emmy-nominated HBO documentary “Hacking Democracy” the idea of a United States Constitutional Convention will seem like a very wise idea. Perhaps some major reforming is in order.


For more information, please visit: and

(Thank you to Hacking Democracy at YouTube)

First ten minutes of the film:

Troubling, saddening demonstration of touchscreen vote count manipulation:

Don’t forget to vote.

Israel, Palestine, Middle East And The Peacemakers.

Posted on October 28, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

“If Christ should appear on Earth he would on all hands be denounced as a mistaken, misguided man, insane and crazed.”

– HENRY DAVID THOREAU (1817-1862) American writer

aaa-37Alphabet For weeks since the 2nd International New Horizon Conference of Independent Thinkers was held at the end of September 2014 in Tehran, the search for videos of the speakers there has been ongoing. The following video was recently posted on YouTube from the conference, and it’s of Dr./Reverend Stephen Sizer’s short speech. While listening to Mr. Sizer’s fascinating thoughts on Christian Zionism, thankfully the video’s producers included a web address where people can go to read many insightful articles about the nearly cancelled event, where scholars, journalists, filmmakers and experts on the Middle East gathered together from around the Earth.

More speaker videos are probably forthcoming and will become posted here as they become available. It is important that people become informed about major issues in the Middle East, where decades of violence and wars have caused human suffering for millions of the people there. Only from the foundation of truth can the misunderstandings be overcome and peace finally come to those lands.

The following article by retired United States military officer Ann Wright is an example of the kind of information found at the website. Dr./Reverend Stephen Sizer’s message at the conference directly contradicts the spiritual philosophy of Christian Zionist “Apocalyptic” adherents who overlook Israel’s outright mass-murder of Palestinian civilians during July-August in “Operation Protective Edge”, Israel’s continuing construction of settlements in clear violation of international law, and silence in the face of Israel’s ongoing, decades-old, anti-Christian treatment of the Palestinian people.

Unfortunately, Christian Zionist adherents have become turned away from Christ’s message “blessed are the peacemakers” when it comes to Israel-Palestine and the Middle East region. Perhaps Stephen Sizer’s message will be effective in eliminating delusional “end times”, apocalypse thinking wherever it exists, while at the same time – as he mentions – more people shall become true peacemakers – the children of God.

Summary of Ann Wright’s Speech for the New Horizon Conference – Ann Wright

Over the past decade, spanning two different presidencies, the U.S. government and its individual employees have faced extraordinarily important issues at the intersection of national security, law and conscience. Major American policies promulgated in the name of national security regarding war, invasion and occupation, kidnapping, extraordinary rendition, torture, indefinite detention, curtailment of civil liberties, extrajudicial killings, targeted assassinations and eavesdropping have all been called into legal question.

For women and men in the United States government, these ethical issues should create crises of conscience. Public servants face the dilemma of how, within the system, to challenge policies that are ill-considered at best, or illegal at worst. Can one continue working for a government carrying out policies it claims are critical to national security, if one believes those policies constitute moral, ethical or legal failures?

These issues transcend administrations. Despite the urging of President Barack Obama to “look forward, not backward” in terms of transparency and accountability for governmental actions, I firmly believe it is imperative to take a look back over the policies of the past 10 years. That is the only way to evaluate how to approach ethical, moral and legal challenges in the future.

Ten years ago, I faced such a dilemma myself. I had been a federal government employee for more than 35 years, first in the U.S. military and then at the Department of State, serving eight presidents going back to Lyndon Johnson. Many of those administrations, of both parties, espoused controversial policies that I did not agree with. But like many other public servants, I sought to carry out programs and policies with which I concurred, morally and ethically.

The Road to War

In late 2002 and early 2003, I became increasingly concerned about the George W. Bush administration’s march to war in Iraq. I had just returned from Afghanistan—having been on the small team that reopened the U.S. embassy in Kabul in December 2001 and remained there until the first permanent embassy staff arrived in April 2002..

On March 19, 2003—the eve of the U.S invasion of Iraq, I sent my letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin Powell. I became one of only three U.S. government employees, all Foreign Service officers, to resign over the issue. Several other FSOs apparently resigned later for the same reason, but did not make their resignations public. In addition, an unknown number of FSOs retired from the Service much earlier than they had planned because of their opposition to the war.

However, neither dissent within the government, nor elsewhere, affected the Bush administration’s decision to wage war on Iraq.

“Dissent Is Difficult”

A decade later, I still wonder whether the resignation of a senior policymaker might have had an effect on that decision. In a 2006 interview, Sec. Powell’s chief of staff, Larry Wilkerson, reflected: “My participation in that presentation at the U.N. constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council.”

Wilkerson went even further in 2011, when he said that his role in preparing the presentation was “probably the biggest mistake of my life.” He regrets both his participation and his decisionnot to resign over it.

Six years after the Iraq War began, Richard Haass—who had delivered the official response to my Dissent Channel message—described his own reservations about the decision to go to war in a 2009.

Newsweek article, “The Dilemma of Dissent.”  In it Haass, now chair of the Council on Foreign Relations, says: “Had I known then what I know now—namely, that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that the intervention would be carried out with a marked absence of good judgment and competence—I would have been inalterably opposed. Still, even then, I leaned against proceeding.”

Haass added: “Dissent is difficult…No matter how good the advice, however, there will be times when it is resented or rejected,”  Haass concluded. “It may be rebuffed on the merits, or because of politics or personalities. Sometimes, smart people just see things differently. It doesn’t matter.”

But in issues of war and peace, it does matter—to the thousands who will kill and be killed, or spend the rest of their lives maimed physically or emotionally, due to the decisions of those in power.

It also matters to the rest of the world, symbolically and practically, when the country with the strongest military in the world decides to attack and occupy a small, oil-rich country that had been under extreme sanctions and inspections for 10 years.

And it matters that even a handful of U.S. government employees resigned in opposition to that policy. We became symbols to the rest of the world that not everyone in the U.S. government waswilling to go along with a war opposed by the member-states of the United Nations, and by the people who voiced their concerns in the largest stop-the-war marches in history.

The Lessons of History

We now know the lengths to which Bush administration officials went to ensure the silence of those who opposed their policies, by classifying controversial and illegal policies and operations. As a result, anyone trying to challenge those policies in public automatically risked being charged with revealing classified information.

Those brave souls who challenge such policies anyway have seldom fared well. Here is just a partial list of U.S. government employees who have experienced retaliation, either for trying to work within the system to end these practices or becoming whistleblowers: Peter Van Buren and Matt Hoh (State); Jesselyn Radack and Thomas Tamm (Justice); Mike Gorman, Coleen Rowley and Sibel Edmonds (FBI); Bunnatine Greenhouse, Commander Matthew Diaz, Specialist Joe Darby and Specialist Samuel Provence (Defense); John Kiriakou (CIA); and Russell Tice and Thomas Drake (National Security Agency).

One can add to this list Katharine Gun and Craig Murray, both British whistleblowers, and Danish Major Frank Grevil, all of whom were accused of criminal acts. Murray was fired from his job, Grevil was court-martialed, and Gun was threatened with prosecution in civilian court, though the British government dropped the charges against her the night before the trial.

In addition, Private First Class Bradley Manning was court-martialed in June, 2013 for releasing classified cables from both Defense and State that have rounded out our knowledge of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and many other countries. While I recognize that many Journal readers may be extremely concerned about his disclosure of a large volume of classified information, and do not see him as a dissenter, I see Manning’s actions as similar to those of Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who believed Americans had the right to know the secret history of their government’s involvement in Vietnam.

We know the pervasive untruths told by senior government officials to take the nation into war, as well as the protection of criminal acts committed by government officials: kidnapping, torture, eavesdropping and assassination. Whether such measures were authorized via secret memoranda or by legislation that attempted to retroactively legalize previously illegal acts, the truth has now been exposed.

Yet whistleblowers who revealed the torture program years earlier have lost their jobs and even gone to jail.

Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide

That, of course, is the great dilemma inherent in confronting policies that one disagrees with—particularly when the policies concern life and death. There is no doubt that dissent may cut short your government career. But living dishonestly may cause you a lifetime of anxiety and grief.

Ultimately, the nagging feeling you have in your stomach that something is profoundly wrong is a much better guide than the comments of senior government officials on whether policies are right or wrong, legal or illegal.

Extract take from Ann Wright’s article “The Role of Dissent in National Security, Law and Conscience” featured in The Foreign Service Journal, July/August, 2013


For information on the 2nd International New Horizon Conference, please visit:


(Thank you to Hamedhamed109 Hamed at YouTube)

Israel’s Illegal Settlements Resume Despite Worldwide Condemnation.

Posted on October 27, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

368-1Alphabet German journalist Martin Lejeune revealed to the Russell Tribunal on Palestine 2014 that in 2007 the Israeli parliament passed a law which let Israel’s government off the hook for paying reparations on damages to property and businesses of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank from Israeli Defense Forces’ attacks. So, since 2007, Israel’s military has conducted “Operation Cast Lead” and “Operation Protective Edge” while knowing the financial responsibility to pay for reconstruction doesn’t legally exist.

While the 2007 law’s passage allowed any destruction of property and businesses to occur with financial impunity, it is uncertain whether Israeli laws include the same financial impunity for wrongful deaths and injuries to the tens of thousands of men, women and children greatly harmed during recent Israeli massacres. Continuous illegal confiscation of occupied territory through the years until today by Israel has occurred to prevent, then make impossible, a two-state solution with Palestinian statehood.

As Israeli illegal – repeat illegal – settlement construction has continued to gobble up Palestinian lands which would become part of their sovereign nation, the chances for that outcome diminish precisely because of the land robbery and construction of homes, placing the two-state solution further from implementation in the minds of more experts on the Israel-Palestine conflict. To those who’ve studied the Israel-Palestine conflict, using the term “fair and just resolution” moving forward unfortunately has become a near impossibility considering the non-action and complicity of the United States’ leadership and lawmakers.

It is not certain whether any studies have been conducted to ascertain the total financial destruction that Israel’s military assaults in recent years has caused, but the total can safely be estimated in the tens of billions of dollars. Israel’s expenditures for rebuilding Gaza multiple times after the three most recent military massacres and property destruction have come nowhere near the dollar amount they morally owe Palestinians – that is, a “fair and just resolution”. What would be the result of studies which compared the total dollar amount of both human and property destruction over recent years to Palestinians – to the dollar amount of buildings, apartments, homes, infrastructure, etc. built during the same time period?

Would Israeli relinquishment of all stolen Palestinian land and settlements back to the Palestinians for eventual inclusion in the new State of Palestine, where Israel pays the claims of those who lose money in the relinquished settlements, represent a “fair and just resolution” to the over-60-year Israel-Palestine conflict? The Palestinian people have the moral right – and duty – to bring Israeli leaders responsible for obvious war crimes during Operation Protective Edge before the International Criminal Court. It seems equally obvious that Israel’s illegal taking of occupied territory through the years – and still occurring today – are criminal offenses coming under jurisdiction of the same International Criminal Court.

A comparison could be made by imagining the United States government stealing/taking land from one or more of the sovereign American Indian reservations. The affected tribe(s) would first take legal actions in state or county courts, then to the United States Supreme Court if justice hadn’t prevailed. Apparently, Palestinians have no legal recourse in Israeli courts regarding the continuous stealing of occupied territory lands and settlements construction. There is glaring deficiency in international law when Israel steals land for years with impunity and Palestinians have no legal recourse or court of jurisdiction where they can present their clear case of harm.

Men and women with academic credentials and real world experience in International Law have surely looked at the problem of illegal Israeli settlements in the context of Palestinians’ legal options. Naming the International Criminal Court as the most likely court of jurisdiction is something one who doesn’t have deep knowledge of international law concerning this particular kind of situation would do. People who’ve done a moderate amount of research into the Israel-Palestine conflict are aware that Palestinians are considering war crimes legal actions against Israelis for Operation Protective Edge, but little is found regarding possible legal options on stolen lands and illegal settlements construction.

In a “fair and just” world highest-court legal proceedings which result in Israel’s relinquishment of all stolen Palestinian lands back to the Palestinians – including the buildings and infrastructure, in lieu of monetary reparations for Israel’s historic, chronic, devastating, destructive criminal actions – would represent a path making possible what the world’s people unanimously believe is the moral and ethical one: an independent Palestinian state.

A few weeks ago in Cairo, Egypt an estimated $5.4 billion became pledged by nations to go toward reconstruction of Gaza. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon told the people gathered there that he hoped it would be the last Gaza Reconstruction Conference. From a logical legal perspective, the world community is not responsible financially for rebuilding Gaza time and again: Israel’s actions make Israel responsible for paying reparations. A “fair and just resolution” option goes as follows: Israel returns all stolen property, the two-state solution becomes worked out, then Israel and Palestine live side-by-side as independent nations in peace for all time.

If the Israeli government and people have objections to using tax revenues for reimbursing those who become financially harmed from the return of lands and settlements to the Palestinian people, perhaps one of their more fortunate multi-billionaire resident families – the Rothschilds – are capable of carrying out some creative financing, including solicitation of funds from their circle of equally fortunate friends around the world.

And, if anyone in the Rothschild family and/or their circle of multi-billionaire friends around the world happen to come across these words – the men, women, and children of Ukraine could use a little cash to pay a gas bill. You’ve been the recipients of extremely fortunate financial blessings, so perhaps it’s time to cut some checks and give back to your fellow brothers and sisters in their time of truly serious and urgent need.


(Thank you to PressTV News Videos at YouTube)