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.