Sanders Talks About Disastrous Trade Policy. Clinton Doesn’t.

By Jerry Alatalo

NAFTA
NAFTA

Alphabet During recent campaign rallies in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has named those state’s companies and numbers of workers laid off after moving operations to Mexico, China and other low-wage countries. He points out the clear difference between his and Hillary Clinton’s records on major U.S. trade agreements that have led to 60,000 manufacturing plants and millions of good-paying jobs leaving America.

Sanders tells people at his rallies that he’s been opposed to each one of “these disastrous trade agreements” from the day he arrived in Congress, and that Clinton has supported virtually every one of them. One could predict the Clinton campaign’s media strategists will soon appear on the boob tube accusing Sanders of “going negative” – by telling the American people the truth.

Ms. Clinton has been captured on videos praising the TransPacific Partnership (TPP) and calling it the “Gold Standard”, then – as the 2016 campaign progressed and her “strategists” realized most Americans oppose TPP – suddenly evolve in her thinking about the proposed, largest trade pact in world history. Now she opposes TPP because, as she explained it, her initial support was founded on incomplete information; after more details became available, she then “understood” and changed her stance by 180-degrees to opposition.

Sanders’ decision to specify the negative consequences of NAFTA – signed into law by Ms. Clinton’s husband during his first term as President – and other corporate-written trade deals will resonate strongly with citizens in states where hundreds, thousands of families faced tough times after fathers and mothers were laid off. The Clinton team will find it difficult, perhaps impossible, to explain away her choice of supporting the trade deals which led to real-life, on-the-ground hardship for millions of Americans.

One can imagine Clinton strategic meetings occurring now, behind closed doors of course, where the discussion focuses on how to deal with Sanders’ successful tactic of naming the companies who’ve moved plants to Mexico, China, etc., the numbers of laid off workers, and specific to the state where rallies are being held. Just a guess, but one can imagine the strategists in the meeting concluding any response or counterattack is a certain losing proposition, so strict silence on trade deals is the best option for avoiding negative publicity and losing voters to Sanders.

The last time an independent candidate for President was able to take part in the final debates was in 1992, when Ross Perot, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton were the last three standing. Perot’s leveling with the American people on the proposed NAFTA trade deal produced a for-all-time popular and memorable quote. Perot warned of the massive outflow of jobs from the United States to Mexico if NAFTA legislation became the law, and that once signed the American people would hear a “huge sucking sound” – meaning jobs sucked out of the country.

Ironically, Perot’s candidacy took votes from Bush and helped Clinton narrowly win the 1992 election, and not too long after taking office Clinton signed the NAFTA agreement into law. Perot’s warning wasn’t heeded but prophetic, and the trend of corporate owners’ opting on moving facilities to Mexico rapidly accelerated, leaving regions around the country hard hit by layoffs – most notably in the “Motor City” of Detroit, Michigan.

It’s fascinating to think about what will transpire in the days ahead as Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton vie to become the Democratic nominee for President. It seems the entire country is now electrified, excitedly anticipating every development, and eager to fully take part in determining the “inevitable” outcome.

(Thank you to Bernie 2016 at YouTube)

Advertisements

Nader On Clinton. (Post #900)

By Jerry Alatalo

(Image: groene.nl)
(Image: groene.nl)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alphabet Ralph Nader’s best, most memorable line during a recent short commentary on Hillary Clinton’s statements may have been: “Hillary the hypocrite should open up on Broadway…” If polls were conducted on who Americans trust, Ralph Nader would be at or near the top of the list in all of them. Therefore his opinion is always sought on important issues, and in this instance it’s his perspective on the contrast in transparency between Sanders and Clinton.

Mr. Nader, in his well-known frank and direct style, doesn’t pull any punches when he describes his views on some of the things Ms. Clinton has said during the presidential campaign. For example, after she answered a question about releasing her Wall Street transcripts with “Everyone gives speeches to private groups, including Senator Sanders”, Nader pointed out “Sanders doesn’t give paid speeches to Wall Street firms or big commercial trade conventions. That’s a matter of public record. …So, Hillary is making a false statement when she says other candidates, including Bernie Sanders, have the same kind of transcripts and the same kind of huge speech fees”.

Nader added: “Well, Hillary basically is the favorite candidate of Wall Street. They’re pouring money into her campaign – and she reciprocates. In those closed-door sessions, according to some people who were there and spoke to the press, she was reported to have gushed to the bankers, saying she didn’t like all this beating up on the big bankers, because, she said, we’re all in it together”.

“Yeh?… The foreclosed homeowners are in it together? The people who lost their jobs because of Wall Street crooks crashing the economy?… They’re in it with the banks? Hillary Clinton reciprocates to those who pay for her campaign. When Hillary Clinton says she’ll release all her transcripts when all the other candidates release theirs that’s not leadership, which she claims she possesses – that’s follower-ship. That’s disrespecting the voters, and that’s not telling the voters that her principal opponent Bernie Sanders doesn’t have those transcripts, because he doesn’t give paid speeches to Wall Street”.

Among Mr. Nader’s other comments is one where he suggests actress-comedienne Lily Tomlin for the big screen role of Hillary Clinton, because she (Tomlin) is good at playing people with “forked tongues”.

Comparing the two candidates battling for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, Ralph Nader shared his perspective: “The contrast couldn’t be greater between Hillary the Hawk and Hillary the Wall Street promoter – and the populist Senator Bernie Sanders”.

After the big shift of momentum in favor of Sanders transformed the Democratic nomination race and made it a new contest, millions of people in Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania, Wyoming, California and the states yet to vote have a reinvigorated sense of political excitement. That is especially true for supporters of Sanders, who realize his chance for success remains feasible.

Whoever those millions of Americans are supporting, or if they are still undecided, all of them would certainly be interested in hearing from straight shooter Ralph Nader – one of America’s long-admired, most trusted leaders.

(Thank you to Verda Brigid at YouTube)

Sanders Offers Clinton $225,027 For New York Debate.

(Image: pwconserve.org)
(Image: pwconserve.org)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Jerry Alatalo

Alphabet The only contract stipulations the Sanders campaign demands to transfer the $225,027 “speaking fee” to Clinton is that the debate is held in public (not behind closed doors), the transcript becomes available on the internet so every American can read it (not withheld until “everybody does”), and Clinton agrees to return the funds if caught lying about Sanders’ political record during the debate.

So… it’s come to this. Clinton media operatives are trying to spin Sanders’ request for a New York debate before the vote as “going negative”, and at the same time feigning some type of contrived moral indignation for media viewers that Sanders is turning to underhanded, political “dirty tricks”. It’s clear the Clinton campaign is running scared after Sanders’ convincing victories in Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Utah and Washington.

Clinton takes this politically awkward – in reality, self-defeating – stance when a debate between her and Sanders in New York is seen as a completely normal/routine, automatic exercise, done all the time and at every turn, in all previous presidential elections in America. Of course Sanders and Clinton must debate in New York; how else will New York voters gain the information they need about the candidates upon which they base their vote? …Sanders’ “tone”? Are Clinton and her media experts for real?

If Clinton and her campaign experts are “for real” they’ll immediately accept Sanders’ invitation to debate in New York, not as a political move to halt building negative perceptions in the minds of voters over her refusal but, – because that’s what Presidents of the United States of America do.

Hillary Clinton remains oblivious to the historical record of every presidential candidate’s taken-for-granted participation in fiery debates for the benefit of voters at her own political peril. …Maybe another force – overwhelming temptation – will impel her to climb on to the debate stage in New York City; in perhaps the irony of ironies for election 2016, there in NYC one finds the main offices of global financial giant Goldman Sachs… and Wall Street.

Goldman Sachs only gave her the paltry sum of $225,000 per speech. Sanders’ proposed deal to Clinton far surpasses, is much more generous than, her speaking contracts with the boys and girls of Goldman Sachs – by $27.

(Thank you to The Young Turks at YouTube)

Ken O’Keefe: “We Can Make A Better World.”

By Jerry Alatalo

ocean222Alphabet One can only hope the time is short between now and when people around the Earth all speak as frankly and directly as Ken O’Keefe. Today’s admirable group of men and women from all nations working for social change, justice, peace and a better world do an excellent job of describing historically persistent problems and their unfortunate consequences.

In contrast, Mr. O’Keefe does the same but goes on further to describe the source or root cause of those ongoing problems: privately owned and controlled central banks. In other words, while the majority of people working to create a better world are genuinely concerned about humanity and future generations, the analytical foundation or worldview they operate from is too often incomplete; practical consideration of the international finance sector as it determines real-life situations doesn’t occur and get factored in.

Without that essential awareness, and inclusion of it into one’s worldview, solutions-focused action falls short by failing to account for and/or identify causes to the greatest extent possible. In simpler terms, most people concerned about creating conditions that result in greater health, happiness and well being for all people on Earth have, although genuinely moral and acting with the best intentions, been for various reasons going about it with less-than-complete analyses.

Yet the missed, avoided, or otherwise omitted part of one’s analysis of worldwide conditions – private central banks – is the part that is absolutely necessary and relevant for developing effective solutions and building a better world. In a 1-hour 53-minute talk on March 20, 2016 in Berkeley, California Ken O’Keefe does an extraordinary job of pointing out those analytical parts too often missed in discussions and writings by otherwise good and moral people. He talks about those referred to by French philosopher Voltaire (1694-1778) in his famous quote: “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize”.

Excepting an even deeper metaphysical, philosophic or spiritual analysis of life on Earth, Mr. O’Keefe discusses actual global conditions to the fullest descriptive extent possible in the material realm. Perhaps in the next major leap of human evolution non-material factors will become a larger part of the discussion, but for now it seems of high importance to accurately perceive the physical realities present and responsible for what occurs on the ground, experienced by billions of our brothers and sisters, over a large portion of the planet.

One could predict a short interval of time between when the information presented by Mr. O’Keefe becomes widely known and acknowledged and when metaphysical aspects of reality become increasingly more a part of societal awareness, conversations, and agreed-upon perceptions. In a real sense, and why his talk is important and timely, Mr. O’Keefe leaves listeners with the essential and eternal Earthly choice between love of money and love for our fellow brothers and sisters in the human family. The following biblical passage goes unmentioned in his talk, but adds another, metaphysical perspective:

1 Timothy 6, 9-10: “But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs”. 

All the world’s great religions, spiritual and philosophical traditions speak in their most revered writings to this aspect of the human condition. His use of expletives aside, one could guess Ken O’Keefe would describe himself not as a religious but a spiritual human being. What he covers in the talk is very likely the most difficult information listeners will encounter, and which afterward inescapably presents them with the choice of acceptance or rejection of points presented as truth. He describes the very raw, hard and uncomfortable truth of what has been and is now occurring on planet Earth.

As ever, an apology for sharing such a lengthy talk of close to 2-hours. If time doesn’t allow, consider making a note to listen to Mr. O’Keefe’s powerful talk at a later date. For those who choose to listen to the talk in its entirety, it might be the case after doing so to conclude he’s fundamentally talking about a profound and collective facilitating of rapid human evolution. Although nuanced, understated and sprinkled with curse words, Ken O’Keefe would probably agree the foremost characteristic of his evolutionary proposal is spiritual.

Thank you, Ken O’Keefe. Keep the faith.

(Thank you to Ken O’Keefe at YouTube)