Call For Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin Recounts.

By Jerry Alatalo

“In a democracy dissent is an act of faith.”

– J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT (1905-1995) American senator

World Map1Alphabet The Green Party’s candidates for President and Vice-President, Dr. Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka, have taken steps calling for recounts of the 2016 vote in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Given their request includes a “paper trail” to verify the vote counts were accurate and that electronic voting machines in their current technology configurations make that likely impossible, recounts should make what has been highly disturbing for the few who’ve looked into problems associated with electronic voting universally known.

While Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are among those who have apparently settled on the legitimacy of the 2016 election, not acted by questioning the accuracy of vote totals and/or requesting recounts, and look forward, despite disappointment, to a “smooth transition of power” – big questions will become answered, concerns will become addressed, for good or bad in the three states specified.

Supporters of Stein|Baraka had their hopes dashed by results showing them receiving just 1% of the national vote – far short of the desired 5% goal Green Party organizers worked toward – and left many wondering whether there was some form of vote corruption or illegality occurring to lower final Green totals. Given that election 2016 took place during a time when “anti-establishment” sentiments were at the highest ever in America and around the Earth, and that the Green Party’s platform proposals clearly represented the most “anti-establishment” variety of all those in the race, the final results seem in the eyes of many difficult to reconcile.

During the campaign Dr. Stein and Mr. Baraka stated on numerous occasions that they wouldn’t “sleep well at night” if either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton were to become President; recounts in the three (3) states will not result in Green Party candidates winning the White House, so the primary impetus behind the action is more fundamentally in defense of democracy – to (finally) expose defects existing in the U.S. election system, viewed by experts as the worst in the developed world, and the need for long-overdue reform(s).

Some will view the act of calling for recounts as “sour grapes” after the Green Party candidates’ poor showing in the election, or perhaps as an attempt to reverse the election in favor of Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine over Donald Trump and Mike Pence. Various responses and perceptions of motivations related to the recount action aside, it becomes difficult for any person moderately informed about the poor state of U.S. national elections to criticize efforts to improve the nation’s democratic process by identifying, acknowledging and then correcting as many problems and deficiencies as possible.

Protecting the will of “we, the people” through vigilance using checks and verification procedures commonly practiced in the accounting profession can only result in an ever-increasing potency and strength of democracy in America. Certainly, actions leading to such a result will receive nothing but the strongest support of current President Barack Obama, President-elect Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, Bernie Sanders, their supporters, and all those who believe in democracy.

Knowing their fellow Americans have genuine concerns about protecting the democratic process, willing to act in its defense against manipulation or corruption, and intent upon making their election system the best possible, should rationally become perceived by citizens as completely positive. During Thanksgiving Day celebrations across the United States, people now have another good reason to give thanks.

(Thank you to RT America at YouTube)


U.S. Election System: Worst In Developed World.

By Jerry Alatalo

“When the people is master of the vote it becomes master of the government.”

– ARISTOTLE (384-322 B.C.) Greek philosopher

ocean44Alphabet Risk exposure… Every student of accounting comes to learn about risk exposures and ways to eliminate them. Risk exposures represent defects in accounting systems which, if left uncorrected, allow criminals in organizations to steal money, products from inventories, critical information and all forms of valuable assets. Therefore, eliminating risk exposures is one of the important tasks and challenges for persons designing accounting systems, whether for a mom-and-pop business, medium to large, complex corporations, or public entities such as schools, public safety agencies, Defense Departments, etc. of all sizes.

Every student of accounting familiar with the term risk exposure and its meaning will, when considering electronic voting machines, optical scanners and automated tabulators of vote counts, immediately recognize the risks of such system “tools” for stealing votes. Simply put, it is impossible to guarantee that voter preferences in elections where electronic means become used are accurately recorded, 100% verifiable, and/or reliable. It doesn’t matter when talking about glaring defects in America’s voting system whether one “voted” for Clinton, Johnson, Stein or Trump in the 2016 U.S. presidential election – this matter is important for people of every political ideology without exception; the point is that risk exposures exist in the current election system because there is no way of knowing if election theft occurred or not.

Those risk exposures can and must be eliminated. Accountants at the world’s largest corporations and public institutions have designed systems which handle massively complex and numerous transactions, involving billions of dollars, while successfully eliminating virtually all possible risk exposures. Certainly a much stronger election system, where the voting “transaction” process carries far fewer variables – consisting of much less complexity – should offer no serious obstacles to those tasked with designing a theft-proof satisfactory reform.

Hand-counted paper ballots, using the old-fashioned selection of preferred candidates using pen or pencil and simple filling in of the box, provides the best alternative moving forward for obvious reasons, including that close, contested races become easily decided through recount. Electronic voting makes recounts nearly, if not absolutely, impossible; because the program language built into electronic machines are “proprietary” – the intellectual property of the corporations and their owners which manufacture them – no government officials responsible for managing elections can check to make certain no theft occurred.

Public elections officials tasked with running a clean vote have no control over that portion of the voting process using technology which is privately owned and secret. Continuing to allow private companies and their owners – potentially vulnerable to bribes and other forms of voluntary or coercive corruption – to control the most critical aspects of the voting process only invites high levels of persistent suspicion, doubt, apathy and non-voting among the people at best – or high levels of election theft at worst.

Making voting easier by designating election day a national holiday, perhaps on a Sunday as opposed to workday Tuesday, is another reasonable and simple-to-establish reform worthy of serious consideration. Such a simple but profound change would result in an easier process for citizens and a far larger voter turnout.

Professor Mark Crispin Miller has written extensively on the U.S. election system and its very real risk exposures, including as author of books focused solely on this most important of all democratic processes. He offers simple, fundamental, yet powerful reforms which – once enacted – hold genuine promise for greatly improving the fairness, accuracy and trustworthiness of elections in the United States of America.

(Thank you to Mark Crispin Miller at YouTube)

Donald Trump’s Podiatrist And Lucky Larry’s Dermatologist.

By Jerry Alatalo

“It is necessary that the prince should know how to color his nature well, and how to be a hypocrite and dissembler. For men are so simple, and yield so much to immediate necessity, that the deceiver will never lack dupes.”

– NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI (1469-1527) Italian statesman*

* “Discoverer of political science.” – Count Sforza.  “I affirm that the doctrine of Machiavelli is more alive today than it was four hundred years ago.” – Mussolini, 1924

aaa-31Alphabet Taking into consideration it’s still impossible to verify that votes cast on electronic voting machines were accurately tallied in accord with the voter’s desired candidate, the fact of the matter is that the inner workings or source codes in those machines are “proprietary” intellectual property of the owners of the companies which manufacture them. If election fraud occurred on November 8 using those machines nobody can prove it – a situation of great concern discussed, debated and unresolved ever since electronic voting arrived on the scene.

During his campaign rallies Donald Trump talked about his favorite books, the first being the Bible and his own “Art of the Deal” a distant second. No one seemed to think it unusual for a presidential candidate to mention only two books shaping his intellectual, philosophical and spiritual makeup, especially for one who is 70 years old. One would think his favorite book list to be longer and include the great philosophical works of Plato and Socrates, classic works on economics, history, international relations, war and peace, biographies, etc., but such was not the case for Donald Trump (or Hillary Clinton, for that matter).

Wouldn’t it be interesting to learn that Mr. Trump was a fan of Machiavelli but, true to Machiavelli’s advice to become a hypocrite and dissembler to gain power, understood the need of keeping it secret. After rust-belt state Ohio Governor John Kasich declined Mr. Trump’s invitation to join the ticket as candidate for Vice President he asked fellow rust-belt Governor Mike Pence of Indiana, who accepted. It was the rust-belt states, perennial Democratic states in presidential elections, that voted for Trump|Pence and turned the election. Machiavelli would have been proud…

Then again, perhaps Mr. Trump knows nothing about Machiavelli or the dark political science the Italian has become famous for, Trump is the “real deal” as his most energetic supporters claim, and all the people and groups of Americans Trump made promises to have reason to believe he’ll honor them when taking office. Those people and groups, remarkably, included enough of the U.S. population to win the 2016 election: workers harmed by offshoring of jobs due to NAFTA, WTO and other enacted or proposed major trade pacts, defense contractors who’ll like his idea of “rebuilding our military”, those millions who have a strong positive view of the Bible, those seeking a less-warlike, non-World War III sane foreign policy, and citizens residing in America’s inner cities who heard him promise to renew.

Why Trump decided to exclude voters concerned about global climate change from his list of those to whom he made promises was possibly because of political calculations showing that subset of the voting population as too small in quantity or irrelevant. Or, he might have concluded like science Professor Guy McPherson that the battle against climate change is already over, and that humanity has passed the point where even the strongest actions will not change the dark and inevitable future. Or, his “denier” stance might simply have been a tactical move to gain votes from all associated with the fossil fuels industries.

As noted, either the 2016 U.S. election outcome became determined using undetectable voting machine fraud or it was, in the generally held images of most Americans – “clean”. If fraud occurred to bring about President Donald Trump, one starts along the path of trying to ascertain the reasons the increasingly acknowledged and discussed “deep state” power behind the scenes would choose that surprising action in seeming defiance of all the polls and odds. Clinton received 48%, Trump 47%, Johnson 4% and Stein 1% of the popular vote.

Democrats would be disappointed but receive some satisfaction from “winning” more votes than Trump. Republicans would be disappointed in losing the popular vote but elated at “winning” the electoral college and the White House. Libertarians would be crushed but Trump supporters can say Johnson took votes from Trump, therefore making the case that Clinton and Trump basically tied. Greens were left wondering how so few independents (40-50% of voters), many (millions) who’d supported Bernie Sanders, voted for Stein. Clearly, the most anti-establishment party in the U.S. during a time of historic anti-establishment movements around the Earth was – while advocating people, planet and peace over profits, a “New Green Deal”, foreign policy based on international law, human rights and diplomacy, nationalizing the Federal Reserve, a new investigation of 9/11, etc. – effectively smashed into the ground.

From the perspective of the deep state elites, the outcome was the best possible considering the alternative – Clinton’s win. Accepting that it’s impossible to know with certainty whether the election was fraudulently rigged through both the Republican and Democratic primaries on through the general election, a Clinton win had major negative consequences directly linked to that potential outcome.

During the recent interview of WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange by journalist and documentary filmmaker John Pilger (2,000,000 views on YouTube), Mr. Assange pointed out that the most important email of them all had shown that Hillary Clinton was aware as early as 2014 that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar had provided money and logistical support to ISIS. Hillary Clinton knew this fact yet kept it to herself, so if she had won the election possible treason charges against her and many other government officials from both major parties were forthcoming. The “war on terror” would have been totally revealed as a massive lie begun after September 11, 2001, and resulted in literally millions of lawsuits against the U.S. government – initiated by people harmed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere.

It is worth noting that Donald Trump held the chance to capitalize to a great extent in the last days before election day November 8 by focusing on that email pointing to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and their ISIS aid, Clinton’s effective aiding and abetting terrorism through inaction and silence… but Trump chose not to, though he certainly must have known he could have destroyed her. Trump’s decision to ignore the explosive WikiLeaks email instead of employing its clear potential to obliterate Clinton as competition for the White House, a landslide Trump victory, provides further reason for suggesting the election had been rigged in Trump’s favor – the lesser-evil, safest “selection”.

Add to that potentially historic and paradigm-changing consequence of a Clinton win the revealing of widespread, endemic political corruption associated with the Clinton Foundation and one can see how the individuals collectively known as the “shadow government” or “deep state’ came to conclude Trump had to win despite their preference for the globalist Clinton. This conclusion came about in response to circumstances which developed after the election began, candidates entered the race, through the primaries, and finally on election day.

Many now perceive the upcoming Trump presidency as a time when Mr. Trump will become watched closely with regard to keeping his campaign promises. The often-used term thus far is keeping Mr. Trump’s “feet to the fire”. It’s worth noting that Donald Trump has said publicly that Larry Silverstein – leaseholder of the World Trade Center complex in New York City on September 11, 2001 (9/11) – is “a good guy… a friend of mine”.

Others describe Mr. Silverstein as “Lucky Larry” because he broke his usual routine of having breakfast every day at a restaurant in one of the Twin Towers on that historic and world-changing day. That morning, his wife convinced Mr. Silverstein to honor an appointment he’d made with his dermatologist, so he wasn’t in the building. It was later on that “Lucky Larry” admitted on camera to a reporter that he never made it to the dermatologist appointment either. Silverstein received a multi-billion dollar insurance settlement after destruction by controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7, and for damages to other buildings in the complex.

Like “Lucky Larry” and his dermatologist, Donald Trump might want to locate a medical specialist as well but of a different kind – a foot doctor, or podiatrist. President Trump will be experiencing the effects of having his feet positioned very close to the fire of political observation, scrutiny and judgment.

Many highly credentialed men and women, including over 2,500 architects and engineers, academics, veterans, police officers and firefighters, respected politicians, independent researchers, authors and everyday people from all walks of life around the Earth want a new investigation of 9/11. These people come from every possible point on the political spectrum from the far left to the far right, including supporters of Trump, and many of them believe that President Donald Trump will finally act to bring the truth of 9/11 to light.

The following video is of a report broadcasted on the 15th anniversary of 9/11 (September 11, 2016) by Russia One TV – and seen by an estimated 150 million Russian people.

(Thank you to AE911Truth at YouTube)

Stein-Baraka Position On Middle East, War And Peace.

By Jerry Alatalo

“One of the greatest pains to human nature is the pain of a new idea.”

– WALTER BAGEHOT (1826-1877) English economist

baraka-3Alphabet Green Party Vice Presidential candidate Ajamu Baraka appeared for an interview recently on the Real News Network. After being shut out of both presidential and vice presidential debates, rigged to include only the Democratic and Republican tickets, in this election American voters are effectively the victims of “democracy censorship” by not being given an opportunity to learn the positions of Green and Libertarian candidates.

What would national polls look like today had Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party and Libertarian Gary Johnson both participated in the 1st presidential debate? Nobody can say, but it’s certain the polls would more accurately reflect the true views of the American people. How can the United States continue to call itself a democracy when well over 70% of its citizens call for inclusive debates with Green and Libertarian taking part, then that clear “mandate” of the people becomes totally rejected and ignored?

Perhaps Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump share the opinion that Americans don’t possess the intellectual capacity and power of discernment to make accurate assessments of the candidates’ qualitative positions on the major issues. Stein-Baraka and Johnson-Weld are candidates with a mathematical chance of winning the election. But Americans will never know the stances of Clinton and Trump; they are both eerily silent on the issue – neither has commented one way or the other, favorably or in opposition, on 4-way debates.

If Dr. Jill Stein had appeared with Clinton, Trump and Johnson for debate #1, perhaps Americans would for literally the 1st time started the serious discussion necessary for bringing a resolution to the 67-year long Israel-Palestine conflict, and asking tough questions about the wisdom in continuing to provide, and increase, military aid worth billions of dollars annually ($38 billion over 10-years) to the international outlaw state of Israel – the perennial, decades-long denier of basic human rights to the Palestinian people.

If Ajamu Baraka were to appear with Pence, Kaine and Weld for vice-presidential debates, perhaps Americans would learn that the over 5-year violent conflict in Syria is not a civil war as many intentionally portray for the purpose of deception, but a U.S., regional and European ally proxy war using paid (with U.S. taxpayers’ money) mercenary terrorists in place of American soldier “boots on the ground”. The hideous and criminal acts have occurred while practicing a grand lie, with highest-level officials telling Americans and the world they are “fighting terrorism”.

Perhaps Americans would demand a new, independent investigation of 9/11 to get to the truth of what really happened that fateful day, making up for the profoundly incompetent effort resulting in the official 9/11 Commission Report, and determining the real perpetrators of the mass-murder, instead of the sham story of 19 hijackers and a cave-dweller. Those perpetrators are likely responsible for planning and implementing the monstrous war-related crimes and catastrophes of the Middle East and North Africa since 2001; now is the time to arrest, prosecute, and “get them off the street” to prevent further human carnage, possibly of unimaginable scale.

If Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both believe their ideas, positions and proposals are the most beneficial for the American people and humanity around the Earth, then both should have no fear whatsoever of inviting and competing with Stein-Baraka and Johnson-Weld. Besides, American voters will always respect, appreciate and cherish the memory of their great presidents through history who practiced the personal quality of fairness, in particular having an open mind to new and/or potentially more beneficial ideas.

The Democrats and Republicans can change their minds at any time about debates.

That’s not going to happen, it’s unfair, and represents an objectionable, stubborn stance that is absolutely undemocratic. By denying democracy at this point in the presidential election of 2016, neither Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are practicing/exhibiting the noble leadership qualities of fairness and open-mindedness. It’s scandalous – and a shame.

(Thank you to TheRealNews at YouTube)