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)

Hillary Clinton Releases Wall Street Transcripts.

By Jerry Alatalo

aaa-3Alphabet IN REALITY…?

No, Hillary Clinton hasn’t released her Goldman Sachs speech transcripts. She stated in a debate with Senator Bernie Sanders weeks ago, when asked, if she’d publish them: “I’ll think about it.” Apparently she and her campaign advisers are still “thinking about it” and haven’t made an “executive decision” on the increasingly controversial issue.

Clinton supporters seem somehow able to overlook the clearly problematic nature of persisting in withholding exactly what Ms. Clinton said during those three particular speeches, for which Goldman Sachs paid her $225,000 each. Ms. Clinton has gone so far as saying she’d release her paid Wall Street speech transcripts when every other presidential candidate does.

One starts to think about whether a law which mandates presidential candidates disclose transcripts of their paid speeches should become enacted; perhaps if such a law were operative in 2015 a number of candidates could have been “weeded out” far earlier after the American people analyzed their – in the case of Ms. Clinton and Goldman Sachs – “secret messages” to the country’s most wealthy and powerful.

Considering that Hillary Clinton’s giving three speeches to people associated with the powerful investment banking firm Goldman Sachs was legal and for which she, presumably, would not in any way offer up self-incriminating facts or evidence leading to her prosecution for financial or other crimes, this issue becomes more disturbing and absurd with each passing day of the presidential campaign.

There are parallels which arise when contemplating the massively awkward attempt by the Hillary Clinton campaign to deflect attention and/or obfuscate away from taking the right action expected by Americans from a possible president of the United States. The image of then-President Bill Clinton under oath during the Monica Lewinsky affair comes to mind, when he told interrogators: “It all depends on what the meaning of is, is.”

Those old enough to remember can recall the furious, Oscar-worthy Bill Clinton shaking and pointing his finger at reporters and blasting: “I did not have sex with that woman – Miss Lewinsky!”, and see an evasion-of-truth correspondence to now when Ms. Clinton responds with “everybody does it”, “I’ll release the transcripts when everyone does”, “I’ll think about it”, or other transparency-bankrupt “explanations” for keeping the truth from the American people.

It might be overly speculative to propose that Ms. Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speech transcripts will rise to the #1 position on the list of issues which determines the nominee of the Democratic party for President of the United States – her or Bernie Sanders. However, considering the fact that nearly every serious American citizen perceives a great U.S. president as someone who is absolutely honest and operates with total transparency, this “awkward” matter for Hillary Clinton, becoming more and more bizarre and incomprehensible with each passing day of the campaign, could very well decide the outcome of the 2016 race for the nation’s highest office.

Given the speeches were legal and put Ms. Clinton at no risk of criminal prosecution, one could surmise the nature of the addresses were of the “Romney-esque” variety – the private speech Mitt Romney gave to wealthy supporters during the 2012 presidential campaign against Barack Obama, recorded secretly by an employee working at the venue, the video then released to the public, and which effectively destroyed Romney’s chances to become elected president.

Ms. Clinton is now certainly between a rock and hard place with regard to the Goldman Sachs transcripts, facing the unfortunate reality that either option for dealing with the matter results in her campaign’s loss of momentum. The proverbial “genie is out of the bottle” and the Clinton campaign must now decide which option has consequences which are less harmful.

If she continues to withhold the transcripts, Bernie Sanders will gain voters by mentioning them everywhere he speaks, lowering the integrity-perceptions of Hillary Clinton in the minds of American citizens. If she releases the transcripts, Americans will be allowed the opportunity to read them and understand fully Ms. Clinton’s real political philosophy – and she suffers the same fate as Mitt Romney in 2012.

Given the widespread negativity and resentment toward Wall Street corruption across America, the stakes for this presidential campaign could not be higher.

In the eyes of Wall Street’s shrewdest, money-hungry and opportunistic sharks and gamblers, including Goldman Sachs big shots themselves, they see in the 2016 presidential race that their one sure “bet” – the “Big Short” transaction for this time – is on the Hillary Clinton campaign going down in the flames of self-destruction.

(Thank you to Bernie 2016 at YouTube)