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.

Lumumba, Hammarskjold, JFK, King, RFK…

Patrice E. Lumumba; Congo prime minister, prem...
Patrice E. Lumumba; Congo prime minister, premier ministre congolais, kongolesischer Ministerpräsident (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Posted November 14, 2013

by Jerry Alatalo

Fifty years ago President John F. Kennedy (JFK) was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. Will Americans ever know who was behind the murder, and most importantly, will the American people ever know why JFK’s hopeful voice for humanity was brutally silenced?

Let me get as basic and simple as possible. JFK was killed and silenced because he studied philosophy.

Those of you who have studied philosophy enough to become changed in important ways understand what I am putting forward. For those who have no awareness of being moved through reading philosophical writings let me try to explain. I will first point out that I am not a person who could be considered an academic in the field of philosophy. I took an introductory philosophy course in college, have since read what the average curious man or woman would, and, like the average person, have experienced moments of what could be described as “significant change” in perceptions from philosophical writings.

I remember meeting a fellow from my hometown years later, who I sat with during that introductory class, and him asking “still reading philosophy?”. Since we only coincidentally signed up for the class, and never got into any deep discussions of philosophy or spent any time together as close friends (we were acquaintances), I simply answered, “it’s a life-long thing, philosophy”, and that was that.

I break the rule “never talk about religion or politics” all the time, because there is nothing else that really interests me. But, enough about my average person’s extent of delving into matters philosophical.

JFK, Dag Hammarskjold, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy (RFK) all studied philosophy. I am not certain about Congo’s first democratically elected Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, who was assassinated shortly after he was elected in 1961. One senses that Mr. Lumumba indeed was one who studied philosophy, because, well, he was assassinated. So, you are asking yourself, what is the point? Essentially these five very popular world leaders became personally involved in the war between good and evil.

As mentioned in past posts, Dag Hammarskjold was the second (thought after his death to have been the greatest) secretary-general of the United Nations. I believe that he was intentionally murdered in a plane crash on the way to the Congo to deal with warring and fighting there in 1961. The nation of the Congo is perhaps the wealthiest on Earth with regard to natural resources. Because Mr. Hammarskjold had an undergraduate degree in philosophy, he had decided to do what he could in his secretary-general role to obtain justice in the world, the Congo being that region where his efforts cost him his life.

Dag Hammarskjold was murdered because he was on the side of good in the world.

Patrice Lumumba was the first Prime Minister of newly independent Congo. He tried to do the right things for the people of his nation, things which did not coincide with those who were greatly interested in profits from extraction of the mineral wealth in that region. Because Mr. Lumumba wanted to do what was right and good for the people, it cost him his life in 1961.

JFK became president  in 1960 and witnessed the assassinations of Patrice Lumumba and Dag Hammarskjold, saying of Hammarskjold that he was,”the greatest statesman of our time”. One could say with close to certainty that JFK and Dag Hammarskjold had deep philosophical discussions which focused on creating a better world for all people, the end of war, and coöperation between all nations and peoples on Earth.

JFK was aware of who killed Patrice Lumumba and Dag Hammarskjold, and he opposed those persons with his decision to end involvement in the Vietnam War, at the same time opposing proposed action(s) in resource rich Africa and other continents. Fifty days before his death, JFK met in Washington, D.C. with Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia, whose 1963 speech at the United Nations is considered the greatest UN speech ever delivered – deeply philosophical in nature. Talks between JFK and Selassie could have been a cause of concern, intensifying the urgency to remove JFK from power (see Hammarskjold, Lumumba), for those who wanted to profit from the rich natural resources in Africa. Kennedy would have ended “covert wars” which interfered directly with the sovereignty of nations whose lands possessed resources coveted by corporations.

Jesse Ventura points out that, instead of Lyndon Johnson’s (LBJ) first cabinet meeting after JFK’s murder and his assuming the office of president being about the economy, infrastructure, etc., his first meeting was completely focused on Vietnam, and weeks later the USA and LBJ escalated the Vietnam conflict. Over 50,000 American soldiers and millions of Vietnamese people died in the war.

I remember reading a book titled “Deadly Deceits” by Ralph McGehee, who was an intelligence officer in Vietnam whose job was determining “enemy” strength. His analyses continually showed up to 80% of the Vietnamese people behind Ho Chi Minh, while his conclusions were continually ignored by his superiors, despite McGehee’s anguish at the tremendous loss of life in that human tragedy of greatest proportion. McGehee summed up the geopolitical situation on Earth at the end of that book by writing, “multi-national corporations run the world”.

The Vietnam War is now seen by any reasonable person as a profound human catastrophe. Those who gained financially from that war faced opposition by JFK. My guess is that JFK was against killing innocent people anywhere on Earth, including Vietnam and the Congo, and he was going to fight and block what he had learned through his knowledge of philosophy as – evil.

Mr. Ventura points out that no American would have ever seen the infamous Abraham Zapruder film had Jim Garrison, the prosecutor portrayed by Kevin Costner in Oliver Stone’s film “JFK”, not issued a subpoena for his trial.

The attack in 1967, during the Israel-Egypt “Six-Day War”, of the USS Liberty by Israeli defense jets, and the later cover-up by LBJ, leads me to believe LBJ was behind JFK’s assassination. For those not yet familiar with the 1967 USS Liberty incident, Israeli jets attacked the military ship for two hours, killed 34 American servicemen and wounded 170. The attack, which I believe was known about by LBJ as he colluded with military higher-ups in the Israel defense establishment, was carried out with the intent to kill every last person on the USS Liberty – a “false flag” to bring the American people to support involvement of the United States military in the Middle East region in 1967.

Israel called the attack “a mistake”. While the attack was occurring, even though the Israeli jets aimed to cut off the communications ability of the US servicemen, ingenuity of those on board allowed them to contact the nearest navy ship with their SOS and American jets were sent to help. LBJ called those jets back, the “mistake” story never seriously investigated, the survivors swore to secrecy upon threat of court-martial(s), and since 1967 no congressional committee has made any effort to investigate and set the historical record straight.

LBJ was on-board with the attempt to kill over 200 American servicemen on the USS Liberty in 1967, so a claim of him being behind the murder of JFK does not strain credulity. The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was an unsuccessful “false flag” that every American should know about. Keep in mind that the earlier so-called “Gulf of Tonkin” incident is now commonly known to have been a “false flag” that led to escalation of the Vietnam War. One could assert that LBJ was behind the Gulf of Tonkin false flag incident as well.

I believe JFK and LBJ had profound philosophical differences with regard to foreign and military policy. In the most basic terms JFK and LBJ represent the forces on Earth which every person must wrestle with: the forces of good and evil. JFK worked for the betterment of all mankind, the cessation of war, world peace, and cooperation between all nations. LBJ was about corporate profits with war and killing as an acceptable “business strategy” to carry out delivery of those profits.

JFK was killed in the battle between good and evil on Earth.

Martin Luther King (MLK) was a minister with extensive study in matters of religion and philosophy. He was a leading voice in America against the Vietnam War and once called the United States “the greatest purveyor of violence on Earth”. MLK knew that the actions he was engaged in jeopardized his very life. He understood in the most profound way that “greater love hath no man than this; that one gives up his life for his friends”. Mr. King just wanted to “do God’s will”.

Martin Luther King died fighting the battle between good and evil on Earth.

Robert F. Kennedy was on his way to becoming elected president when he was murdered…

In the war between good and evil on Earth.


Jesse Ventura is viewed by Americans in varied ways. The fact that he was at one time a wrestler in the fake world of professional wrestling has led to a situation where many discount what he has to say, even before they hear it. My view of Mr. Ventura is that he is perhaps not as well-read in philosophy as Dag Hammarskjold, JFK, Patrice Lumumba, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy, but has received a great amount of “common-sense” philosophy. He seems to have had a father who was concerned enough with Jesse that he conveyed what wisdom he could.

What is admirable about Jesse Ventura is his appreciation of truth and total rejection of those who tell falsehoods and lie to others. My guess is that many men and women admire Jesse Ventura and the increasing number of men and women around the world who are devoted to telling the truth while exposing those who lie.

Let us hope that many more men and women devoted to truth, and fighting the war between good and evil on Earth, step forward and speak out… 

For the good.

(Video source: City & State / YouTube, Jesse Ventura interview with Morgan Pehme)

Related articles