Sanders-Clinton: Michigan Votes The World’s Future.

By Jerry Alatalo

 WE THE PEOPLE (photo:

Alphabet If one could use some type of measuring device to gauge the perceptions of people living in the state of Michigan, it’d be interesting to know what percentage are aware that their votes will determine the future of humanity. Michigan voters will decide whether Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. On Tuesday March 8, the people of Michigan will literally determine the future of the world.

Every political analyst agrees that Michigan is now the crucial state, the state which will determine the outcome, in the 2016 race for the presidency of the United States. Tonight’s debate in Flint, Michigan, knowing that both Sanders and Clinton are fully aware of the ultimate and final stakes involved, could surpass the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates’ notoriety and historical significance in textbooks young people study for generations to come.

In Michigan, on Tuesday March 8, 2016 the stakes could not be any higher. For supporters of Bernie Sanders, their hopes lie in the Vermont Senator’s finally shedding his “nice guy” image, “taking off the gloves”, and unleashing an overwhelming oratory pummeling of Hillary Clinton over their sharply different histories and political philosophies.

U.S. trade policies and major agreements, particularly the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) signed into law by Bill Clinton – in the state where Detroit was once called “the auto capitol of the world” – will most assuredly become a major issue for voters deciding in Michigan. Mr. Sanders’ ability to convey to the people of Michigan the stark contrast between himself and Ms. Clinton on NAFTA and other major trade deals, the source of high resentment for people as the state’s auto industry became decimated when thousands of jobs were shipped to Mexico, will be essential for his chances of winning.

Another issue of import for people living in Michigan relates to the environment, where Sanders can emphasize the recent world-publicized Flint water crisis in distinguishing his environmental record and proposals as they contrast to Clinton’s. While talking about the environment, Flint, and the different environmental visions of the two candidates, Bernie Sanders has the tactical option of tying issues of the environment, labor, Wall Street corruption, multinational corporations, NAFTA and the TransPacific Partnership to Hillary Clinton’s still unreleased transcripts of highly paid speeches – behind closed doors – to Goldman Sachs and other banking/corporate giants.

The eyes of the world are on Michigan in the United States of America.


Bernie Sanders 1985-2016.

Film clips of U.S. Presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont through the years, from 1985 until today.

(Thank you to Separation of Corporation and State at YouTube)

Sanders, Clinton Trade Records: Wall Street Or Middle Class?

By Jerry Alatalo

aaa-40Alphabet While in Michigan, Bernie Sanders gave the following press conference where he talked and answered questions about his and Hillary Clinton’s sharp, diametrically opposed contrast in voting on United States’ major trade agreements in recent decades, including the currently in-process TransPacific Partnership (TPP).

Sanders noted that he has opposed virtually all trade deals, describing U.S. trade policy as a “disaster”, that Ms. Clinton has voted for them all, that 60,000 factories and millions of well-paying jobs with strong benefits were lost to China, Mexico, Vietnam and other low-wage nations, and, because of those philosophical economic differences between himself and Ms. Clinton, that Americans need to understand the very high importance of the 2016 election.

Sanders pointed out that, before the phenomenon of large trade deals leading to major U.S. manufacturers moving operations and jobs overseas, Detroit, Michigan was the richest city in America, with General Motors the largest part of that successful situation. Clearly implying the trade deals passed in the U.S. Congress as the direct cause for the negative socioeconomic transforming of Detroit, he told reporters that the city is now ranked the nation’s poorest.

Because Hillary Clinton has yet to release the transcripts of her $225,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banking mega-companies, it is unknown whether the TransPacific Partnership was part of her presentations. From the beginning, Bernie Sanders has been absolutely opposed to the TPP, while Hillary Clinton has supported that largest trade deal in U.S. history. She has only recently “changed” her view on the massive agreement; perhaps an honest break from Barack Obama’s support of the deal – perhaps a deceptive move to manipulate voters, and announced she’s now opposed to it.

It’s possible that learning Goldman Sachs CEO Loyd Blankfein’s stance on the TransPacific Partnership could help one understand whether Hillary Clinton is honest when she says she opposes the trade deal, or if her “change of heart” was all about taking votes away from Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential race. Perhaps Ms. Clinton will have a similar “change of heart” and release the transcripts of her closed-door meetings with Goldman Sachs – the giant Wall Street investment firm which, through financing of factories in low wage nations, just might stand to profit.

Please share the video of Bernie Sanders’ trade policy press conference as far and wide as possible, especially reaching out to supporters of Hillary Clinton. Taking strong and focused action now during this extremely important 2016 election cycle, deciding the next President of the United States, determines the course of human history and creates the kind of world future generations will inherit.

(Thank you to Bernie 2016 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)