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)

Advertisements

Jill Stein: “Nationalize The Fed.” How Will Clinton, Trump, Johnson Respond?

By Jerry Alatalo

“A man is truly ethical when he obeys the compulsion to help all life he is able to assist, and shrinks from injuring anything that lives.”

The Philosophy of Civilization, Part II (1923)

– ALBERT SCHWEITZER (1875-1965) Alsatian-born physician, organist, philosopher

blogger3-1Alphabet Now that the dust is nearly settled after the Republican and Democratic party conventions, the remaining serious candidates are Clinton, Johnson, Stein and Trump. Now, with only three months until election day November 8, the presidential debates are ready to roll into high gear. Green Party candidate and inheritor of a large segment of Bernie Sanders supporters Jill Stein has initiated the debates by, among other proposals, expressing her view that the U.S. Federal Reserve should become a public, not private, institution.

It’s fair to say nationalizing the Fed is the boldest proposal coming from a presidential candidate in a long, long time. How will the three other presidential candidates – Clinton, Johnson and Trump – respond to Dr. Stein’s advocating for a policy of fundamental monetary reform? Third party presidential candidates have traditionally been marginalized and defeated due to intentional efforts by the most powerful and wealthy in America running the federal government like the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain, outside the public’s view, in the shadows.

For the issue of nationalizing the Federal Reserve to become one in which the “Final Four” of the 2016 election have no choice but to fully address is truly historic. Citizens in the United States, European Union and all nations on Earth where privately-owned central banks exist can look forward to becoming educated on what is perhaps humanity’s issue of #1 importance. Even if Dr. Jill Stein doesn’t become the next (1st woman) President of the United States, bringing this massively vital issue to the world’s attention will result in her name being written in history books, and described as the person who sparked a major civilization-wide shift of thinking in the year 2016.

For the younger generation of men and women aged 45 and under whose lives were intellectually enriched through the internet and increased awareness of Earthly realities – and sharply contrasting those reported on corporate media, international banking with its various aspects – unspoken of and considered “taboo” by politicians and the media – is a subject of familiarity. The appearance of the topic in a presidential election was only a matter of time. Fortunately that time has now arrived, and a long-ignored and delayed, important and necessary conversation can commence.

The fundamental questions surrounding the idea of choosing between keeping the Federal Reserve system as it is or transforming it into a public institution will focus on comparing and contrasting the benefits and harms of each option, and the various models available should the people decide on major changes to the nation’s monetary system. The “cat is out of the bag”, the “genie is out of the bottle”, and there’s no possibility of concealing, obfuscation, avoiding, or sweeping under the rug the idea of beneficial monetary reform, ever again.

Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party’s proposal on the Federal Reserve isn’t the only intriguing idea she offers to voters for their consideration, but beyond any doubt it’s the one which will create the greatest “buzz” and/or impact in America and around the Earth. Ultimately, all issues in her party’s platform are inter-related, including those associated with:

  • the military industrial complex (warned about by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his Farewell Address), war and peace – in particular the Middle East, reduced military expenditure, a foreign policy based on international law and human rights
  • the environment and a “Green New Deal” for renewable energy transformation of the country, 100% sun, wind, water, etc. power by 2030, for economic growth and jobs
  • cancellation of student debt, as the “economic stimulus of our dreams”
  • establishing a medicare-for-all universal health care system
  • a $15/hour minimum wage
  • bringing the rule of law back to Wall Street
  • moving toward greater diplomacy in international relations, to wisely decrease the possibilities for outbreak/escalation of conflict
  • dealing effectively with the root socioeconomic causes leading to problems in the criminal justice system, reversing privatization of the corrections “industry”
  • taking results-focused measures to combat climate change
  • reversing the Supreme Court Citizens United decision, getting big money out of politics …and more

So, Dr. Jill Stein has started the real debate of the 2016 presidential election. Would Ms. Clinton, Mr. Johnson or Mr. Trump like to volunteer as the first to respond?…

(Thank you to RT at YouTube)

Dr. Jill Stein: Reject The Lesser Evil… Choose The Greater Good.

By Jerry Alatalo

keyboard7-1Alphabet Many are becoming aware that Hillary Clinton isn’t the only woman in the United States attempting to break the “glass ceiling” and become elected the first woman President. After Bernie Sanders exited the race many of his followers have urged him to join with Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who offered him the top position on the Green ticket, an invitation to join forces and continue the remarkable political revolution Sanders’ campaign had generated.

Now that he’s fully endorsed Ms. Clinton and declined Ms. Stein’s offer, many Sanders supporters – finding it impossible to back Hillary Clinton, and angered over recent Wikileaks revelations showing intentional sabotaging of Sanders’ campaign by members of the Democratic National Committee – have decided to continue to November 8 in support of Dr. Jill Stein.

If enough Americans join and support the presidential campaign of Jill Stein to reach 15% in the polls then the two woman looking to break the “glass ceiling” will stand on the same debate stage, and the American people will be given the opportunity to compare their ideas – along with those of Donald Trump, and quite possibly Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson – for solving the problems of the nation, and the world.

Not since Ross Perot ran as an independent in 1992 has there been more than two presidential candidates in nationally televised debates; in that 1992 election Republican George H.W. Bush, Democrat Bill Clinton and Independent Ross Perot stood together on the battle-of-ideas platform. In 2016, it’s very possible that for the first time four candidates – Clinton, Johnson, Stein, and Trump – will share the stage. Perhaps such an extraordinary political development would not be as dramatic as electing the first woman president of the United States, nonetheless it would dramatically increase political interest, discussion and active participation in all the 50 states.

Such a first in presidential debates will allow the people to hear the full range of political philosophy available in the nation, help tremendously with informing and contrasting the candidates’ positions, and generate thoughtful consideration before the eventual decision of voters on November 8. Perhaps the campaigns could even agree to four, or more, debates of 2-3 hours each – another first, and further benefiting voters who have yet to decide.

…And isn’t that what democracy is supposed to look like?

(Thank you to The Day at YouTube)

JFK’s World Peace Message For 2016.

By Jerry Alatalo

“Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.” Address to the United Nations, September 25, 1961

– JOHN F. KENNEDY (1917-assassinated 1963) 35th President of the United States

aaa-44Alphabet Shortly before his death, U.S. President John F. Kennedy (JFK) talked about world peace at the commencement at American University on June 10, 1963. Many changes have occurred on Earth in the 53 years which have passed. A group of very powerful men organized the assassination team which carried out the murder of John F. Kennedy, because world peace would interfere with, constrain and dis-empower their interests, plans and agendas.

John Kennedy’s speech in 1963, among other public announcements by JFK of his intentions, may have been the decisive event leading to his assassins’ irreversible choice of plotting what was nothing less than an American coup d’état, then ending his life. Perhaps one day soon the history books read by all students in America will accurately show the truth of what transpired in the murder of JFK. Until then, students suffer in profound measure by being given wrong history and, most importantly, from ignorance of facts necessary for making good moral choices faced over their entire lifetimes.

After 53 years, the truth of JFK’s murder – the men who carried it out and their reasons – has entered the awareness of more and more men and women around the Earth. The reasons were many and associated with the least-admired potentials of human philosophy, psychology and/or personal worldview. John F. Kennedy at the end of his life took courageous actions associated with, and striving toward, mankind’s greatest, most admirable potential. Perhaps now in the year 2016 joined efforts will strengthen and grow internationally to the point where such long-awaited and hoped for potential becomes finally realized…

Peace on Earth.

****

(Transcript)

“…And we are all mortal.”

President Anderson, members of the faculty, Board of Trustees, distinguished guests, my old colleague, Senator Bob Byrd, who has earned his degree through many years of attending night law school, while I am earning mine in the next 30 minutes, ladies and gentlemen:

It is with great pride that I participate in this ceremony of the American University, sponsored by the Methodist Church, founded by Bishop John Fletcher Hurst, and first opened by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914. This is a young and growing university, but it has already fulfilled Bishop Hurst’s enlightened hope for the study of history and public affairs in a city devoted to the making of history and to the conduct of the public’s business. By sponsoring this institution of higher learning for all who wish to learn whatever their color or their creed, the Methodists of this area and the nation deserve the nation’s thanks, and I commend all those who are today graduating.

Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out from a university should be a man of his nation as well as a man of his time, and I am confident that the men and women who carry the honor of graduating from this institution will continue to give from their lives, from their talents, a high measure of public service and public support.

“There are few earthly things more beautiful than a University,” wrote John Masefield, in his tribute to the English Universities – – and his words are equally true here. He did not refer to spires and towers, to campus greens and ivied walls. He admired the splendid beauty of the University, he said, because it was ” a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see.”

I have, therefore, chose this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is to rarely perceived – – yet it is the most important topic on earth : world peace.

What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace – – the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living — the kind that enables man and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children – – not merely peace for Americans by peace for all men and women – – not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all of the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by the wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations unborn.

Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles – – which can only destroy and never create – – is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.

I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war – – and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.

Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament – – and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must re-examine our own attitude – as individuals and as a Nation – – for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward – – by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the Cold War and toward freedom and peace here at home.

First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many of us think it is unreal. But that is dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable – – that mankind is doomed – – that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

We need not accept that view. Our problems are man made – – therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable – – and we believe they can do it again.

I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of universal peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the values of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.

Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace – – based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions – – on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace – – no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process – – a way of solving problems.

With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor – – it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.

So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable – – and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly – – by making it seem more manageable and less remote – – we can help all people to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.

Second: Let us re-examine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims – – such as the allegation that ” American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars…that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union…(and that) the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries…(and) to achieve world domination.

Truly, as it was written long ago: “The wicked flee when no man pursueth.” Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements – – to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning – – a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodations as impossible and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements – – in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique, among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation’s territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland – – a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.

Today, should total war ever break out again – – no matter how – – our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironical but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the Cold War, which brings burdens and dangers to so many countries, including this Nation’s closest allies – – our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counter-weapons.

In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours — and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.

So, let us not be blind to our differences – – but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.

Third: Let us re-examine our attitude toward the Cold War, remembering that we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had history of the last eighteen years been different.

We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists’ interest to agree on a genuine peace. Above all, while defending our vital interest, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy – – or of a collective death-wish for the world.

To secure these ends, America’s weapons are non-provocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplines in self-restraint. Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility.

For we can seek a relaxation of tensions without relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove that we are resolute. We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people – – but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth.

Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument of peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system – – a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished.

At the same time we seek to keep peace inside the non-communist world, where many nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues which weaken western unity, which invite communist intervention or which threaten to erupt into war. Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo, in the Middle East and in the Indian subcontinent, have been persistent and patient despite criticism from both sides. We have also tried to set an example for others – – by seeking to adjust small but significant differences with our own closest neighbors in Mexico and in Canada.

Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear. We are bound to many nations by alliances. These alliances exist because our concern and theirs substantially overlap. Our commitment to defend Western Europe and West Berlin for example, stands undiminished because of the identity of our vital interests. The United States will make no deal with the Soviet Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely because they are our partners, but also because their interests and ours converge.

Our interests converge, however not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, but in pursuing the paths of peace. It is our hope – – and the purpose of Allied policies – – to convince the Soviet Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does not interfere with the choices of others. The communist drive to impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today. For there can be no doubt that if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self-determination of others, then peace would be much more assured.

This will require a new effort to achieve world law – – a new context for world discussions. It will require increased understanding between the Soviets and ourselves. And increased understanding will require increased contact and communications. One step in this direction is the proposed arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and Washington, to avoid on each side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreadings of the other’s actions which might occur at a time of crisis.

We have also been talking in Geneva about other first-step measures of arms control, designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and to reduce the risks of accidental war. Our primary long-range interest in Geneva, however, is general and complete disarmament – – designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms. The pursuit of disarmament has been an effort of this Government since the 1920’s. It has been urgently sought by the past three Administrations. And however dim the prospects may be today, we intend to continue this effort – – to continue it in order that all countries, including our own, can better grasp what the problems and possibilities of disarmament are.

The one major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight – – yet where a fresh start is badly needed – – is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests. The conclusion of such a treaty – – so near and yet so far – – would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms. It would increase our security – – it would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards.

I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard.

First: Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan and I have agreed that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history – – but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind.

Second: To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on the matter, I now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so. We will not be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty – – but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a substitute for disarmament – – but I hope it will help us achieve it.

Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in the dedication of our own lives – – as many of you who are graduation today will have a unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home.

But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together. In too many of our duties today, the peace is not secure because freedom is incomplete.

It is the responsibility of the Executive Branch at all levels of government – – local, state and national – – to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within their authority. It is the responsibility of the Legislative Branch at all levels, wherever that authority is not now adequate, to make it adequate. And it is the responsibility of all citizens in all sections of this country to respect the rights of all others and to respect the law of the land.

All this is not unrelated to world peace. “When a man’s ways please the Lord,” the Scriptures tell us, “he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.” And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights – – the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation – – the right to breathe air as nature provided it – – the right of future generations to a healthy existence?

While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both. No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion. But it can – – if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcement and if it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers – – offer far more security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough – – more than enough – – of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on – – not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.

(Thank you to WorldBeyondWar.org at YouTube)