Amy Goodman: Interview Eva Bartlett, Vanessa Beeley, Tulsi Gabbard And Elizabeth Kucinich.

By Jerry Alatalo

World Map1Alphabet Amnesty International (AI) released a controversial report recently on alleged horrors enacted in Syrian prisons which has generated profound debate, uncertainty and emotions. Persons going to YouTube and typing “Amnesty International Syria” will find the story was aired by virtually the entire world’s media outlets, with the greatest percentage presenting AI’s report as accurate and legitimate. Going to various reports and looking at their “thumbs up” and “thumbs down” statistics along with reading comments shows a hefty disagreement among viewers, where it looks like 2/3 of respondents express negative perceptions of AI’s report. In other words, most people are highly skeptical and don’t believe the report is honest.

It is perhaps impossible to convey how important it is to resolve whether Amnesty International’s report is “fake news” or based on reality. The report, obviously and fundamentally, is either accurate or it isn’t – but any and all questions about its veracity must become answered and/or resolved. The most worrying aspect of this report comes to the forefront when considering the possibility that those who created it, knowing they were making war propaganda, had the motive of manipulating global public opinion into acceptance of military escalation in Syria.

Military escalation in Syria would have dire consequences which most sane, reasonable, peace-loving people find utterly undesirable, even unthinkable, and for that reason one prays the report is proven fake. The calls for Amnesty International to provide publicly the evidence they profess to have, or don’t have, will grow more intense as days pass, still it is only logical to ask AI for any and all evidence when they make such important and hugely consequential claims.

Millions of people worldwide are familiar with the television network Free Speech TV, its program “Democracy Now”, and the long-time hostess of that program Amy Goodman. Besides attempting to increase awareness of the controversy surrounding AI’s Syria prison report, a major focus here is pushing for an organized internet-based campaign to force Amy Goodman to interview four women who have different perspectives with regard to Syria: independent journalists Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley, Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, and Elizabeth Kucinich, the wife of former Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich. All of these women have traveled to Syria and talked to a wide range of Syria’s people.

Ms. Goodman presented the Amnesty International report along with interviewing AI officials in recent days, and clearly shared with her millions of viewers worldwide that she, Ms. Goodman, believes the report is true. What we are proposing – urging – here is a worldwide campaign joined by millions who feel the AI report is war propaganda and extremely dangerous if left unchallenged, demanding Ms. Goodman interview the four respected woman named, to get to the absolute truth of the matter.

A gentleman and political scientist from Syria has responded to Amnesty International’s report by pointing out clear deficiencies in various parts of the content. Below one finds a video on this matter he produced and posted at his YouTube channel – “Syriana Analysis”. In it he describes how AI failed to double-check information and facts, and asserts AI is doubling as a propaganda tool for Western powers seeking “humanitarian” intervention in Syria.

He states, “Its (AI) report cannot be defined as an objective investigation”.

He goes on to say, “Most of the witnesses are identified as opposition figures and former officials who don’t live in Syria”. He points out that in the report there is not one instance of providing a “divergent point of view”, that AI’s numbers are not documented in lists or exhibits, and those numbers are “at best wild guesses”. He then shares that no details were provided about the persons killed, alleged by AI in an estimated number of from 5,000-13,000.

In response to AI claims of extrajudicial executions, he shows that the report itself refutes that claim; the report describes military judicial procedures and rules, and the necessary higher-up approvals of judgments. Further on he states, “The report doesn’t even meet the lowest mark of scientific or legal validity. It’s a pure biased propaganda”.

Please think about taking good action and contacting Amy Goodman via email, at “Democracy Now” YouTube channel or website, through discussions with family and friends, on Facebook, Twitter, etc., with personal blog posts, sharing this information, or any possible path(s) – and demanding she conduct the suggested interviews. In doing so – and if successful, the truth becomes known – you might be making a much, much larger contribution to peace in Syria and the world than you’ll ever know. Thank you.

World peace is possible.

(Thank you to Syriana Analysis at YouTube)


Nobel Peace Prize Laureates Challenge American Militarism.

by Jerry Alatalo

Rocky Top - 1Alphabet When three Nobel Peace Prize laureates come together for an interview, you know it’s a special occasion. Mairead Maguire was awarded the Prize in 1976 – the youngest recipient up to that point, she was 30-years old – for her efforts to bring peace to her native Northern Ireland. Jody Williams received the 1997 Peace Prize for her efforts to ban land mines globally, and Leymah Gbowee received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2011 for helping to end the second Liberian Civil War in 2003.

The phenomenon of women becoming active for peace is nothing new, as the three women were in the Hague for a ceremony unveiling the statue of Dr. Aletta Jacobs, who in 1915 as World War I was ongoing organized the International Congress of Women calling for world peace.  During their short interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now some challenging words were said on America’s militarism, and one is left wondering if the women will become invited to talk before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations committee any time soon.

Most reading these words likely believe that eventuality is a long-shot at best, but, after listening to the interview and the clear sincerity coming from the women, if they aren’t invited to appear before Congress it’s surely missing, first, any chance for repairing America’s reputation as a warring nation (these women are Nobel Peace Prize laureates!), and second, a great opportunity for learning peace. Again, two of the three Nobel Peace Prize laureates – Mairead Maguire and Jody Williams – directly challenged America’s militarism.

Mairead Maguire – after commenting on the need for a change of global consciousness and deciding we aren’t going to kill each other anymore, how the news media reports the world is falling apart, that 99% of the world’s people don’t want to kill each other, and that governments take us to war but we don’t want it – said:

“I would challenge the American government, because I think the American government’s policies are totally wrong. Their approach of going after militarism and war, and bombing countries is uncivilized, illegal and absolutely dreadful in the 21st century. So, I do believe that America has a moral and ethical responsibility to the world to listen to… the people in the world (who) want peace. Everybody has a right to peace. They can do it through dialogue and through negotiation, and let’s give peace a chance.”

Jody Williams:

“Of course we can change the world. Sometimes, as Mairead said, when we look at that, when I look at my own country – I’ve been fighting the U.S. foreign policy since Vietnam, my first protest, 1970, University of Vermont. But, change is possible, and, because I believe, like Mairead, the majority of the people of the world are sick to death of this, and we are starting to stand up and say no. We’re starting to challenge, and not accept words out of one side of the face and the actions which are different. I never thought, unfortunately, I didn’t drink the Obama kool-aid. That man fired, authorized, more drone strikes in the 1st 3-months of his administration than George W. Bush did in eight years of office.”

“We have to, as Americans, I agree with her (Mairead), accept the responsibility that we have the most militaristic nation in the world, and take responsibility to stop it.”

Later, Mairead Maguire (1976) added:

“Well, you know America’s a great country, and Eleanor Roosevelt was one of the contributors to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and you have a wonderful constitution. But… revive your constitution and dedicate yourselves to international law. Be a peacemaker, not a war maker.”

With only a minute left, Jody Williams (1997) added:

“Women need to be involved in all aspects of peace and security.”

Finally, Leymah Gbowee (2011):

“Do one good thing every day that everyone else is scared to do.”

Let these great women talk to the United States Congress.

Isn’t it time to talk peace in Washington?


For more information visit:

(Thank you to Democracy Now at YouTube)

On World Energy Solution.

Feed-in tariffs: Accelerating renewable energy...
Feed-in tariffs: Accelerating renewable energy project development in Ontario (Photo credit: mars_discovery_district)

Posted October 14, 2013

by Jerry Alatalo

Many of you can relate to feelings of frustration after becoming aware of possible solutions for humanity that become blocked by historically powerful interests. When there are discussions about energy-oil, nuclear, natural gas, renewables etc.-the talks always come to a point where the power of possible solution(s) somehow fizzles out and doesn’t go “all the way”.  Hermann Scheer of Germany (1944-2010) went “all the way”, and the time has long since passed when humanity does the same.

Let me first say that the magnitude of consequences surrounding the ignoring of real solutions for the human race through development of renewable energies is enormous. My guess is that you are aware of the absolutely magnificent potential of renewable energy technology, and are extremely frustrated that the real promise of existing technologies is not being acted upon to the point where solar panels are on every home and commercial building in the world.

Secondly, Hermann Scheer was a giant of a human being, one person who possessed an ability to convey reality to other men and women in a direct, honest manner which zeroed in on very important truths. That the name Hermann Scheer is not known by all people in this world is really an injustice, as the truth he spoke and wrote about has the power of changing all life on Earth for this and future generations.

For the better.

When the vision Mr. Scheer articulated becomes implemented, and it is entirely and absolutely implementable now, the positive results for humanity will be off-the-charts. While writing this I feel the reader’s reluctance to get into this set of ideas around the world-changing potential of already available renewable energy technology. My first natural response to any such reluctance would be to ask “do you have a problem with free energy?” Do you have an issue with being an independent energy producer who gets paid for any excess energy left over from your production after using what you needed?

If you don’t have a problem with free energy or being paid for your excess energy production, then you may want to become intimately aware of what Hermann Scheer accomplished in Germany and, consequently, the world. You may want to become involved in the war against powerful corporate energy interests, roadblocks and laws which are preventing democratic energy freedom for the people of the world.

At one point in human history burning wood was the energy paradigm. Then it was whale oil, then came electricity, then oil and gas, then nuclear and coal. At each point of advance to a more amenable source of energy the previous source dried up and disappeared. Renewable energies-solar, wind, biogas, and emerging technologies-are sitting there, absolutely available, just waiting for the will of humanity to get on with it.

The “whale-oilers” of this time are the owners of conventional energy corporations, who are the only people on Earth against turning the page of historical energy reality. Just as the people who made money from whale oil had to change with the times, today’s traditional energy producers face loss of their market share and loss of profits. It is not difficult to understand why these powerful interests want the status-quo of energy production to remain unchanged. It is easy to understand why.

But is the energy status-quo OK?

No, it is not OK. All you have to do is consider the wars fought over control of oil and natural gas, with the overwhelming human tragedy, with their trillions of dollars in expenditure, to fully realize that the current energy status-quo is not OK. The events of history, understood in the context of the great promise of renewable energies, naturally leads one to see that changing the energy paradigm is equivalent with sanity. In other words, to continue on with traditional energies, when the renewables are sitting there waiting for implementarion on the largest scale(s), is collective madness.

Fast worldwide energy shift is possible.

Hermann Scheer left humanity with the true blueprint for energy freedom and independence. He helped to create the conditions in Germany for a green revolution, not a pie-in-the-sky vision of a possible future to be grouped with the ideas of science-fiction writers, but conditions which have led to an energy revolution in Germany. The major accomplishment Mr. Scheer became involved with was the structuring of laws, the shaping of the legal framework in Germany, to eliminate roadblocks to renewable energy development.

Laws were written in Germany which encouraged investment in renewables, without having to get the OK from powerful traditional energy corporation owners. These laws gave priority to renewables and granted access to the grid, feed-in tariffs, guaranteed fees/earnings for independent energy producers, and guaranteed no caps on those fees-thus providing the greatest protection for investors, small and large.

When these laws were passed homeowners, companies, cooperatives, and municipalities invested 100 billion Euros in renewable energies over a ten-year period, compared to 10 billion for traditional energy corporations in the same ten-year period. Solar, wind, biogas, and other renewables came online in a large way as independent power production surged. It is very important to forcefully emphasize that this economic activity became possible through the legal framework of Germany, which took down the roadblocks to renewable energy development.

America can do what Germany did. Remove the roadblocks.

Resistance to energy change comes from the energy cartels. Big oil, big coal, nuclear power all stand in the way of beneficial changes in the paradigm, all such benefits ready for implementing but for the roadblocks placed to prevent their coming to be realized by the people. Let us use the simplest of analogies. Imagine you are driving down a country highway late at night and you are the only car on the road. You come up to find a lightweight roadblock. You leave your car running, shift into park, get out of your car and move the roadblock, then re-enter your vehicle and drive on toward your destination.

Hermann Scheer and the people of Germany simply removed the roadblock(s). Your vehicle represents the people of Germany driving through to energy independence, economic activity in the form of new businesses and jobs, and energy bill savings for citizens. Removing the roadblock was a win/win for the German people. Mr. Scheer called solar energy “the energy of the people”. Time magazine named him “The Man of the Green Century”.

Inexpensive solar technology installations have come into regions around the world where electricity was never available. The people of those regions have seen their quality of life improve dramatically as a result. Children can study their schoolbooks after the sun goes down, farmers have increased their production so that malnutrition is going down, and water is more easily accessed with the available electricity. Remove the roadblocks to renewable energies everywhere on Earth.

The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria are about energy resources. Those nations and people have had to endure hellish experiences because of the wars over energy resources. Democratically elected leaders of nations have been the victims of military coups and assassinations. Millions of civilians-men, women and children-have been killed over energy resources through the recent decades. Trillions of tax dollars have been essentially wasted in these wars, small and large, over natural resources.

The people’s war for renewable energy is a “just war”.

People have come to use the term “just war”. I would assert that the “just war” worth waging on Earth now is the war against those who have been responsible for placing roadblocks in the way of renewable energy development. It is a war against a real energy dictatorship, a dictatorship which has concentrated its power and guards against any giving up of that power. At all costs.

But there is the example of Germany for the people of the world to see. Men and women in America are recognizing the positive results experienced by their counterparts in Germany and ask “why not here?” as well as “why not everyone?” Every person in America is for renewable energy development. Only those who profit from the traditional energy status-quo will argue against solar power, wind power and other available green technologies.

The question which needs asking is why the elected representatives in America are either ignorant or repressing the example set by the country of Germany. There simply is no doubt that “the energy of the people” would increase freedom in the lives of Americans. Hermann Scheer’s vision and analysis was-remains-right on the money and beyond debate.

Renewable energy solutions are available now.

Waiting for humanity…

Thank you Hermann Scheer.



Related articles

Beginning Of The End For War.

Español: Bob Dylan, en una actuación en Vitori...
Español: Bob Dylan, en una actuación en Vitoria-Gasteiz, en el Azkena Rock Festival. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Posted September 16, 2013

by Jerry Alatalo

The times they are a-changin‘” goes the words of the Bob Dylan song made popular during the Vietnam-era 1960’s. In the year 2013 we can say the same-although one can assume that the only thing for certain in life is change. Bob Dylan’s words were for the time and people of the 1960’s, where the pushback on the Vietnam human catastrophe resulted in four students at Kent State University being shot dead, and students at universities all over America, in united protest against one of the greatest war tragedies in history, sat down and shut those universities down.

In 2013 the equivalent national protest is the communication protest taking place on the internet, where men and women need only to type a few keystrokes to arrive at truth, as opposed to the difficult task of having to find and read books in the 1960’s. The people of Britain found truth at their fingertips, from fellow-men and women around the world, after typing “Syria” into their search engines. It could be said that, because the people of Britain had ready access to truth, the most important governmental decision in modern history occurred.

The decision by the elected leaders of Britain to listen to their constituents’ collective “NO” on that country’s entrance militarily in the Syria situation may well be written about in history books in the future as the turning point for humanity.  How is this vote in the British parliament seen as a “turning point”, one may ask.

To answer that question we would do well to analyze the difference between the Vietnam War era of the 1960’s and 2013 regarding transmission of truth. In the Vietnam War era there were only a handful of people who knew the circumstances surrounding the war, through reading massive amounts of sources from far-flung places. Today people are able to reach those far-flung sources and places from their computer, never having to leave the room.

Because of the phenomenon of instant access to truth, the result is that millions and millions of men and women are aware of the truth, not just a handful of determined truth-seekers like in the 1960’s. Unfortunately, the Vietnam War continued for far too long because this easy access to truth was not available at the time. Truth was hard to come by so the atrocity called the Vietnam War went on, and on, and on.

People now have instant access to truth. Nothing can ever take the people’s instant access to truth away.


Since the Vietnam era to today in 2013 this ability for people to increase awareness has grown steadily stronger, so that now we have witnessed a historic event: the will of the people of the world, to stop an escalation of war and killing, has been heard and acted upon by their representatives in governments.

People can come to a view that this is a turning point or that it is not. My sense is that the true feelings of most men and women is that there indeed has been a “turning”. What level of significance people assign to this “turning” varies according to one’s personal experiences, awareness, knowledge and wisdom. Some will say none or a small turn, some view today’s events as in-between small and momentous, while others hold that what humanity is witnessing is a great, momentous turning point and change.

This worldwide visible change, when one considers the inevitable continuing evolution of the human race, will one day bring humanity to the point where wars and killing will no longer be accepted as a means of resolving differences between groups of people. The length of time it will take to arrive at that point, at that greatest point and day in the history of mankind, is up to the people of the Earth.

What then will human beings do to resolve differences? Sit down at the table of brotherhood and friendship, sharing honest thoughts and ideas which have the intent of coming to agreement on decisions that are for the greatest benefit of all people, all life, and all things. For this generation and generations to come.