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)

Sanders For Peace Tuesday.

By Jerry Alatalo

World Map1Alphabet Voters in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island can remember what Senator Bernie Sanders says in the following short video about the hidden costs of war before casting their votes on Tuesday. It might help clarify matters if at the same time they recall then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s jubilant “We came, we saw, he died!” in 2011, after Libyan leader Mohammar Gaddafi was killed.

Residents in the five states, whether aware of it or not, will be voting for war with Clinton and peace with Sanders. The Democratic party primaries held tomorrow in CT, DE, MD, PA and RI will help decide if humanity experiences an Earthly future of war or peace. Libya’s Gaddafi was leading a movement to establish a new currency for the people of the African continent, and, according to recently released Clinton emails, was possibly the main reason for his overthrow and assassination.

It wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs transcripts reference nations around the Earth whose leaders wish to remain or become independent of the U.S./western dollar-dominated financial system. Ms. Clinton, one can imagine, probably assured the people at Goldman Sachs that if she became President military action would be used to force independent-minded nations and their leaders to remain dependent on the dollar; preventing by any means necessary nations’ “breaking the chains”, becoming financially sovereign.

With the world transforming from a unipolar, U.S. dominated to multipolar as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) alliance grows, more nations will, like Libya and nations of Africa, be looking to break away from the western-dominated global financial system, the “only game in town” before BRICS. Herein lies the extreme danger of Hillary Clinton becoming President (Commander-in-Chief) of the United States. The Libyan catastrophe proves she will not hesitate to initiate illegal war over monetary reforms considered by people anywhere on Earth, in particular reforms which result in a nation’s financial independence, its own currency, and sovereignty.

The Middle East region’s people have suffered from wars and violence for far too long. Enough is enough in 2016. Vote for Sanders.

(Thank you to Bernie 2016 at YouTube)

Sanders, Clinton And Foreign Policy ‘Red Meat.’

By Jerry Alatalo

Veterans For Peace








Alphabet Professor of Media Studies at New York University Mark Crispin Miller helped bring together peace activists Scott Ritter and Ray McGovern to talk about the differences between Senator Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton days before today’s New York state Democratic primary. It’s unfortunate that the presentation wasn’t organized earlier. Ritter and McGovern tell viewers of The Real News Network and other media the facts about each in such a way that an earlier effort could have made a Sanders victory in New York more certain.

In the months, weeks and days preceding the George W. Bush administration’s commencement of “shock and awe” – the 2003 war on Iraq – Scott Ritter, a weapons inspector for the United Nations in Iraq, worked seemingly alone in efforts to prevent the 2003 Iraq War. Despite the largest protests in world history before the outbreak of war and violence, millions around the Earth on the streets demanding no military attack on Iraq, the U.S. administration of Bush/Cheney with complicity from British leader Tony Blair and others carried out what has come to be perceived/described as America’s worst foreign policy decision in its history.

During the 1st Gulf War against Iraq in the early 1990’s President George H. W. Bush Sr. signaled through Middle East administration spokesperson April Glass to Saddam Hussein, giving the green light to Hussein, that invasion of Kuwait would not compromise America’s national security interests. Giving the green light to Hussein was part of an elaborate plan to convince the Saudi royal family, upon warnings of Hussein’s “plan” to attack Saudi Arabia after Kuwait – delivered by then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, to agree to large, permanent U.S. military bases on Saudi soil.

Part of the propaganda was the appearance by the daughter of Kuwait’s U.S. ambassador before a hearing in Congress, where she faked her identity as an eyewitness to Iraqi Army atrocities in Kuwait involving “babies in incubators”, shedding false tears while describing the babies abandoned on the cold floor – left to die. The false story was broadcast across the United States, Bush Sr. expressed outrage in speeches about “..tearing babies from their incubators!”, and the lie became repeated over, and over, and over.

Scott Ritter was fired on the spot from the military after telling the truth about so-called scud missiles of Saddam Hussein, falsely reported on U.S. media every day as being “successfully” destroyed – that there were no scud missiles in Iraq, and that satellite images were of oil tankers.

Try though he did to tell the truth and prevent unnecessary war and violence during the 1st Iraq War under Bush Sr. and the 2nd, more catastrophic Iraq War under Bush II, Scott Ritter suffered brutal persecution and attacks against his character. Ritter attempted to meet with his U.S. Senator in New York immediately preceding the crucial 2003 vote authorizing war against Iraq – Hillary Clinton, but he was ignored and Clinton voted for war. It is uncertain whether Ritter’s efforts to stop Iraq War II had any influence on Bernie Sanders’ voting against the war resolution in Congress.

Both Ritter and McGovern point out the lies told about Libya and Syria which followed the pattern set in Iraq: 1) first painting Gaddafi and Assad as “brutal dictators”, involved in “state-sponsored terrorism”, 2) falsely accuse them of killing their own people, 3) assertions of possession of weapons of mass destruction, then 4) calling for Libya and Syria sanctions and 5) applying no-fly zones on those countries. The pattern is all about interventionism and regime-change, to which Scott Ritter asserts America has become addicted. Both assert that Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was the architect of deception leading to major warfare and violence in Libya and Syria, and that if Hillary Clinton were to become president, for the American people and the people of the Middle East it would be more of the same.

These are days of profound civilization-wide historic change.

Scott Ritter and Ray McGovern are two heroic, truth-telling human beings who join with an increasingly larger segment of the world’s population in calling for an end to criminal wars and deceptions carried out by malevolent-minded people bent on maintaining and increasing control, power and wealth at the price of millions of innocent other people sharing this Earth. War, killing, destruction and massive harming of fellow members of the human family are no longer acceptable as means of conducting worldly “business”.

(Thank you to Joe Friendly at YouTube)

Sanders-Clinton New York Debate: YouTube Math Explains Sanders’ Winning Streak.

By Jerry Alatalo

Sanders-Clinton Brooklyn Debate Tonight

Alphabet The idea for comparing, contrasting and compiling statistics on Bernie Sanders’ (Bernie 2016) and Hillary Clinton’s (Hillary Clinton) official YouTube (YT) channels came after realizing all but one of Clinton’s posted videos had zero comments from viewers. Most YT viewers are aware that when channel administrators decide to disallow comments, viewers will find the message “Comments disabled for this video”.

What was curious, besides the fact that Clinton videos with 100,000 – 300,000 views hadn’t generated a single comment, was noticing that instead of “Comments disabled..” the Clinton videos seemed “open” for comments. What seems likely is that the Clinton YT administrator has placed every comment from YT viewers into “comment awaiting moderation” status (as happens here at WordPress), then deleting every one of them. The easier, less time-consuming option for the Clinton administrator would be to simply disable comments altogether.

Instead, arranging/selecting YT video post discussion options to give the appearance of welcoming viewers’ opinions became chosen to essentially make it seem to unaware voters that Ms. Clinton is open-minded, all about free speech, etc. – while at the same time every comment gets deleted. What follows is a side-by-side, screenshot view of the ten (10) most popular YT videos from both the Bernie 2016 and Hillary Clinton channels.

Hillary Clinton channel on YT started on April 8, 2015, has 43,734 subscribers, and 10,802,971 views.

Bernie 2016 channel on YT started on May 24, 2015, has 124,127 subscribers, and 25,062,770 views.

What follows are screenshots of the ten (10) most-viewed videos from Sanders and Clinton, in ascending order from #10 to #1. Notice the number of views, the “thumbs-up”/”thumbs-down” ratios, and the number of comments in each.



Adding various aspects of each candidate’s top ten, most-viewed videos, we came up with these totals:

  • Number of views: Sanders: 10,510,007 | Clinton: 7,443,989
  • Number of comments: Sanders: 25,286 | Clinton: 14,505 (14,504 on her #1, oddly one (1) allowed on #7)
  • Number of “thumbs up” or likes: Sanders: 128,278 | Clinton: 50,525
  • Number of “thumbs down” or dislikes: Sanders: 10,663 | Clinton: 32,921
  • If YouTube views were “votes”: Sanders: 58.54% | Clinton: 41.46%
  • Ratio of “thumbs down” (negative) to views: Sanders: .0010 (1/10th of 1% / .1%) | Clinton: .0044 (4/10ths of 1% / .4%)
  • Ratio of “thumbs up” (positive) to views: Sanders: .0122 (1 and 2/10ths% / 1.2%) | Clinton: .0068 (7/10ths of 1% / .7%)

It’s humorously ironic that Sanders’ thumbs down/dislike to views ratio came to exactly 1/10th of 1%, the statistic he’s consistently pointed out for 11 months at campaign rallies to identify the wealthiest people and families, the billionaire class, in America.


If one considers the total views from inception of Sanders’ (25,062,770) and Clinton’s (10,802,971) YouTube channels – and “count” them as votes…

Sanders: 69.88%

Clinton: 30.12%

If Sanders and Clinton were running for President of the United Channels of YouTube, the race would’ve gone to Sanders long ago. The numbers help explain the strong support Sanders has received from men and women aged 45 and younger; they go to the internet for news, while people above that age go more toward television/cable and corporate media organizations.

Fortunately, tonight’s event in Brooklyn, New York… impossible to overestimate in importance – the debate between Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton is available on the internet, YouTube (Livestream) and cable TV.

Just a guess, but history could well record the April 14, 2016 Sanders-Clinton debate as the highest-rated, most-watched political event in American history. Make sure your family and friends tune in and focus on every second, especially if in New York State, because this particular battle of ideas is for all the marbles.

Sanders has a 7-state win streak coming into the New York State primary, although, listening to mainstream corporate media, one might not comprehend the magnitude of that accomplishment. The fact is that Hillary Clinton has suffered seven (7) consecutive defeats, eight of the last nine states have been won by Sanders, but no corporate media has uttered the words: “Hillary Clinton loses seventh state in a row”.

Because of the highly biased anti-Sanders narratives coming out of the mainstream media, exemplified by a near blackout on reporting of Democracy Spring – perhaps the largest civil disobedience campaign in U.S. history to get money out of politics, and absolutely aligned with Sanders’ campaign emphasis – Sanders in a real sense has two opponents in tonight’s debate, Hillary Clinton plus the media, and will need to effectively convey to viewers/voters the major differences between himself and Ms. Clinton.

Sanders has powerful momentum which is real and growing, despite attempts to spin it any differently. One could even say the ball is now in Ms. Clinton’s court, and she is the candidate who must clarify “evolving” positions on issues, misrepresenting Sanders’, and offer reasoned answers to legitimate questions many voters still have about her.

New York State residents vote on Tuesday, April 19.