Friday, June 24, 2016

House Sit In Is Political Theater On Both Sides

Neither political party is even trying to understand the root causes of violence and how to prevent it even though there is good research available to them if they want to look at it.

Reasonable gun control would be part of it if they implemented it but it almost certainly wouldn't be the most important part. Unfortunately the legislation they're making the most noise about, the "No Fly No Buy Bill," is almost useless and may even violate peoples rights, although they may not be the rights the Republicans are concerned about.

Paul Ryan is right this sit-in really is a "Publicity Stunt," but he has done his part to make this seem somewhat legitimate and he's involved in more than his own share of publicity stunts.By holding a vote to pass legislation to revoke consumer protections from financial institution that provide deceptive information without disclosing their conflict of interests he actually makes their "Publicity Stunt" seem almost legitimate to those that don't pay enough attention

This is the same guy who washed clean dishes for a photo opportunity during the 2012 election even though he should have known the media might tell the public that was exactly what he was doing, which they did.

I just went through a lot of this in Media Suppresses Causes Of Orlando And Texas Shootings Again where I explained that there is plenty of research to show what the contributing causes of violence are and the most effective way to prevent them. Some of the most important contributing causes to violence including mass shootings don't even involve gun control, although reasonable gun control could prevent a murder from turning into a mass murder.

Unfortunately most of these aren't even discussed in traditional media or political establishment.

There is some evidence already that this shooter had a history of domestic violence which almost certainly resulted from the way he was raised possibly in a family where this was common. If this isn't the case, or if he wasn't raised in other dysfunctional ways, it would be almost unprecedented based on research into other violent murderers.

There should also be doubts about how ISIS might have inspired this attack considering the contradictory versions presented by the media; however there is plenty of evidence to indicate that past foreign policy has incited blow-back and attacks like the Boston Bombing San Bernidino may have been at least partially inspired by this, although the shooters or bombers weren't entirely rational.

The no-fly list that the "No Fly No Buy Bill" that set off this sit in is part of the racial profiling that may do more to incite retaliation than it does to prevent it and so is the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki who preached about abuses by the United States Government against Muslims for years before being killed in a drone strike. His son was also killed in a drone strike; neither of them were charged with a crime or given access to due process; and not surprisingly Muslims were outraged by this.

The majority of the public who rely on the traditional media for information were probably given a far different explanation about his assassination portraying him as a "radical" inciting terror, amusing people paid attention at all. Alternative media including Democracy Now, the Nation, the Intercept, and Jeremy Scahill's book, "Dirty Wars," provide a far more detailed and well sourced explanation about his assassination and it clearly seems to be far more about criticizing the United states Government and their bombing of Muslim countries or supporting governments that oppress their own citizens that is used to anger potential "terrorists."

Anwar al-Awlaki had plenty of legitimate grievances but the US government wasn't willing to acknowledge them. Representatives of the US government routinely express outrage when "terrorists" kill out citizens, and rightly so; but when they drop bombs on citizens around the world killing many more or support tyrants that do much worse they consider it "collateral damage," if they have to discuss it at all.

The people in the United States that think they're getting the full story from their own government or media might not see the problem with this however people in the Muslim world understand something incredibly simple.

They don't like it when we bomb them anymore than we like it when they bomb us.

People who keep up with alternative media outlets that do a better job reporting the news, including please activists, and well informed Muslims can see how incredibly obvious the double stand is.

The people authorizing the sales of weapons to tyrants and approving the wars based on lies either don't see this or don't care; including the people participating in the sit in and Paul Ryan. Regrettably this includes the so-called "civil-rights icon" John Lewis. the media has presented John Lewis as one of the most progressive politicians out there along with Elizabeth Warren who is portrayed as a great "consumer advocate" but it appears as if neither of them or many if any other members of congress are doing as much as they could and should to address many of the root causes of violence.

Most of the people involved in this sit-in that is supposed to look like a grassroots effort to disrupt business as usual put their support behind Hillary Clinton who is highly incompetent when it comes to her foreign policy experience which has incited and enormous amount of unnecessary violence as i explained in several articles including Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Experience is a disaster She is also far from progressive as she tries to portray herself and involved in epidemic levels of fraud including many that might directly or indirectly contribute to violence.

As I explained in numerous previous posts, including the one about the Orlando shooting, about the most important contributing causes of violence the most important way to stop long term violence is almost certainly to prevent child abuse and corporal punishment which teaches children to deal with their problems with violence at an early age. There is an enormous amount of research, including some in the links below, to confirm this; and an educational effort by the mass media and political establishment could teach the public about this and enable the government to do more to prevent child abuse.

Additional contributing causes could be prevented if more was done to improve education, reduce income inequality and poverty, often by exposing and preventing white collar crime, educating the public about how gambling contributes to crime and how the odds are rigged, stop fighting wars based on lies and training veterans and police officers to blindly follow orders and react with violence and many other things including reasonable gun control. There is an enormous amount of research available to show how many of these social factors contribute to more violence and how they could be prevented but unfortunately the Congress seems to be more interested in posturing and convincing the majority of the public that they're at least trying to do something about it than actually doing something that works. Even if the Democrats couldn't get help from the Republicans they could do much more to invite much more qualified academics like James Garbarino, Dorothy Otnow Lewis, Barbara Coloroso, Philip Greven and many more good academics to help them explain to the public how early abuse leads to escalating violence later in life; and their are other academics that could teach about other contributing causes as well, who they could give an opportunity to get their point across.

Instead they continue with publicity stunts and stir up people's emotions to support their efforts even though they routinely accomplish little or nothing.

They even manage to get a few subtle ads for major corporations who also happen to donate to campaigns. they made a point of saying that someone was going out to target to buy sleeping bags as if they really needed them to hold their protests. And Elizabeth Warren was widely credited with bringing the Dunkin Donuts; although they didn't say how much Dunkin Donuts paid for that great advertising or if it was done using the wink and nod method.

Real grassroots protesters don't find it necessary to go on buying sprees when they carry out their protests. However Congressmen seem much more accustomed to luxury and can't be expected to rough it too much. this includes John Lewis who hasn't participated in a real sit in in decades and even tried to suppress a Black Lives Matter protest against Hillary Clinton previously as I explained in Gloria Steinem Joins Reformers Selling Out; I guess grassroots efforts are only supposed to protest when they have permission from "civil rights icons," although well informed activists will never fall for that.

Unlike real grassroots activists the Congressional members, including the so-called progressives, were able to go home to a life of luxury.

Is it really any wonder that a growing percentage of the better educated people start to believe they're selling out.

In many cases addressing the contributing causes often impacts the profits of their campaign contributors. A couple of the simpler examples is when gambling leaves people desperate and they turn violent it still enriches corporations investing in it; or when insurgence companies make an enormous amount of money by deceiving the public in increases poverty and income inequality which contributes to more violence. Some of these contributing causes take time to understand but there not so complicated that average people can't understand them.

Unfortunately neither the media nor the political establishment gives the public the education and information they need to make important decisions; this is only available to those who seek it on their own, often through alternative media outlets or non-fiction books not promoted by traditional media.

As I said in the previous article about the Orlando shooting Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein both do a much better job supporting policies that would help reduce violent crime; however in most cases they support them for different reasons and don't do as much as they could to educate the public about how they could also help reduce violence. Improving education and reducing economic inequality, among other things, are worth doing on their own but they also reduce the contributing causes of violent crime and more can be done to educate the public about it.

I have provided much more research into many of the most important contributing causes of escalating violence in many of my past posts, and they usually provide sources that did more extensive research which is available to everyone. The following are some of the most important ones which could dramatically reduce violence if more people knew about them:

Does child abuse and bullying lead to more violence?

Child abuse and bullying link in study long over due

Cause and Effect of Hatred

Ignored evidence linking corporal punishment, poverty and crime grows

Does lack of education increase violent crime? Religion?

How much does Income Inequality Affects Crime Rates?

States with high murder rates have larger veteran populations

Teach a soldier to kill and he just might

The tragedy of gambling politics in United States

How does gambling and gun control impact violent crime?

Politics, not technology, caused botched executions

Troy, Cameron, Gary all innocent? And executed?

Democrats do a bad job on crime; Republicans and the Media are worse!!

Politicians increase crime; Grass roots efforts reduce crime; Politicians steal the credit

Life Insurance and media companies are encouraging lots of murders

Union Busting adds to corrupt bureaucracy and incites crime

Dramatic House Sit-In on Guns Is Undercut by Focus on Secret, Racist Watchlist 06/22/2016

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Yes Virginia There Is A Trump And Clinton Conspiracy

If there wasn't any conspiracy by the media and major political parties is there any way that the public would have chosen the two most disliked candidates in history, assuming they actually did choose these two?

If the media provided coverage for all candidates including ones running from the grassroots would the majority of the public even consider these two clowns?

The Mass Media, which is controlled by a fraction of one percent of the population, routinely rigs elections by simply refusing to cover grassroots candidates while giving obsession coverage to those that cater to the interests of corporate donors. For all practical purposes, they made it a requirement that candidates collect an enormous amount of money from corporations before the media will call them viable and provide them coverage. They discuss how they make decisions about coverage behind closed doors and don't let people know how large portions of the electoral system work.

That fits the definition of a conspiracy!!

Edit since I first posted this more evidence indicating that the Democratic Party has been involved in credible conspiracies has come out first with the Democratic National Committee E-Mails then with the Podesta E-Mails; and even though the more farfetched flawed Apocalypse theory described below still has unexplained flaws more similarities have taken place that make it easier to understand why some people believe it and harder to completely dismiss as described below.

When people have secret discussions about activities about how to manipulate the public that is by definition a conspiracy and it is standard operating procedure!!

What they're doing now goes way beyond the usual conspiracies they use to manipulate the public and it never would have happened if the political establishment didn't do one absurd thing after another that inevitably led to absurd results.

For what it's worth the conclusions I've drawn, so far, don't fit the definition of a conspiracy theory since there's enough public knowledge to draw these conclusions without speculating on things that happen in secret. It doesn't fit the definition of a conspiracy theory until after I speculate about things without adequate information to prove it; and there is adequate information to prove the conclusion they're manipulating the system in secrecy.

Furthermore if the current nominees, who're both involved in so many scandals they should never be taken seriously for presidential candidates, aren't a result of a bizarre conspiracy; then it would be even more absurd than if they are. There should be no surprise that both of them are having even more scandals exposed now that they've been declared the presumptive nominees by the traditional media. Most of these are additional revelations about old scandals; and the media could have done much more to cover them and remind the public about how corrupt both of these nominees are if they wanted to.

Anyone familiar with typical political manipulation tactics might wonder why they can't do a better job picking a candidate that at least appears to be a reasonably good choice and doesn't have the lowest approval ratings since records have been kept. And they have the two worst ones in history at the same time.

They do have good enough political operatives to realize that this would be a disaster.

It doesn't take a genius to suspect something absurd is going on here.

Even before the story, still being ignored by mainstream media, Guccifer 2.0 Leak Reveals How DNC Rigged Primaries for Clinton 06/17/2016, broke it was obvious that the media has been trying to present Hillary Clinton as the presumptive nominee for years, long before anyone had a vote in the primary. They also knew that she was involved in epidemic levels of fraud that date back decades. They had to know that if they provided her with reasonably fair coverage and also provided reasonably fair coverage for at least half a dozen other candidates, like they usually do she wouldn't have a chance. This is what they usually do and it still involves rigging the elections so that grassroots candidates don't have a chance since they ignore them.

But at least it seemed like a reasonable democratic choice to those that didn't think too hard.

They also had to know that if they kept manipulating the emotions of the vast majority of the Republican electorate so they could take advantage of their voting on social issues to impose fiscal policies that would dramatically increase income inequality more and more over the decades even some of these people would start realizing they've been fooled. They have enough research on demagogues that go back to Greek times to realize that they could be fooled by another one like Donald Trump.

They had to know that if they gave Trump insane amounts of free coverage that they were helping him to win the nomination by playing the latest demagogue. They've created enough demagogues of their own and they know that if they put him in a field with incredibly outrageous and incompetent candidates that he could beat them.

This is very similar to what they did to rig the primary for Mitt Romney who was an obvious sacrificial lamb in 2012.

Many of us predicted that if we fell for the same lesser of two evils choice then it would get even worse this year and it has.

This wasn't a paranormal prophecy on our part; it was simple logical deduction.

Amazingly even John Ellis Bush (JEB) claimed that he thought there was a chance that Trump and Clinton could be involved in a conspiracy theory; however the possibility that they're involved in such a straight forward conspiracy is highly unlikely since it would never have a chance if they didn't have help from people like Jeb Bush. In order for Trump to walk away with the nomination the way he did Jeb had to do an incredibly bad job and so did all the other candidates but they had enough advisers to know that they couldn't take such extreme positions, even though the majority of the public was starting to catch on, and still win.

This might not completely rule out a conspiracy to either use Clinton to help elect Trump or use Trump to help elect Clinton; but it would have to be part of a much larger conspiracy since they could do this in a much simpler way by giving their candidate better coverage without making both candidates seem like lunatics. If such a conspiracy is taking place it isn't just to elect the candidate of their choice; but they would want to do it in an incredibly bizarre manner!

Why would they even consider anything so absurd?

Also the claim that Donald Trump is anti-establishment is obviously false. Real anti-establishment never have a chance because they never get any coverage from the media at all. This is routinely explained by saying that he gets an enormous amount of what they've been calling "earned media time" as if they have no control of how they decide who to cover how much. The enormous amount of time that they gave to him wasn't the result of an accident. Their idea of "earned media time" clearly doesn't have anything to do with doing a good job explaining the issues so the public would have information they need to make decisions in their own best interests.

Additional evidence to indicate that he isn't anti-establishment is that his policies aren't different from the traditional Republicans and he is flip flopping as often as other candidates if not more often like traditional establishment candidates. The traditional establishment has been training "anti-establishment" to campaign against the establishment for decades then once they get into office they routinely demonstrate that they were part of the establishment all along.

They've been doing it so often that they have to make their "anti-establishment" seem more extreme and appeal to emotions more in order to make it work, which seems to have been what they're doing.

But it shouldn't take a genius to recognize ahead of time that it is bound to backfire if they take it to too much of an extreme while refusing to take care of basic functions of a functioning society like repairing roads maintaining and reasonable education and health care system and many other basic functions of society.

They have to realize that if they use political manipulation to steal everything they can get their hands on without carrying out basic functions it will backfire; even if they are scaring the majority of the public with threats from terrorists or crime, which are being greatly exaggerated. Even after the Orlando shooting terrorism isn't killing nearly as many people as car accidents, lack of health care or many other things.

That doesn't mean that some of the most common conspiracy theories aren't too absurd, and more important logically flawed, to be true; however many of them aren't anymore absurd than the official truth which is also logically flawed; so simply stereotyping them as an absurd conspiracy theory isn't enough to discredit them. No doubt there will be some seriously flawed ones to sort through before the public can confirm one that is more rational, assuming we do get enough sincere reform to sort through the details and expose the real truth.

Amazingly, intentionally or not, Hillary Clinton, her advisors and the political establishment may have taken actions to make one of the more farfetched conspiracy theories seem real. Religious extremists that call themselves "Fundamentalists" even though they don't start with fundamentals or get them right, have been calling her the “Whore of Babylon” for years if not decades, including this Yahoo discussion from 2007 Could Hillary Clinton become the “Whore of Babylon”? The case he makes would almost certainly not seem rational to most moderate religious or secular people, especially when it was written. But it should be enough to let the establishment know that they shouldn't try to make this absurd case against her seem to have some degree of legitimacy.

A close look at Revelations Chapters 17 and 18 which that discussion recommends probably wouldn't have fit Hillary Clinton's record without a large stretch of the imagination which only religious extremists might be inclined to do.

After her outrageous record as Secretary of State, however it might not seem quite so obviously absurd to some moderate religious or even some secular people, although it still has problems, some of which I'll get to. Even if, as Hillary Clinton supporters must believe, this claim is absurd it is hard to imaging they would want to create more similarities with her and any figure from the book of revelations, yet that might be what they did on the night that she allegedly won the California and New Jersey primaries giving her the delegates that she needed to declare herself the presumptive nominee.

When she made her speech she was dressed in white and they created light effects that seemed to give her an Angelic glow that made her look spectacular; but it was too much and obvious hype too anyone with a minimum amount of familiarity with these types of special effects. However hyping politics and everything else has become standard operating procedure; but this clip, which they played repeatedly in the days after it was more obvious than most.

This clip looked strikingly like Revelations 19;8 "His bride is ready, and she has been able to dress herself in dazzling white linen, because her linen is made of the good deeds of the saints." This seems trivial and if it was the only similarity with Revelations it would be irrelevant, especially since this is actually referring to the bride of the "Lamb" which some people might interpret as Christ, not the Whore of Babylon; however, the "Lamb" is also involved in a lot of violence to defeat those portrayed as evil, using same tactics as the evil ones, and there are a lot of other similarities to the Whore of Babylon as described in Revelations which became much stronger as indicated in the following verses:

17;1 One of the seven angels that had the seven bowls came to speak to me, and said, 'Come here and I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute who is enthroned beside abundant waters,

5 on her forehead was written a name, a cryptic name: 'Babylon the Great, the mother of all the prostitutes and all the filthy practices on the earth.'

6 I saw that she was drunk, drunk with the blood of the saints, and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus; and when I saw her, I was completely mystified.

16 But the ten horns and the beast will turn against the prostitute, and tear off her clothes and leave her stark naked; then they will eat her flesh and burn the remains in the fire.

17 In fact, God has influenced their minds to do what he intends, to agree together to put their royal powers at the beast's disposal until the time when God's words shall be fulfilled.

18 The woman you saw is the great city which has authority over all the rulers on earth.' Chapter 17

18;3 All the nations have drunk deep of the wine of her prostitution; every king on the earth has prostituted himself with her, and every merchant grown rich through her debauchery.'

4 Another voice spoke from heaven; I heard it say, 'Come out, my people, away from her, so that you do not share in her crimes and have the same plagues to bear.

5 Her sins have reached up to the sky, and God has her crimes in mind: treat her as she has treated others.

6 She must be paid double the amount she exacted. She is to have a doubly strong cup of her own mixture.

7 Every one of her pomps and orgies is to be matched by a torture or an agony. I am enthroned as queen, she thinks; I am no widow and will never know bereavement.

8 For that, in one day, the plagues will fall on her: disease and mourning and famine. She will be burned to the ground. The Lord God who has condemned her is mighty.'

9 'There will be mourning and weeping for her by the kings of the earth who have prostituted themselves with her and held orgies with her. They see the smoke as she burns,

23 never again will shine the light of the lamp in you, never again will be heard in you the voices of bridegroom and bride. Your traders were the princes of the earth, all the nations were led astray by your sorcery. Chapter 18

19;2 He judges fairly, he punishes justly, and he has condemned the great prostitute who corrupted the earth with her prostitution; he has avenged the blood of his servants which she shed.'

7 let us be glad and joyful and give glory to God, because this is the time for the marriage of the Lamb.

8 His bride is ready, and she has been able to dress herself in dazzling white linen, because her linen is made of the good deeds of the saints.'

11 And now I saw heaven open, and a white horse appear; its rider was called Trustworthy and True; in uprightness he judges and makes war.

13 his cloak was soaked in blood. He is known by the name, The Word of God.

15 From his mouth came a sharp sword with which to strike the unbelievers; he is the one who will rule them with an iron sceptre, and tread out the wine of Almighty God's fierce retribution.

18 You will eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of great generals and heroes, the flesh of horses and their riders and of all kinds of people, citizens and slaves, small and great alike.'

19 Then I saw the beast, with all the kings of the earth and their armies, gathered together to fight the Rider and his army.

20 But the beast was taken prisoner, together with the false prophet who had worked miracles on the beast's behalf and by them had deceived those who had accepted branding with the mark of the beast and those who had worshipped his statue. These two were hurled alive into the fiery lake of burning sulphur. Chapter 19

As I said previously there are always problems with trying to interpret Biblical prophecy; however religious extremists have already indicated that they believe Hillary Clinton is the Whore of Babylon; so even if most secular people don’t take it seriously it is worth considering this hypothesis since religious people believe it. Also there is an enormous amount of absurd behavior from both nominees the media and some of these similarities might be much closer than most people would have expected.

One of the problems that many religious people might be reluctant to acknowledge is from Revelations 17;17 “In fact, God has influenced their minds to do what he intends, to agree together to put their royal powers at the beast's disposal until the time when God's words shall be fulfilled,” which indicates that if people take this literally God is admitting that he’s influencing peoples minds so that they fall for this deception until God’s objective’s, what ever they are, happen. This should be an obvious case of entrapment. It also indicates that God is allegedly staging events so that his prophecies will come about instead of teaching people how to avoid them. Many of these prophecies include an enormous amount of atrocities so a merciful God would never try to bring them about.

Revelations 3;3 says "remember how you first heard the message. Hold on to that. Repent! If you do not wake up, I shall come to you like a thief, and you will have no idea at what hour I shall come upon you." This should also raise doubts which religious people are reluctant to acknowledge. If God or his messenger comes like a thief in the night as several other verses describe it, then he is shrouding his activities and motives in secrecy, assuming he exists and this is a revelation from him. This should indicate that God has an ulterior motive and is using us for his own purposes; not that he is a reliable source for moral judgement. The assumption that a God that inspires religion as described in the bible, and at best remains silent, or at worst actually incites a lot of violence or participates in it as described in the Bible is a credible source of morality is highly irrational.

However religious people believe this is a true prophecy and that God is merciful despite this and there seem to be other similarities they might point out to make their case. The Whore of Babylon is described as someone who has connections with kings and traders which could be similar to modern heads of states and corporate CEOs. These kings and traders are involved in enormous amounts of fraud and violence resulting in deaths of innocents. They also turn on each other when it suits their purposes developing alliances only when they think they can gain from it.

Hillary Clinton may have fit this description prior to being Secretary of State as First Lady or a Walmart board member; but as Secretary of State the similarities are much harder to completely deny, although they are vague enough that those that want to either completely deny them or say they’re overwhelming proof of what ever they want to believe can do so, and already are.

There are several stories about Hillary Clinton being drunk on numerous occasions, although the evidence behind these stories aren’t as strong as some of the other activities; but fundamentalists could still cite this as evidence that she’s drunk with power. There are also plenty of presumptuous news clips of her saying or implying that she’s the presumptive nominee before it wasn’t quite official and she acts as if there is no fraud surrounding the election even though there is enormous evidence of it.

There’s also evidence of her temper, including when she angrily said, “I’m sick and tired of the Sanders campaign lying about my record,” when she was actually talking to a Greenpeace representative and neither that representative or the Sander’s campaign was lying about her record, which was full of her own lies. One of the most blatant examples of her laughing about violence and turning on former allies was when she met with Qaddafi's son, Mutassim Gaddafi as part of the resumed diplomatic relations from several years earlier; then after the Libyan rebellion took place she pushed to bomb them increasing turmoil eventually turning it into a haven for terrorists. Most bizarre was when she was asked about it and laughed about the torture and killing of both Qaddafi and his son, Mutassim Gaddafi who she previously met.

This is far more like they type of behavior people might expect from “The Whore of Babylon” than someone that is trying to bring peace stability and fairness to the world.

Revelations 17;16 says "But the ten horns and the beast will turn against the prostitute, and tear off her clothes and leave her stark naked; then they will eat her flesh and burn the remains in the fire." This could bear some similarity to Hillary Clinton riding the Beast in, who could be Donald Trump, by taking his donations when they were allies then when they became adversaries they started attacking each other and exposing each others scams.

Is this beginning to sound too far-fetched? I'm sure it does, but this is not uncommon when it comes to interpreting the Bible. From a more rational point of view little of these Biblical conspiracy theories should be taken seriously unless there is much more corroborative evidence or something that we can be certain of.

However there is enough evidence that with or without a bizarre Biblical conspiracy It is insane to constantly pursue a foreign policy that involves constantly bombing people all over the world then trying to pretend we're holding a high moral ground. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump want to continue using military force when it suits their purposes without acknowledging that a major part of the reason people around the world hate the United States Government is because when we bomb people around the world we constantly kill innocent people refereed to as "collateral damage," which would never be considered justified when they bomb us; and the United States Government is also constantly selling weapons to many tyrants that are often either used to kill more innocent people or turned against us and used to kill our own veterans fight wars based on lies.

With or without a bizarre Biblical conspiracy we should do much more to ensure that the vast majority of the public has the information and education they need to participate in the democratic process. We also need to do far more to take care of simple basic functions like repairing roads and providing reasonable Health Care for the majority of the public, if not everyone.

With or without a bizarre Biblical conspiracy there is no reasonable excuse for winding up with two incredibly corrupt and incompetent nominees that the Media is telling us are the only "viable" candidates.

With or without a bizarre Biblical conspiracy there is and enormous amount of absurd and insane activities treated as if they're normal and acceptable by both the media and political establishment, who're not even trying to bring about sincere reform; instead they're trying to convince the majority of the public that the status quo can't be changed now or ever. this is true even though they often acknowledge that at least one of the major problems we face, Climate Change could cause irreversible harm if it isn't addressed with major changes.

Have they all gone collectively insane?

On numerous past articles I have pointed out that this could be one of many unsolved mysteries that the establishment isn't addressing properly. One of the earliest that I went into was 107 Wonders of the Ancient World which explains that there are major unsolved mysteries that go back to Biblical times including enormous megaliths moved large distances that shouldn't have been possible based on experiments to replicate these ancient wonders. This was followed up with several additional posts about a UFO Hypothesis with rational use of Occam's Razor The strongest evidence for a major unsolved mystery that might involve UFOs might be the megaliths of Crop Circles which I reviewed more in Why so few arrests for Crop Circles makers? Is there microwave evidence? This was followed up by a couple of articles about research that is definitely going on, however if there is something to the unsolved mysteries including UFOs they could be much larger research projects including "God's Not Dead" But Is He Nice? where I speculated about the possibility that if Ancient Aliens have been visiting our planet for decades and they influenced the moving of the megaliths thousands of years ago that they might be involved in large research projects that could include Climate Change research; and Multinationals Are Using Public For Research On Massive Scale where I reviewed medical research surrounding many common drugs as well as Genetically modified Organisms and anti-depressants.

No doubt this seems far-fetched to many rational skeptics especially if they haven't checked into the details or aren't aware of the unsolved mysteries that mainstream media and science institutions aren't adequately addressing so reasonable skepticism is understandable and advisable; however the current political establishment and media has become so absurd that the official version of the truth is becoming as far-fetched as some of the most bizarre conspiracy theories.

At best some of the theories considered are incomplete or rough around the edges but they do a better job addressing many of these unsolved mysteries that the traditional media does. I suspect, there is also evidence, as indicated in previous articles, that some of the highest profile experts aren't even trying to get many of their facts right, which enables them to continue arguing without resolving anything.

This is the same thing that goes on in the political establishment when it comes to trying to end corruption.

Whether any of these theories are close or not it should be clear that we need to do much more to reform out Democratic system and we can't count on our so-called leaders to do it for us. If they wanted to do a good job they would have done much better long ago before it became this insane. Even if these far-fetched conspiracies aren't true simpler ones are being exposed almost on a daily bases and we need much more disclosure that should be standard operating procedure.

Whether this is close to the truth or not neither nominee has been made official and if enough people speak loud and clear enough then we still have an opportunity to either get one or both removed as the nominee or take advantage of the incredibly high unfavorable ratings and finally convince people to vote for an alternative party candidate, finally breaking up the corporate duopoly.

Edit 11/10/2016: Since I first posted this plenty of additional evidence has come out confirming that the Democratic Party has been rigging the coverage in collusion with the media and even some more farfetched evidence indicating there are more similarities with the Book of Revelations have come out, although these haven't explained all the flaws; but there are more similarities than a rational skeptic might expect.

I provided a series of posts on the DNC leaks and the Podesta leaks providing stronger evidence than the more farfetched theories starting with DNC Describe Wink And Nod Method For Bribes & Indoctrination Studies and DNC leaks 2 3 and and the Podesta Leaks posts started with Impeachment Begins With Lesser Evil Choice Podesta E-Mails 2 3 4 and 5. These articles cover reliable conspiracies that have been conclusively proven although some of the details may still be subject to confirmation.

The evidence, if you want to call it that that might show additional similarities with the book of Revelations is less reliable, of course. However the similarities with some limited aspects of Apocalypse has increased even more with the vindictive campaign including the debates where Donald Trump said that Hillary Clinton would be in jail if he was president and the unprecedented vindictiveness at the Al Smith dinner. Both of these candidates were under criminal investigation during their campaigns which should have disqualified either from running for president, which indicates that even if the similarities to the Apocalypse aren't sufficient then there's still something seriously wrong. As the Apocalypse predicted the "Beast," which I indicated might have some limited similarities to Donald Trump defeated the "Whore of Babylon" which has some of the same characteristics as Hillary Clinton. These similarities were a result of actions taken by both political parties and their nominees, as farfetched as it seems I can't rule out the possibilities that they might have allowed it to look like the Book of Apocalypse.

They're certainly rigging far more of the politics than most of us suspected but it is hard to believe they would try to make it seem, to the most religious that the Apocalypse might be coming true; but they were that would explain the insane activities they've been coming up with. If not there's another explanation for this insanity and it's probably not what most people would expect. If they wanted to make it seem like the book of Revelations was coming true then presumably they would follow up by arranging for someone that appears like the "Lamb," which the Bible portrays as a reliable source of morality to defeat Donald Trump as the book predicts. However if they were really trying to bring in the salvation implied by the Bible they wouldn't do it by conducting a farfetched conspiracy, which should be enough evidence to indicate that the Apocalypse Prophecy can't be completely trustworthy even if they were foolish enough to try to make it seem like an accurate Prophecy.

The most effective way to bring about an ethical world would involve honestly educating the public as best they can, not participating in an insane conspiracy based on the Book of Revelations. Intentionally continuing these scams, whether it is the more rational ones exposed by Wikileaks or the fringe ones from the Book of Revelations isn't in anyone's best interests. It would be far more rational to end this and come up with full disclosure perhaps with some form of Truth and Education Commission although long term commitments without adequate information shouldn't be made like some past Truth and Reconciliations Commission including in south Africa where the people avoided permanent war but were subject to fraud from multinational corporations as a result of the long term conditions of the commission. Letting the perpetrators avoid the death penalty and perhaps stay out of jail might be a reasonable condition but allowing them to keep the loot they stole and even continue stealing more is not.

Since my I first posted this I also added a follow up to the previous post about using the public as research subjects; in Wanted unsuspecting research subjects I explained how the pharmaceutical companies are, intentionally or not recruiting potential unsuspecting research subjects with their ads. Like other articles on Conspiracy Theories I attempted to start with the most conclusive material before going on to the more speculative material. After going through with the more conclusive evidence that can be confirmed by traditional researcher this elaborated on the theory that Philip Corso might have been partially right when he claimed that he distributed alien technology which was reversed engineered. I speculated on the possibility that if this is true the Clinton Foundation might have been helping to finance this research with alien technology based on the assumption that if there is something to it there would be some organizing structure and it would have to be global and shrouded in secrecy like the Clinton Foundation.

Without further supporting evidence this part of the conspiracy theory wouldn't be considered very strong; however if it was close to the truth it's conceivable that they might be leading up to possible disclosure, although they're not doing it in a trustworthy manner. If there was something to this instead of participating in a bizarre Apocalypse conspiracy which only ads to their credibility problems they should just start coming out with the truth, at least to those that were willing to listen.

This means that even if they're doing something this farfetched they can't be trusted to handle disclosure on their own. If a grassroots effort were able to control it they would have to be flexible when conducting a Truth and Education Commission, assuming that is how the public wanted to handle it.

In an ironic coincidence I just found this picture as I was preparing this edit, which shows how insane this presidential election has been with or without a fringe conspiracy theory.

Edit 11/11/2016: As I was writing this update Donald Trump was meeting with Barack Obama who many right wing conspiracy theorists have referred to as the Anti-Christ or "false prophet" and they both spoke highly of each other. During the campaign Barack spoke about how Trump was unfit to be president and couldn't be allowed to win; now he clearly indicates that he will do what he can to ensure what they consider a peaceful transfer of power to protect the legitimacy of the electoral process even though leaks and the activities of the media and political establishment show it has absolutely no legitimacy at all. Now Trump is also speaking highly of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and it is already obvious that he is hiring many of the same establishment lobbyists that he claimed he would stand up to when he "drains the swamp." Actually it was clear that he was doing this months ago if not over a year; and there is little doubt that if the media really though he would stand up to them as well as the lobbyists they never would have given him the coverage he needed to get elected.

In 19:19-20 the Book of Apocalypse tells about how the beast will meet with Kings of the earth and be thrown "into the fiery lake of burning sulphur" along with the "false prophet." On top of that he is also promising to move the embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem recognizing it as the Capital, which could also be interpreted as a fulfillment of the biblical prophecies. If you Google Trump it isn't hard to find claims that he is also the Anti-Christ; of course since the Bible is so vague about many things it can be interpreted to mean what many people want and routinely is; however there are, as I said more similarities than I would expect as a rational skeptic so it is harder to completely rule portions of it.

Even though I don't see how Barack Obama could fit the definition of the Anti-Christ based on the reasons given by apocalyptic Christians he has been a charismatic speaker and betrayed most of his promises during the 2008 campaign like other politicians who routinely disregard the will of the people once they get in office. His scripted speeches during campaigns are much better than those when he is governing, promising not to hire lobbyists, to support GMO labeling, to stand up to trade deals infringing on the rights of the working class like he said Hillary Clinton did during his primary campaign and even promising to "put on a comfortable pair of shoes" and walk with protesters if union busting effort merited it.

Once he was in office he broke every one of these promises and many more.

Whether you consider many of the specifics of the Apocalypse to be real or not the epidemic levels of corruption are and they're flaunting it as much as they do in the Biblical version. And Conspiracy theories are now becoming more credible than the official version of the truth and the so called skeptics are routinely acting like conspiracy theorists, even Rachel Maddow.

Last night she came up with her own conspiracy theory about Donald Trump sharing information with the Russians. Like any other conspiracy theories there might be at least some truth to it including reports that she cited claiming Russia was in contact with the Trump campaign; however this is the type of conspiracy theory she routinely tries to stereotype and ridicule. She often seeks out the most ridiculous conspiracy theories like the worst of Alex Jones and highlights it to make it seem like they're all fringe.

She rarely if ever even tries to sort through conspiracy theories she's stereotyping to find out if there's any truth to them; nor does she try to pick out the best of them and discredit those, which often turn out to be true. When Wikileaks provided evidence to indicates that the elections really were being rigged she was one of the ones with conspiracy theories about how they were leaked while ignoring the fact that they exposed epidemic levels of corruption and proved some of the conspiracies she stereotyped were true. Instead she blamed people for not looking the other way at Hillary Clinton's corruption.

If there is something to a bizarre Apocalypse conspiracy and people are counting on a "Merciful God" to save them they're likely to be disappointed. If such a God existed and the best interest of the human race was his top priority he would have communicated long ago. He certainly wouldn't remain silent while dozens of demagogues use myths about him to control the masses and maintain a permanent state of war without finding a way of saying, "That's not what I meant!"

There are plenty of well informed people that know how to recognize these manipulation tactics and want to educate the public; if they had the resources to do so through the mass media they would; and if a merciful God existed he could and would do much better.

Now, whether there's truth to these theories or not, one of the most bizarre conspiracy theorists, Hillary ridiculed, often for good reason, since he isn't one of the more rational ones, is the president elect.

The reason for this is partly her own fault along with the corrupt political establishment she supports!

Amazingly there might be some people that actually believe in a version of this Apocalypse Conspiracy Theory that actually want to bring it about because they think it will bring in the return of Jesus. I don't know if they would vote for Donald Trump thinking he's the Beast or Anti-Christ but it wouldn't surprise me.

Edit 12/14/2016: Now that Donald Trump is president elect and choosing his cabinet his behavior is becoming increasingly irrational, not that that should be considered surprising; however it may look even more like there might be something to this far-fetched conspiracy theory about similarities between the Apocalypse conspiracy and his activities.

He’s picking cabinet members that clearly want to minimize control fo the government and often want to eliminate the cabinet they’ve been chosen to lead. Secretaries of Education, the SBA, the EPA and more have previously indicated that they shouldn’t have power to control industries they regulate and Betsy Devos wants to privatize education. Rex Tillerson has often been at odds with the United States government, which he’s now being asked to represent. And the bankers along with other financial executives that Donald Trump claimed he was going to stand up to and prevent from running the government is being asked to join his cabinet.

This is a disaster waiting to happen.

It may also look similar to the predictions in the Apocalypse.

I can’t completely rule out the possibility that something about this ahs been staged all along. Donald Trump has routinely been portrayed as being unscripted; however even Donald Trump must have known from the time he began his campaign that there should be no way for a campaign to succeed by starting out calling large groups of minorities “rapists” and using other divide and rule tactics.

There should be no doubt that people controlling the political establishment know how to do a better job exposing someone like him and provide a candidate that does a better job seeming to be rational than either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

It is hard to imagine why they would ever even consider staging something so insane but if they are it would have to be huge.

What could be bigger than this Apocalypse conspiracy that would even have a chance of making these seem like a worthwhile conspiracy? Or how could even this Apocalypse conspiracy theory seem worthwhile?

Would it be even more absurd or insane if there wasn’t staging going on?

Even if there was some sharing of alien technology as Philip Corso claims then it is hard to imagine they would consider this to be a rational way of using it, assuming they were looking out for the best interest of the public.

If there’s something to this there are even more questions that need to be answered than this theory would provide but it is clear that there’s no chance that the people controlling the political establishment have the public’s interests in mind. If they’re using alien technology they appear to be using it to increase their control of the public along with additional psychological manipulation tactics.

Their constant irrational behavior is a virtual invitation for conspiracy theories; and there has to be a reason for it

A few weeks ago when he had his dramatic dinner with Mitt Romney and Reince Priebus it was among many of the virtual invitations for conspiracy theories. His candlelight dinner looked like it could be an invitation to lots of demonic memes; as it turns out the only reasonably good one I found was based on Star Wars, but it was as rational as the official version of truth.

Whether you consider this theory sane or not, the official version of truth isn’t much if any more rational; if not it is even worse because if it is true then we’re likely to see the government take us over the deep end. Something is insane about large segments of the public accepting this incredibly corrupt crook as their president expecting him to reform the corrupt system that he’s obviously going to make even worse, assuming it is possible without a major collapse.

The following are some additional related articles or sources:

CNN: Hillary Clinton Falls While Boarding Plane 01/11/2011

State Dept. Says Clintons Are Not Partying in Dominican Republic as Was Reported 12/29/2012

Is Hillary Clinton Too Drunk To Be President? 05/30/2008

'No hand on the f***ing tiller': The moment Hillary Clinton let loose on Obama during booze-fueled rant, new book reveals 06/26/2014

Hillary called Obama ‘incompetent and feckless’ in boozy rant 06/27/2014

The Whore of Babylon

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Media Suppresses Causes Of Orlando And Texas Shootings Again

Believe it or not there is an enormous amount of good research that could help explain and prevent the root causes so that shootings like the ones in Orlando and Texas and many others are much less common; but for one reason or another the media refuses to report on it.

They also refuse to cover political candidates that do a much better job addressing these issues, although they have provided more coverage to Bernie Sanders than most grassroots candidates that address social causes that could prevent violence. If the media and political establishment have their way they will only give the public two options for president both of whom think the way to stop violence is to bomb more people in other countries even though the reason they often strike out is in retaliation for these bombings. Not that that is the only contributing cause but it is one of the most important ones.

There isn't just one contributing cause of these violent events and various shootings almost always have multiple contributing causes but there is research on many of the most important ones and the media could do a much better job reporting on them.

If they did then much more could be done to prevent the long term contributing causes of violence.

Instead they go through the same rituals only covering one or two of the contributing causes, usually gun control and mental illness; but they don't even do a good job covering those and they ignore other more important contributing causes.

The most important contributing cause is almost certainly child abuse leading to escalating violence; and another one of the most important contributing causes is that our own government is constantly training people to kill for wars based at least partially on lies or flawed ideological reasons; and they're simultaneously inciting retaliation from the opposition and refusing to seriously consider it as a potential cause for this violence.

I've reported on these in past articles before with extensive sources from peer reviewed researchers for a variety of the contributing causes; so instead of repeating many of these sources I'll cite some of the past articles below.

Apparently we're also having a growing problem where at least three years in a row there was an enormous amount of coverage glorying veterans on Memorial Day while only limited coverage has been provided for at least four shootings taking place during Memorial Day celebration involving veterans with emotional problems that almost certainly involved untreated distress from their military service and there are hundreds if not thousands more similar incidents each year. While the media has been providing an enormous amount of coverage of the Orlando shooting they've hardly provided any coverage for last months shooting in Texas, which turned out to be by a veteran; but while they provided most of the coverage for that this was not reported then when it was reported it was only briefly mentioned on national media, as reported in the following article:

Gunman in Houston Shooting Rampage ID'd as Army Veteran, Fired 212 Rounds: Cops 0/31/2016

The gunman who terrorized a quiet Houston neighborhood Sunday before a SWAT officer shot him dead was an Army veteran who served in Afghanistan and was suffering from depression, officials and family said Tuesday.

Dionisio Garza III, 25, had left San Bernardino County, California, for Texas last week to see friends in the area, Houston police said. But the trip turned into a shooting rampage in which Garza fired off 212 rounds and left another person dead and six others wounded, including two officers.

Garza "suffered from some depression," authorities told reporters. "His family indicated he wasn't feeling right and came here to hang out with his friend." Complete article

I reported on this same problem last year in Memorial Day Veteran Shootings Part of Much Larger Problem when there were two other memorial day shootings by veterans that hardly got any coverage from the traditional media. To see if it was part of a trend I Googled a little bit to see if there were more in previous years and found another on the year before, Isaac Sims an Iraq Vet Killed In Gunfight With Police Was Turned Away by VA Hospital. 05/27/2014 This search method turned up mostly more recent news even though I tried to Google for past years so there could be many more that could turn up in a more thorough search.

This doesn't necessarily mean that their military experiences or PTSD are the only causes for these shooting sprees; they almost certainly aren't. In most cases there is also a history of abuse that turns up in more thorough investigations if they're done well, to indicate that most if not all these people going on shooting sprees were abused as a child which taught them to deal with problems through violence. Sometimes this evidence comes out fairly quickly like when it was disclosed that Dylann Roof was abused by his own father who may have also taught him racism. He wasn't a veteran but researchers like Dorothy Otnow Lewis have indicated that when she looks close enough she always finds evidence of past abuse from murders that she researchers, although it takes time and the media doesn't do this research for most of them, especially recent ones. She doesn't just rely on claims of abuse from murderers, who often deny being abused; she also seeks additional corroborating evidence like hospital or police records or independent witnesses that don't have a motive to distort the truth.

In many cases additional contributing causes are added when a child who was raised in an authoritarian manner goes to boot camp and is taught to obey orders without question under extreme emotional distress. This is common in both military training and police training or even in training for security workers.

Our government is routinely training many of the people who go on these shooting sprees to be violent instead of teaching about the most effective ways to prevent violence.

Then they blame it on all the wrong reasons.

For example, there appears to be a significant amount of evidence that Omar Mateen almost certainly wasn't inspired by ISIS, even though he allegedly pledged support to them. He also allegedly pledged support to several other organizations who are often at odds with each others, which indicates that he probably isn't as familiar as the media implies with many if any of them; and he was almost certainly using this as a way to strike out for his own emotional problems.

There's also evidence to indicate that he had emotional problems prior to this incident and that he almost certainly shouldn't have been working as a security guard that occasionally did work for the government including at a court house. His first wife reported that he was abusive and the FBI allegedly asked that he be removed from security at a court house while investigating him, and they still kept him working at other locations.

The fact that he might have been a closet homosexual while also hating homosexuals shouldn't be as surprising as most people think; Roy Cohn who was an aid to Joseph McCarthy while he persecuted gays was also gay. He was also a lawyer representing Donald Trump at one point too. As I explained in Cause and Effect of Hatred irrational misplacement of blame like this is often a result of early abuse, although there hasn't been enough investigation into his past yet. It isn't inconceivable that if a small percentage of gay people who were often persecuted by people who thought he might be gay he might have tried to avoid this by becoming homophobic to convince people he wasn't gay. This might be even more common if they were molested as children and couldn't take out their blame on the people that molested them since they're often their caretakers.

The one potentially contributing cause that they do constantly cover is gun control and how it might prevent mass shootings. By spending so much time covering this without covering anything else people might get the impression that implementing gun control might solve all shootings; however this is virtually out of the question since it is almost certainly not the most important contributing factor and it definitely isn't the only one that needs to be addressed. There is a correlation indicating that states with more gun control have lower murder rates but it isn't that big; this shows a much bigger correlation with suicides especially in Alaska and Wyoming, both of which also have high veteran populations.

Even though reasonable gun control correlates with lower murder rates many of these same states also correlate with other contributing causes including the use of corporal punishment in schools which leads to escalating violence. However it doesn't take a genius to realize that if they made it harder to get assault weapons many murders could be prevented from escalating into mass murders.

Rick Scott said that Florida law enforcement was very good at catching people if they go on a shooting spree like this; however this hardly seems like it will be much of a deterrent if the people are suicidal, which appears to be the case in many cases; and Florida is one of the few states that are experiencing rises in murder rates while Most of the country is experiencing declines according to FBI Murder Rates Per 100,000 People by State. The get tough on crime policies that Rick Scott supports clearly don't work at all. State that are most likely to support the death penalty and allow corporal punishment in schools have the highest murder rates while those that don't support either are much more likely to have the lowest murder rates.

States that do a better job providing education, child care, reducing poverty and economic inequality also tend to have the lowest murder rates.

Unfortunately the politicians who support the worst policies often get the most political support from corporations since they enable them to get rich at the expense of the majority; however they also support policies that are much more likely to result in higher murder rates and violent crime. This includes both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton who want to respond to these problems by increasing the amount of bombing that we do to ISIS and people around the world that we can't get along with. They also both support increased arms sales to countries around the world and support tyrants that are allegedly our allies, at least for now.

One thing that should be easy to understand is that they don't like it when our military bombs us anymore than we like it when people strike out in anger, often at least partially in retaliation.

This would be an incredibly easy double standard for anyone who had access to reasonable reporting and is capable of rational thinking.

However our media doesn't provide reasonable reporting and a large percentage is routinely encouraged to make their decisions based on emotions by the media and political operatives that routinely try to incite fear about crime and potential threats of war, that are often based on lies.

Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein both do a much better job supporting policies that would help reduce violent crime; however in most cases they support them for different reasons and don't do as much as they could to educate the public about how they could also help reduce violence. Improving education and reducing economic inequality, among other things, are worth doing on their own but they also reduce the contributing causes of violent crime and more can be done to educate the public about it.

Edit August 10 2016:

Neither Hillary Clinton or the media have followed up on this shooting by reporting on the root causes of violence and how they escalate anymore than they have after past shootings; however according to, Father of Pulse nightclub shooter backing Hillary Clinton 08/09/2016 in an ironic twist they've added to the entertainment value of this story. The Clinton campaign, of course distanced themselves from this the shooters father; however there was little or no discussion about whether his fanatical views were passed on to his son; nor was there any high profile investigation into whether he was abusive in the manner he raised his son.

Seddique Mateen said, "I spoke a lot about that and wish that my son joined the Army and fought ISIS. That would be much better." however there was no consideration about whether abuse that often starts at an early age and escalates later with bullying might have escalated even more during military boot camp training. As reported in other above or other articles listed below many veterans who were prone to violence from an early age weren't screened properly and hazing in boot camp may ahve only added to his violent tendencies if he had joined the army. Hillary Clinton's campaign has disavowed any connection with this man; however even though they don't agree on everything they do agree on some of the training tactics which lead to escalating violence.

I have provided much more research into many of the most important contributing causes of escalating violence in many of my past posts, and they usually provide sources that did more extensive research which is available to everyone. The following are some of the most important ones which could dramatically reduce violence if more people knew about them:

Does child abuse and bullying lead to more violence?

Child abuse and bullying link in study long over due

Cause and Effect of Hatred

Ignored evidence linking corporal punishment, poverty and crime grows

Does lack of education increase violent crime? Religion?

How much does Income Inequality Affects Crime Rates?

States with high murder rates have larger veteran populations

Teach a soldier to kill and he just might

The tragedy of gambling politics in United States

How does gambling and gun control impact violent crime?

Politics, not technology, caused botched executions

Troy, Cameron, Gary all innocent? And executed?

Democrats do a bad job on crime; Republicans and the Media are worse!!

Politicians increase crime; Grass roots efforts reduce crime; Politicians steal the credit

Life Insurance and media companies are encouraging lots of murders

Union Busting adds to corrupt bureaucracy and incites crime

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Multinationals Are Using Public For Research On Massive Scale

Are you on any medication?

Type your medication into Google along with "Lawsuit" or "legal settlement" and see what you find.

After trying this with over a dozen drugs, including a few drugs so common that you wouldn't expect any problem with them, it appears as if most if not all drugs have been involved in one lawsuit of another; and many drug of food companies like Monsanto are constantly involved in one lawsuit after another. Yet most of them aren't mentioned often if at all in the traditional media; and there is no effort to inform the public that there are massive numbers of lawsuits going on at any given time for drugs that are supposedly safe and approved by the FDA.

As I explained previously in Human Research Subjects research isn't limited to what they refer to as "clinical research trials" which go through ethical reviews that supposedly ensure the the best interest of the public is protected. They also do a lot of research into things that take place under different circumstances through natural events even if they aren't intended as research projects.

In many cases they're able to research things that could never pass any ethical guidelines this way but circumstances in the political world create one opportunity after another to study things that probably should never be allowed to happen. The Flint Michigan Water crisis is one of the most obvious examples of that. They already had enough research to indicate that lead was poisonous so they should have known that this wouldn't be a rational idea but this provided them additional opportunities to research the details, and perhaps additional contributing causes and sort out the differences. This doesn't mean that it is why they allowed poor people to be poisoned for the sake of research; that is unlikely. However it provided an opportunity to do additional research even though that wasn't the intention of those involved.

There are plenty of other opportunities for additional research, with FDA approval or not, including some that might be financed by industries that might have an incentive to misrepresent the results like Daily low-dose aspirin could cut risk of certain cancers 03/03/2016 although unless the media establishment and political regulatory system discloses the source of financing the majority of the public wouldn't be able to find out if there is a conflict of interest selectively doing research that could increase profits for aspirin manufacturers. There are often as many conflicting opinions about benefits or risks of any given research including A Hidden Danger of ‘an Aspirin a Day’ 02/01/2016 and Daily Aspirin - More Benefit Than Risk? 04/26/2016

This may be a reasonable risk in many cases to research that enables medical science to continue to advance; however with rapid advancements in research most people have little or no choice but to rely on "experts" without realizing that many of these "experts" might have financial incentives to highlight research that enables them to sell one drug more than another or instead of no drugs at all. A large number of these researchers often get more financing if they do research for things that have a greater potential for increasing profits.

In the current political economic and academic environment the top priority for most research establishments isn't the best interest of the majority of the public at all.

It is the highest profits for multinational corporations.

Occasionally people who're more concerned about the damage bad research might do to the public get the courage to speak out but unfortunately when this happens they often don't get a chance to get their views across to the public thanks to the influence of powerful industries.

A few of these people were featured in Dark Side of a Pill including a former salesman who helped the FBI investigate pharmaceutical companies and a variety of lawyers and researchers who provided additional disclosures. They described numerous incidents where there appeared to be evidence indicating that anti-depressants may have accomplished the opposite of what they were intended to often even making nonviolent people violent and even potentially contributing to numerous murders.

At least a couple examples indicated that the courts found that the drugs almost certainly did contribute to some of the killings, in one case even saying that "if it weren't for the drug there wouldn't have been a murder." Another example summarized in the following excerpt demonstrates that they did a research on someone who had been arrest for murder in the Netherlands had been given drugs or placebos several times in jail then set up situations that might antagonize him and found that he was more aggravated when he took the drug than when he took the placebos. This was described in both the film, which gives a little more detail, and this article, which uses Google translator which is why it isn't proper grammar:

Inconclusive about medicine in murder case 02/06/2014

Hearing of four experts at the court in Leeuwarden has not really provided much clarity about the influence of the antidepressant paroxetine at the actions of the man on the night of 1 February 2, 2008 the then 36-year-old Murkje de Vries from Kootstertille to has been killed. The now 50-year-old suspect from Harkema shot the victim in the eaves of her home dead. The man had earlier that night in a house in Nijewei in Harkema shot his ex-wife and her friend. The two survived the attack. The defendant was convicted by the court for murder and double attempted murder in June 2009 to 24 years in prison.

During the trial lawyer argued Alie Westerhuis already claimed her client acted under the influence of antidepressant drugs he had swallowed. That argument was overruled by the court. On appeal, the lawyer brought her theory again forward. The court has to do research on the effects of the drug on the suspect. In Pompekliniek in Nijmegen, the man twelve days been given long turn paroxetine, another drug and nepmedijcijnen. He did not know if he got what. Three of the four days when he received paroxetine, he admitted afterwards that he was "irritated" had felt.

However, a realistic simulation of the night of the murder was not possible. The suspect had then drunk a lot in a relatively short time. Alcohol is strictly prohibited in the Pompekliniek. The four experts, including a psychiatrist and a toxicologist of the NFI can not say with certainty whether paroxetine has had a profound influence on the actions of the suspect, but they close it does not matter. Three out of four experts found that there were more factors -alcohol and stress which the suspect became violent. The court seeks to deal with the case on March 27 content. Complete article

There have been numerous other studies into murders and a possible correlation with Antidepressants including Every mass shooting over last 20 years has one thing in common... and it's not guns 04/02/2013 and SSRI Antidepressants: The Gateway Drug to Mass Murder. 04/24/2014 One or two of the cases cited in "Dark Side of A Pill" was also described in Canadian man who killed son while taking anti-depressants lobbies for freedom of David Crespi, U.S. dad (featured in "Dark Side of A Pill") who killed twins 10/22/2012 and some additional research is reviewed in the following article:

Falsified Drug Studies Led to Millions of Children Receiving Dangerous Antidepressants 04/20/2016

In 2001, the pharmaceutical company SmithKline Beecham (now GlaxoSmithKline) published a trial known as Study 329, which claimed that the drug paroxetine – known as Paxil or Seroxat – was “generally well tolerated” and that it helped cure depression in children and adolescents. This led to some two million youngsters being prescribed the pill in the next year alone.

But the study ignored the fact that the drug may cause serious side effects, including suicide. Re-analysis of Study 329 by a team of independent researchers showed the drug was no more effective than a placebo, and that the risk of harm was significant, with at least 12 out of 93 children taking the drug developing suicidal thoughts. GlaxoSmithKline was fined $3 billion for one of the biggest frauds in American healthcare history.

This is but one example of pharmaceutical industry influence shaping the outcome of scientific research. A recent study, published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,evaluated 185 meta-analyses, and found that one third of them were written by pharma industry employees, who were 22 times less likely to have negative statements about a drug than unaffiliated researchers. Almost 80 percent of the studies had some sort of industry tie, either through sponsorship (funding of the study), or conflicts of interest, where one or more authors were either industry employees or independent researchers receiving industry support (speaking fees, grants, etc.).

In a 2006 study examining industry impact on clinical trials of psychiatric medications, industry-sponsored trials reported favorable outcomes 78% of the time, compared with 48% in independently funded trials. Antidepressants are one of the largest pharmaceutical markets, yet it is likely that the problem of scientific fraud extends to other drugs and vaccines. The need for oversight (government and industry) is increasingly obvious. Complete article

Of course industry representatives would argue that some of these studies are biased or flawed, and there's always room for more peer review; but their views are of course also bias or flawed, and most of the critics that raise major doubts about the safety of these drugs don't have financial incentives to oppose them. The pharmaceutical industry might argue they're based on antiscience ideological grounds, or something like that; but many of the critics are academics or researchers that recommend medications under the right circumstances but object when they're being overused.

Another major problem with prescribing antidepressants is that many physicians that prescribe them often aren't taught to look for non medicinal contributing causes of depression that might be solved without drugs. I may not have the medical expertise to personally determine when antidepressants are worth considering some the time but while reviewing causes of escalating violence I have found enough evidence to indicate that the most important contributing cause is almost certainly early child abuse and corporal punishment leading to escalating violence. The same research often indicates that early child abuse also leads to many other problems including increased depression.

I went into the research that proves that early child abuse leads to escalating violence in numerous previous posts including Does child abuse and bullying lead to more violence? and one of the more recent ones is Steven Pinker "Better Angels of Our Nature" ignores most important root causes of violence which explains why I believe that many academic sources including Steven Pinker have either been influenced by ideological beliefs or by financial motivation from well connected people in the academic world that have been influencing research for financially biased reasons.

Steven Pinker and many other academics, especially economists, also support an economic system and many wars that benefit the rich while the rest of us pay the price for it. It is virtually guaranteed that this will also lead to increased depression, including post-traumatic stress for veterans who were indoctrinated through boot camp intimidation tactics to believe what they're told by their leaders. When working people see their wages suppressed while white collar workers from upper classes get much higher pay for jobs like creating deceptive advertising it doesn't take a lot of research to realize this could be a contributing cause to depression.

Yet instead of trying to solve these potential contributing causes for depression the pharmaceutical industry ignores them and tries to promote their medications instead as a solution, which works well for the ideologues that don't want to acknowledge or rectify flawed economic ideologies that enrich some at the expense of the vast majority of the public.

Any one with a little bit of basic sense should understand that when you can solve a psychological problem by finding the root causes and addressing them it is better than relying on potentially harmful drugs including many that haven't been properly tested or that might have risk of side effects. Many of the experts like James Garbarino or Barbara Coloroso that I cited in previous articles about child abuse leading to escalating violence routinely make recommendations that have nothing to do with risky drugs; instead they advise ways to prevent abuse from escalating or leading to depression later in life, or perhaps find ways to avoid stressful situations that are unnecessary.

Research on mind altering drugs is only a fraction of the research done without full knowledge of the majority of the public but evidence for a lot of it can be found by those that recognize the basic characteristics of research, which unfortunately a large percentage of the public isn't taught to understand especially the least educated. Evidence can be found in many non-fiction books about a variety of things including Marion Nestle "Food Politics" 2007 or Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke "Blue Gold" 2002.

In "Blue Gold" Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke describe an enormous amount of research into how polluting water is impacting peoples health and they also describe how the water nanotechnology industry is far more advanced than most people realize is being shielded from government oversight thanks to political connections. They write, "Similar resistance to government oversight is found in the emerging water nanotechnology industry, which is being forced to counter the alarm bells going off within some scientific and environmental communities over free nanoparticles –mobile particles able to separate from the property into which they were introduced and roam freely in nature or the body. There they can find their way into skin, lungs, livers, and kidneys and even break the blood brain barrier." (Maude Barlow - Tony Clarke "Blue Covenant" 2007 p.98-9) This is just one of the examples of research into how water, which is common and safe in nature before industrial pollution or advanced technology, is now being used for the benefit of corporations who are using it for their own benefit with little or no regard for the well being of the majority.

In "Food Politics" Marion Nestle reviews a large number of research done on mostly natural foods and how healthy they are, and she provides much more reliable information than the traditional media which makes and enormous amount of money selling ads to corporations profiting off of unhealthy food. She also reviews a large problem with political influence over regulations and how the media uses psychological manipulation simple or complex to manipulate and mislead the public. One of the most common and simplest method the media has used is propaganda describing the government as the "Food Police" trying to force people to eat healthy. This is most common on right wing TV like the Hannity show. But it is blatantly false; the government rarely ever seriously considers that, except for Michael Bloomberg's absurd attempt to regulate the size of soft drinks. Instead what the government has, at times, tried to do is ensure that people have accurate information to make rational decisions and in most cases they don't even do that thanks to pressure from the food companies.

One of the most blatant examples that Marion Nestle points out is when the cattle industry sued Oprah Winfrey when she informed the public about how red meat could increase the threat of heart disease. This is just one example of corporations trying to use the legal system to corrupt research that she points out and the biggest ones are probably lower profile. They also used their enormous political influence to ensure that dietary supplements weren't subject to government regulations. Marketers of these products aren't required to provide accurate claims, for the most part, unlike other foods or drugs. Only in the most extreme cases do they consider filing legal action against these companies for misleading advertising, which is at an epidemic level. However one of the rare occasions where they did file legal action was against former Governor Bob McDonnell who was sentenced to two years in prison 01/06/2016 although the Supreme Court may let him off the hook, for influence peddling. Both Donald Trump and Ben Carson have also been involved in helping to market dietary supplements with misleading claims but there is no threat of prosecution for them, since it appears to be legal. The bigger problem for them seems to be political since the news of their activities may have impacted their campaigns but their constituents seem to be so poorly educated that they don't seem to care or understand the implications.

If these constituents aren't concerned about Ben Carson believing the pyramids were used for grain storage or that both of them have been involved in enormous scandals including Trump University or running gambling institutions which can't succeed without misleading players who don't seem to understand that organized gambling can't succeed unless they rig the odds overwhelmingly in favor of the house. This is just a small sample of the political connections that politicians have with drug companies, the dietary supplement industry and many other industries that are researching activities or products that could have a major impact on public health without full disclosure or much if any discussion in the traditional media. One of the most extreme and controversial examples is The World According to Monsanto which was exposed by a French author and director who most people in the United States have never even heard of, unless they rely on alternative media outlets that are much more likely to report on this.

The traditional media that control's over ninety percent of the mass media in this country isn't even trying to do a good job reporting on this or many other subjects any more.

This includes a major law suit that Monsanto has recently lost but the traditional media has only provided a token amount of coverage for it, including the following article, which hasn't been widely distributed:

St. Louis jury orders Monsanto to pay $46.5 million in latest PCB lawsuit 05/26/2016

ST. LOUIS • A jury on Wednesday awarded $17.5 million in damages to three plaintiffs and assessed $29 million more in punitive damages against Monsanto and three other companies in a suit here alleging negligence in the production of PCBs.

The 10-2 verdict in St. Louis Circuit Court ended a nearly-monthlong trial in one of a string of suits — some won by the defendants and some pending.

This case, which went on trial April 28, involved just three of nearly 100 plaintiffs claiming that exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Some died and their claims were made by surviving relatives.

The lawsuit claims Monsanto knew about the dangers decades ago but falsely told the public the compounds were safe, and continued selling it into the 1970s. Rivers, streams and some food humans consume still contain some levels of PCBs.

“This is the future,” said plaintiffs’ lawyer Steven Kherkher, of Houston. “People don’t know that PCBs cause cancer and that Monsanto has been suppressing” it. Complete article

Monsanto may have addressed some of the problems with Round Up, or at least they claim they have, but there are many more which a search of the internet turns up, and they seem to have an enormous amount of protection from government and media which is looking the other way at almost everything they do. The biggest problem they're most widely known for is almost certainly Genetically Modified Organism's which the traditional media almost never discusses but much more information can be found in alternative media outlets which have been reported on a series of laws reducing consumers right to know what is in their food while often claiming the opposite as reported in several articles including Obama's Broken Promise on GMO Food Labeling 10/06/2011 and Americans Will Know Less About GMO Products With New Food Label Law. 07/22/201 Even though tehy get no help from the traditional media or the political establishment grassroots organizations are raising the alarm and organizing people to speak out against it including this petition drive, GMOs should be Properly Labeled! We have the right to know what we are eating!

This is not fringe science, many of the researchers exposing these experiments or deceptive political activity are reliable scientists that have far more credibility that many of the so-called experts that are featured on the mainstream media. Anyone reasonably familiar with academic work who looks that the so-called experts presented by the media on any give subject probably recognizes how flawed their claims often are.

However there have been disclosures about some of the sources for a lot of this advanced research that should be considered with caution, at least until much better peer review and disclosure is provided to the general public.

This includes claims that starting in the late forties after the crash of something, whether it was a weather balloon advanced technology by a traditional government that most people never knew about or an alien craft of some sort, at Roswell New Mexico. All the sources that I know of of these claims have some credibility problems but some of the unsolved mysteries surrounding these events haven't been fully explained by the skeptics who often make as many mistakes as the "fringe" believers of one thing or another. The first claim is probably from Bob Lazar who first started claiming that he worked at Area 51 in the eighties but a close look at his record raises major doubts, although he may have gotten some things right, he doesn't seem like a reliable source. The most recent claim that I know of is Video emerges of 'Lockheed Martin scientist' claiming aliens are REAL and that he worked at Area 51 on UFO technology 12/08/2014 which may not be much if any more reliable; but the most reliable source that I know of, even though he also has some problems, is Philip Corso, author of The Day After Roswell who claims that he distributed some of the technology retrieved from UFOs and distributed them to numerous corporations including Monsanto Dow Chemical and many others to develop.

In several previous posts about this subject including UFO Hypothesis with rational use of Occam's Razor and Why so few arrests for Crop Circles makers? Is there microwave evidence? I reviewed some of the alleged evidence of UFO activity and found that there were an enormous amount of mistakes from both the high profile believers and skeptics and began to wonder if they're even trying to do a good job on either side.

There is major evidence of unsolved mysteries but most of the explanations, including the traditional supposedly scientific explanations have a lot of mistakes. The most conclusive evidence of a major unsolved mystery is ancient megaliths well over a hundred tons and experiments that didn't succeed above ten to forty tons in moving them with ancient technology or the technology they supposedly were limited to as I reviewed in 107 Wonders of the Ancient World. Additional unsolved mysteries may include Rasputin, Edgar Cayce, Lúcia Santos and the incident at Fatima, Edward Leedskalnin, Padre Pio, José Arigó and Uri Geller, all of which can't be fully explained by skeptics even though the believers in some of the mysteries surrounding these people have flawed theories to explain them. Since there is evidence of numerous major unsolved mysteries, including some that have rock solid evidence it is worth considering different possibilities, at least until corroborating evidence either proving one version or another, or at least conclusively disproving some of them.

This includes ancient aliens theories, even though the highest profile ones as presented on the History Channel have serious credibility problems, as I explained in previous post about Occam's Razor UFO Hypothesis. After looking at many of these mistakes it seems obvious that they should have caught an enormous number of them if they tried, but none of them that I know of disprove the basic claim that some form of interstellar travel is possible possibly using artificial intelligence and long term travel. This might be explained by what I call a "Recruit a group of crackpots" MJ-12 hypothesis.

However with or without help from alien technology there are numerous things that should be clear, but in many cases our government and the media isn't acknowledging them.

With or without alien technology there should be more disclosure about research when people are being used as science subjects; however from a scientific point of view many people that understand it would never accept an enormous amount of this research, which is why it is much more difficult to get willing research subjects with full disclosure.

With or without alien technology it is foolish to pursuer economic political and social beliefs that result in epidemic amounts of environmental destruction that seems to be escalating to a point that might eventually be irrecoverable.

With or without alien technology it is foolish to maintain a permanent state of war especially when there are alternative which can prevent it. These alternatives are available like simply not selling arms to countries around the world when a relatively consistent percentage of them is eventually turned against us. Peace advocates have come up with numerous other suggestions but neither the government or the media is willing to listen or give them any help getting their views to the majority so they can be scrutinized.

With or without alien technology epidemic levels of inequality are unsustainable.

With or without alien technology much more should be done to give the vast majority of the public the information they need to participate in the democratic process, instead of allowing six corporations controlled by a fraction of one percent of the public to control over ninety percent of the media that reaches the majority of the public.

However if some of what Philip Corso said before he dies then an enormous amount of the technological development over the past fifty years is a result of alien technology and they're using us as research subjects as a result of it. If he's wrong then we're still being used as research subjects, just without the alien technology.

In Chapter fifteen Corso writes, "General Trudeau encouraged me to start contacting plastics and ceramics manufacturers, especially Monsanto and Dow, to find out who was doing research on super-tenacity materials, especially at university laboratories. My quick poll paid off. I not only discovered that Monsanto was looking for a way to develop a mass production process for a simulated spider silk, I also learned that they were already working with the army." This clearly indicates that if the government has retrieved some alien technology then Monsanto would be among many corporations using it to develop their products and profiting off of it. It would also mean that it would be necessary to do an enormous amount of research to confirm it even if they have help from aliens, since there would still be some research necessary.

More recent stories have confirmed that Monsanto has been working with the United States Military but not necessarily for the reasons described by Philip Corso. According to Truthout and several other sources US Military and Monsanto are Targeting GMO Activists and Independent Scientists according to a 2013 Investigation, 11/13/2016 and even more disturbing, Monsanto apparently bought an Army of Mercenary Soldiers formerly called Blackwater 05/22/2013

If Corso is right about sharing technology with multinational corporations then an enormous amount of the advanced military technology developed including night vision, precision bombing and much more has been developed with alien technology. This means that instead of using technological research to benefit people they're using as part of a political plan that maintains a permanent state of war.

If Corso didn't share technology with corporations then advanced military technology is still being used to maintain a permanent state of war, just without the alien technology.

We have enough information to know our government is more concerned with controlling the public either way than they are about educating them in the most effective way to stand up for their rights and avoid unnecessary wars. Or at least people who're accustomed to checking alternative media outlets instead of the traditional media have this information; and even those who rely on traditional media might know this if they look close enough and think things through.

This sounds absurd to many people but if there is some truth to it then it could explain the rapid development of technology over the past five or six decades. Our civilization has advanced at a much slower rate for thousands of years if not million; but then after only a few decades it advanced much faster than most people could have imagined including an enormous amount of technology way beyond most peoples comprehension that would have been considered science fiction decades ago including genetic modification, cloning, nanotechnology, and enormous amount of medical technology, advanced computer technology, propulsion that enables automated spacecrafts to reach beyond Pluto, and manned spacecraft to orbit the planet, and much more.

Could all of this really have been developed naturally?

It isn't just fringe people that believe these ideas should be taken seriously although some of the higher profile people that claim it should might not all be sincere. People that think there are major unsolved mysteries worth considering include many top scientists, military people, pilots, police and even politicians and lobbyists.

Even Bill and Hillary Clinton claim they believe there might be something going on; and one of their leading campaign workers, John Podesta, has come out publicly calling for disclosure! When he was part of the Obama transition team there were a lot of people in the UFO research community that thought he might encourage Obama to be the disclosure president.

That didn't happen and perhaps they shouldn't have been surprised. Nor should they be surprised if Hillary Clinton manages to get elected and then quickly forgets about attempts to look any further into it. John Podesta is a founder of the Podesta Group lobbying for many of the biggest multinational corporations in the world including many that would be taking advantage of alien technology, assuming there is some truth to Corso's claims and another one of Hillary Clinton's campaign managers is Jerry Crawford a Monsanto lobbyist.

If Corso's claims are partially true then both Clinton and Podesta and many others have ties to those profiting off of this technology and therefore they have no incentive to come clean. Even if they did presumably they would have already done so but they keep getting caught in one political scams after another; but for some bizarre reason the entire political establishment continues to rig the election for them. Clearly they can't be trusted to disclose anything if they have any choice with or without alien technology.

This may still seem to absurd or insane to be true; however there are other things too absurd or insane to be true.

It's also too absurd for the entire political and media establishment to get behind Hillary Clinton even though they knew that she has a ridiculous number of scandals surrounding her. It is to absurd to believe that the media establishment couldn't help themselves when they gave Donald Trump enormous amounts of air time that enabled him to get the nomination, while refusing to give grassroots candidates any time, and they call this "earned media."

The entire political establishment is to absurd to be true, yet either it is true or there's and equally absurd conspiracy to make it seem true.

There should be no doubt the truth is absurd and insane for one reason or another.

Whether this bizarre conspiracy theory is true or not the establishment politicians that have little or no regard for the best interest of the majority don't think the majority of the public should know when they're eating genetically modified food. Only candidates not favored by the establishment like Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein think the public should have the information they need to make important decisions.

Bernie Sanders Interview ‘Cancelled Because Monsanto Was Threatening to Sue’ 11/28/2015

Regardless of what you think of this theory here are plenty more stories about lawsuits over drugs that have had negative effects which have only been reported in a low profile manner; and after searching the internet for them a relatively short time it is fair to say that there are thousands more where these came from which can be found with enough time to search the internet more:

Big Pharma is making you stupid: Common cold medicines and heartburn pills found to shrink the brain and slow thinking 04/25/2016

American Cancer Society: Does talcum powder cause cancer?

Lawsuits Over Baby Powder Raise Questions About Cancer Risk 05/23/2016

Life-Threatening Side Effects Prompt Xarelto Lawsuit Filing 05/25/2016

The prescription blood-thinner Pradaxa was considered an upgrade from warfarin because it limited strokes. However, in May 2014 the manufacturer settled more than 4,000 lawsuits for $650 million.

The anti-smoking drug Chantix has been linked to severe psychological disorders, including suicide. Thousands of people who were injured have filed lawsuits. In 2013, Pfizer agreed to settlements in most cases.

Lawsuits accuse Pfizer of actively advertising Zoloft to pregnant women even though studies show that the drug increases the risk of babies developing autism and birth defects. Drugwatch can help you to identify your legal options.

Antidepressant Lawsuit - Zoloft, Lexapro, Paxil, Prozac, Effexor

Monsanto Roundup [glyphosate] weed killer was recently designated as a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization (WHO). Farmers, farm workers and those living near farmland in which Roundup or other glyphosate products are used are at risk for developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other forms of cancer. Consumers across the United States who have been diagnosed with cancer due to Roundup or glyphosate herbicide exposure are making the decision to file a Roundup lawsuit.

Monsanto legal cases

St. Louis jury orders Monsanto to pay $46.5 million in latest PCB lawsuit 05/26/2016

MIT Scientist Uncovers Link Between Glyphosate, GMOs And The Autism Epidemic 05/11/2016

MIT doctor reveals link between glyphosate, GMOs and the autism epidemic 03/20/2015

U.S. lawsuits build against Monsanto over alleged Roundup cancer link 10/15/2015

Organic Farmer Dealt Final Blow in Landmark Lawsuit Over Monsanto’s GMO Contamination 02/12/2016

Monsanto Files Lawsuit to Stop California From Listing Glyphosate as Known Carcinogen 01/22/2016

GNC lawsuit reflects FDA’s crackdown on dietary supplement industry 10/27/2015

Oregon AG accuses retailer GNC of selling drug-spiked dietary supplements 10/23/2015

U.S. files criminal charges, lawsuits against sellers of Jack3d, other supplements 11/17/2015

The Governor And The Supplement Co.: The Bob McDonnell Scandal By The Numbers 04/30/2013

Ben Carson's Mannatech Problem 10/29/2015

Trump Vitamins Were Fortified With B.S. 05/25/2016 You give the Donald your urine and a stack of money? That’s what he wanted, in exchange for a customized vitamin regimen that a Harvard doctor deems a ‘scam.’

$15 Million Settlement Reached in Bayer Aspirin Class Action False Advertising Lawsuit 10/18/2012

FDA Liver Damage Warnings for Tylenol, Other Acetaminophen Products

24 years in prison for murder Kootstertille 04/24/2014

Prosecution calls for 30 years for murder Kootstertille 03/27/2014

24 years in prison for murder in Kootstertille 06/04/2009

Agri-Culture of Corruption 04/20/2016

Kentucky settles lawsuit with OxyContin maker for $24 million 12/23/2015

Questions abound after study links tumors to cellphone radiation 05/27/2016

Power Lines And Brain Tumors: Assessing The Risk 01/03/1993

Why Senator Bernie Sanders’ GMO Labeling Amendment to the Farm Bill Failed: Monsanto’s GMO Money 06/27/2012

Bernie Sanders on Agriculture

Jill Stein's Power to the People Plan Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.

How Do Presidential Candidates Weigh in on the Issue of GMOs? From Trump to Clinton to Sanders 10/27/2015

Former FDA Commissioner Worried over GMO Labeling 06/07/2016

Jill Stein Weighs In on the Organic Food Debate 09/06/2012