Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Barack Obama betrayed Police Veterans and Blacks

Barack Obama made a very good point during his speech in Dallas Texas when he said, "As a society, we choose to under-invest in decent schools. We allow poverty to fester so that entire neighborhoods offer no prospect for gainful employment. We refuse to fund drug treatment and mental health programs. We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book. And then we tell the police, 'You’re a social worker; you’re the parent; you’re the teacher; you’re the drug counselor.'”

The last part echoed a statement made by the Dallas Police Chief Brown's statement; however regrettably he didn't follow it up with any attempt to further explore the root causes that lead up to shootings both by police and of police, or how to prevent them.

One thing Barack Obama and the majority of the political establishment fail to mention is that it isn't our entire "society" that is involved in the decisions to "under-invest in decent schools," it is mostly the political establishment and the propagandists that give the public selective information to make their decisions, partly controlling those decisions.

There has been plenty of research to explain the leading root causes of violence and how it escalates for decades; however it is rarely mentioned in the media. On the few times they do mention it a little they quickly forget about it and return to the propaganda that counteracts it over and over again.This is one of those examples, where Barack Obama made a good point without acting on it or repeating it often.

When it comes to the issues that he really supports and wants to act on he repeats his efforts over and over again often without mentioning contradictory views that might raise doubts about his position like his support for TPP or many other issues.

With the constant portrayal of the problem of a conflict of Black Lives Matter and police it would be helpful to point out that the leading contributing causes to both the police and to poor people living in poverty are the same. Not surprisingly police face a greater threat where murder rates are higher than they do in states with lower murder rates. according to the Officer down Memorial page ten out of thirty-six officers that were killed by gunfire were killed in the ten states with the highest murder rates; only three were killed in the ten states with the lowest murder rates; five out of nine killed by vehicular assault were in the ten states with the highest murder rates; only two in the ten states ones with the lowest; the only accidental shooting was in one of the ten states with the highest murder rates. If you check past years the correlation is repeated often even stronger.

The root causes of violence have been thoroughly researched for decades and the best research is getting even better but this is rarely mentioned in the traditional press or considered by politicians including Barack Obama when making policies that might impact crime. Some of the best researchers have been reporting on this in lower profile books since at least the eighties if not much longer, perhaps including Benjamin Spock's first book in the forties; and I have been trying to report on this at least since 2011 when I first posted Unacknowledged Censorship in Arizona about Jared Loughner and followed it up with several more posts exploring many other contributing causes to escalating violence including a series of posts starting with Ignored evidence linking corporal punishment, poverty and crime grows and ending with Politicians increase crime; Grass roots efforts reduce crime; Politicians steal the credit

As I've indicated in past posts, which provided much more evidence to prove cause and confirm it with correlations, the most important long term cause of escalating violence is almost certainly early abuse to children that leads to escalating violence later in life, including bullying, hazing, domestic violence and even murder. Other additional contributing causes of violence are increased poverty, income inequality, lack of education or economic opportunities, abandoned inner cities and several other additional contributing causes.

Unfortunately in most cases when the most effective ways to reduce crime contradict the best interests of corporations that support opposing views and donate to political campaigns the entire political establishment, including Barack Obama routinely favor corporate interests, unless there is overwhelming opposition, often only at the local level. This is why some of the areas where people are most active at the grassroots level often have the lowest crime rates, including murder. Vermont is one of the states with the most active grassroots movements often attending town halls holding their elected officials accountable and they've had nearly the lowest murder rates for years if not decades according to FBI reports listed at the Death Penalty Information Center. Richmond California has a much higher murder rate but they've proven, in the last ten years, or so, that with efforts at the grassroots level that murder rates can be brought down dramatically even in abandoned inner cities when local people act.

However they don't reduce violent crime by listening to the misleading propaganda coming from corporate media or the typical political establishment.

They keep violent crime down by doing much better research and addressing the root causes of violence before it escalates.

There have been numerous claims that murder is rising in many cities in the last few years however complete records are often slow to come from the FBI; but it appears as if it might only be partly true, but perhaps only in the cities that do the worst job addressing the root causes of violence including Milwaukee which has some of the most irrational politics from their leaders and had riots break out recently following a shooting by a cop.

Barack Obama the media and the rest of the political establishment could have done much more to educate the public about the most effective ways to reduce violence; unfortunately they're far more concerned with serving the political interests of the few than the best interests of the majority. However Milwaukee and relatively nearby Madison Wisconsin might be a good example of some very dramatic differences in the way they address escalating violence and policing; howsoever, the comparison may not be simple in some ways since Madison has less than 6% African American population and Milwaukee has more than 36%.

However there is a dramatic difference, for one reason or another in the Murder rates in Milwaukee Wisconsin which are typically three or four times the national average and there is little or no sign of improvement. The Murder rates in Madison Wisconsin are much lower typically a third of national average rates and sometimes as little as a fifth of the national average. For one reason or another there is a major difference here and it would be premature to jump to the conclusion that the reason for this difference is race without looking at other details. The differences between policing is dramatically different; in Milwaukee media coverage is often dominated by David Clarke who is among the most authoritarian conservative sheriff's in the country almost in complete denial about any potential problems with police.

In Madison some of their practices may have been developed by former police chief David Couper who takes a dramatically different approach and has been a major advocate for police reform for years. One of his articles, Hazing and Bullying in the Police Academy explains how hazing is used to indoctrinate police officers in the same manner that it is used to indoctrinate veterans to blindly obey orders and to use bullying tactics including violence to get others to obey. This is a major contributing cause to escalating violence that often begins earlier in life, as I explained previously in posts about how corporal punishment leads to escalating violence. Cadets, whether at the police or military academy learn how to escalate tensions instead of deescalating them in this manner. Many of the most authoritarian cadets that were raised in a similar manner may respond well to this, or at least they seem to, since they've often been through it before but this is part of an indoctrination process that teaches authoritarian thinking without developing critical thinking skills.

Children that are taught this way learn to obey orders without question and believe what they're told without fact checking, as I explained in previous posts about Philip Zimbardo, Lucifer Effect, Stanford Prison Experiment and Eli Roth’s Milgram/Obedience experiment much more extensive than most people realize research previously either financed or at least supported by the Office of Naval Research was done to find out why Nazi's blindly obeyed orders and became more violent, supposedly to avoid having it happen again. Unfortunately the military has been involved in boot camp training for decades if not hundreds of years to get their recruits to obey orders. One of the reasons they blindly obey orders is because that is what their leaders want and they've studies how to get obedience; and, even though they claimed they were trying to teach people to stand up to authorities in some of the reports about these research projects when they develop boot camp training tactics they don't do any such thing, and it is being used as part of a process to teach blind obedience, despite claims to the contrary.

The media typically reports both veteran shootings and police shootings as random events, and usually only at the local level, so the vast majority of the public probably doesn't even suspect how often they happen. It wasn't until grassroots organizations started compiling police shootings and dramatically increased their protest about them that the media increased coverage a little; however they still quickly forget most of them and make little effort to compile a list to report on how often they happen. Christopher Jordan Dorner, Manuel Pardo, Eulalio “Leo” Tordil and Tech. Sgt. Steven D. Bellino are just a handful of the police officers with military experience that went on killing sprees and there is some evidence to indicate that their boot camp training or hazing might have lead to arguments or obsessive behavior contributing to these shooting sprees. Both the shooters killing police in Dallas and Baton Rouge were also trained by the military and went through boot camp training and hazing to teach them to deal with their problems through violence or the threat of violence.

In Teach a soldier to kill and he just might and A Brief History of Cops Convicted of Murder I provided much longer lists of shooting sprees by veterans and police that have been trained to kill by our government. They include reports of how domestic violence is also higher among both groups and so is suicide. These happen much more often than the media reports. Instead of reporting on this they report an enormous amount of propaganda glorifying both police and veterans without mentioning the problems; which clearly provides misleading images to those who don't check facts.

Any killing of police, as many people say, is too much; however it could just as easily be said about everyone else including those killed by police and there is a routine by police and the media to make it seem like there is a much greater threat to the police than there is as I pointed out in The threat to police is greatly exaggerated where I cited police deaths that have been dropping for decades and reached a all time low in 2013. at the time they reached this all time low they were claiming it was getting worse for them, as they had a few years earlier in 2009 when the New York Post reported The war on cops is getting worse even though that year was less dangerous than any previous year and we now know that it went down even further before climbing back up. It's still to early to thoroughly review the statistics since it went up in the last couple years, especially this year sine the reports aren't complete; however it is still less dangerous than other trades as The War On Cops, Debunked 08/01/2016 indicates police are 14th most dangerous out of 17 trades, however the threat in other trades is less dramatic and rarely reported widely.

However clearly there still is a threat to police and this doesn't mean that it is justified to target them; but the most effective way to get the trend to continue going down isn't going into total denial like David Clarke and many other people from police unions or the political establishment. But if the people shooting them openly say they're retaliation for oppressive treatment by the police and there are enormous lists of incidents indicating that there are many examples where police are acting in brutal ways then total denial of any problem on the part of David Clarke or police union leaders won't do anything to help solve the problem. It doesn't take much to find just a handful of the thousands of incidents reported at local levels where police get out of line and in some cases even when there are no charges towns pay out massive amounts in lawsuits at tax payer expenses; or in the rare occasion where police are found guilty and sentenced it isn't nearly as long as a civilian would be.

North Miami Cop Who Shot Unarmed Man Charles Kinsey: 'I Did What I Had to Do' 07/22/2016

Texas police officer slams 112-pound black woman to the ground twice during arrest (WARNING — GRAPHIC VIDEO) 07/21/2016 “Ninety-nine percent of the time, when you hear about stuff like that, it is the black community that is being violent," Spradlin said. "That’s why a lot of the white people are afraid, and I don’t blame them. There are some guys I look at, and I know it is my job to deal with them, and I know it might go ugly, but that’s the way it goes.

Former Seabrook officer sentenced in brutality case Richardson to spend 21 days in jail 11/13/2016

Mass., N.H. troopers charged in beating video case 07/19/2016

Woman punched by Calif. cop settles for $1.5M 09/25/2014

Anyone that wants to find them can find a hundred times as many stories if they look through the cop watch sites now available on the internet. No doubt the police like David Clarke might dismiss this as "cop Haters" as they often do however even if some of these sites do resent cops more than is called for they provide long lists of examples which can be verified independently if anyone is worrying about bias. And it is important to keep in mind no matter how often the media or police say these police are here to "Protect" us many people in abandoned inner cities where the police often don't come at all when they're called or they treat residents all like criminals know this isn't always true, in some of the wurst cities they often feel as if it is never true.

When corporations ship their jobs overseas dump pollution in their back yards, suppress wages so they can't afford to function properly in a society do the police "Protect" them from corporate corruption.

Not likely however if they protest and get ignored by the entire political establishment which doesn't address legitimate concerns and keep on protesting until they get some action then the police jump to action.

Not to protect the citizens, though but to suppress protests without actually addressing concerns.

If those with political power had to put up with this they would be outraged. They might even understand why people herded into ghettos by the political establishment might riot when the only "hope" and "change" they get is broken political promises.

Tom Barrett also demonstrated ignorance of how violence escalated as a result of authoritarian child rearing tactics when he said, "If you love your son, if you love your daughter, text them, call them, pull them by their ears, get them home." Does he think this is the most effective way to educate children to obey orders? If this is a common attitude about how to raise children in that city perhaps it isn't surprising that they have such high murder rates. In addition to restoring the education and economic system with local jobs they clearly need to learn much more about proper educational methods.

If someone suggested that Tom Barrett's children should be controlled by "pulling them by their ears" would he be outraged? More important would his children be outraged and resent it eventually learning to respond to their problems with intimidating tactics? Are they more inclined to use these tactics or corporal punishment on black children?

It's hard to know for certain without further research at the local level; however there are plenty of reports to indicate that in the states where they still do allow corporal punishment in schools they use it much more on black children. In "All God's Children" Fox Butterfield traces how violence was taught from one generation to another in the Bosket family tracing the methods back to their slave owners in the nineteenth century. These methods are often taught by those with the most political power to those with the least. However when child rearing tactics changed starting with "Baby and Child Care" by Benjamin Spock, along with other books from the same time by additional child rearing experts with similar methods, were almost certainly taught much more widely in middle class white America where they had much more success teaching ways to develop critical thinking skills. Not all black families stuck with strict authoritarian manners of raising their children but regardless of race these methods have proven ineffective and teach observance and to solve problems with intimidation tactics that lead to escalating violence.

By recommending the parents "pull their children by the ear" Tom Barrett is recommending more of the tactics that lead to escalating violence!

Tom Barrett is the candidate the Democrats ran for Governor against Scott Walker in both 2010 and the recall elections. It appears to be part of the common trend where neither candidate representing the major parties is truly standing up for the people based on the best research. In 2014 they ran a business women. For all practical purposes neither parties even consider social workers, human rights advocates, worker or consumer rights advocates.

Corporate America seems to own the government.  

If they want to understand how to reduce violence in the most effective manner possible the most important thing is to teach children at a young age how to use other methods to solve their problems and provide adequate preschool education before they learn to strike out in anger after problems escalate as more modern child rearing expert like Barbara Coloroso author of Kids Are Worth It! could explain to people in abandoned inner cities including Tom Barrett and David Clarke. Although Barrett and Clarke might be reluctant to listen but if they lose all their followers they will be less relevant and the public can have much more success solving their problems by following methods used by cities that have had much more success reducing violence in previously abandoned inner cities like Richmond California as I explained in Politicians increase crime; Grass roots efforts reduce crime; Politicians steal the credit

People in some of these abandoned inner cities like Baton Rouge know damn well that the police are less concerned about reforming the problems when they storm protesters on private property where they had permission to be there as demonstrated in a couple videos including Bill of Rights be damned, Baton Rouge police raid a protest being held on PRIVATE PROPERTY. and Baton Rouge home owner "very upset" after police storm her yard arresting protesters who had permission to be there.

They also demonstrate there is a serious problem when Sheriff Raids House to Find Anonymous Blogger and former Police Officer Who Called Him Corrupt. 08/04/2016 Even if they're not corrupt this clearly isn't the way to handle this complaint and there would still be a problem with the former police officer making false accusations in that case; however their response strongly indicates that isn't the case.

What did Barack Obama or the traditional media have to say about this?

Very little if they mention it at all.

In most cases they just repeat the same propaganda about how glorious our veterans are or the police who are "protecting" us without doing much if anything to correct the educational and economic conditions that lead to escalating violence.

If people aren't in total denial is it that hard to understand how Micah Xavier Johnson and Gavin Long who went through boot camp teaching them to obey orders and respond to problems through military means might get upset when they realize after coming home that they're not being treated with respect by the country they pledged to defend. The government lied to them when they said they were being sent overseas to protect our country based on lies and they lied when they said they would provide resources including mental health if necessary for them when they came back.

Not that I expect most reasonable people to agree with the extreme and counterproductive methods they used; however when the political establishment continues to suppress legitimate protests, ignore the best research about solving social problems rigging elections and conducting other activities that the majority of the public have to pay for then there are bound to be repercussions and they aren't always going to be rational.

Simply telling people to believe what they're told and obey police officers even when they're behaving irrational isn't going to solve the problem.

Both the murder rates and the rates of police being killed in the line of duty are near historic lows; however in the last couple years the rate of police being killed may have inched up a little, indicating a possible reversal of this trend.

There is enough research available to teach the public and the political establishment how to get those trends going back down; but they're not going to do that by glorifying violence and war without fixing epidemic levels of political corruption and election rigging or a media establishment that is far more concerned with increasing profits by relying more on violence for entertainment value than tehy do to educate the public about how to reduce it.

When Barack Obama and the rest of the political establishment refuse to allow peaceful protests to work they're betraying the whole country and risking unpredictable repercussions that could come unexpectedly from unknown sources, often the ones they train.

These shooters may not have been justified but the real cowards are Barack Obama and his political cronies hiding behind secure gated communities while their decisions endanger the rest of us.

Deray Arrested By Baton Rouge Police For Walking #FreeDeray #StayWoke #BlackLivesMatter

Arkansas sheriff's deputy shot dead responding to disturbance call, suspect arrested 08/10/2016

CPD alerts cops that 3 West Side gangs plotting to shoot officers 08/0/2016

City declines to identify cops in O'Neal fatal shooting, cites their safety 08/09/2016

Justice Department report: Baltimore police routinely violated civil rights 08/09/2016

John Kennedy quotes Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

DNC Conspiracy is Real Their Excuse Is Conspiracy Theory Only

How many people are likely to overlook the fact that there aren't any denials that the E-Mails that were leaked by Wikileaks are accurate?

The lack of denials is virtual proof that they're accurate; and that they've been far more concerned about manipulating the public than they've been about serving their interests; either that or incredible incompetence from the DNC.

As for the Russian conspiracy to hack the DNC server, that hasn't been proven; and it is one of at least three relatively high profile conspiracy theories to explain the hack. Even if it were true it still wouldn't change the fact that the DNC has been deceiving the public all along!

It is now routine for both nominees to get caught in one scandal after another virtually every week; and both of them are also using many of wildest conspiracy theories to attack each other or defend against their own scandals when  they can't come up with a better defense.

There are so many conspiracies being exposed and conspiracy theorists among the mainstream media that it must make Michael Shermer's head spin since the corporations and governments he usually defends are the ones getting caught while simultaneously promoting the Conspiracy Theories he ridicules, as part of his scientific beliefs.

* Wink and Nod Bribery Tactics * Hispanic and Other Demographic Groups Indoctrination Tactics * Betraying Karla and other Latinos for Political Reasons * Long List of Demagogues Selling Out Pretending to be Progressives * Bipartisan Worship of War * Infighting at the DNC including biased rigging of the Primaries for Hillary * Collusion with Consolidated Corporate Media to rig coverage so only Corporate candidates have a chance * Coverage of protests almost absent from traditional media * Russian or Mika Conspiracy Theories * Highlights of Additional Leaks *

Russian or Mika Conspiracy Theories

The most widely reported conspiracy theory explaining how the DNC computer system was hacked is that it was done by the Russians; however there is no conclusive evidence of that even though they repeat it so often that it often appears to conclusive and there are at least two other high profile explanations getting much less attention from the traditional media including WikiLeaks offers reward for help finding DNC staffer’s killer 08/09/2016 and NSA whistleblower says DNC hack was not done by Russia, but by U.S. intelligence 08/01/2016

On top of that Assange Slams Clinton Campaign, Says There Is No Evidence Putin Behind Wikileaks; 07/26/2016 he added "We have not disclosed our source and of course this is a diversion being pushed by the Hillary Clinton campaign,' said the founder of Wikileaks after publishing hacked DNC emails," which would be quite clear to anyone concerned about the rigging of the primaries.

Assange's claims seem to imply that he thinks it is more likely that Seth Rich might have been involved in the leak before he was killed; however he doesn't say that for certain. Even if he isn't involved in the leak his death does appear suspicious and should probably get more attention. According to 4th Mysterious Death Connected to the DNC 08/10/2016 other alleged conspiracies related to suspicious deaths are even less credible; however they've been adding to conspiracy theories surrounding Hillary Clinton to confuse the issue.

Even before the DNC leak was made public Guccifer 2 had already disclosed that the DNC had planned on HRC being the democratic nominee as early as May of 2015 long before even one primary was held, and before they knew that Bernie Sanders would provide as much of a challenge to her according to The Democratic Party’s Civil War. 06/18/2016

They didn't deny this anymore than they denied the leaks from Wikileaks implying it is also true; and their defense against that was the same conspiracy theory that the Russians were behind it so their alleged interference in our elections should be more important than the rigging of the elections, according to the people implicated in the leaks.

Additional alleged evidence for their Russian conspiracy theory includes flattering statements by Trump and Putin about each other and statements that they would be willing to work together, as well as new claims that his campaign manager Paul Manafort had connections with the previous corrupt Ukrainian government which was also supported by Putin. However Clinton also had connections with Russian and already gave them preferential treatment according to the New York Times, Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal 04/23/2015

This is a major part of a much larger trend with both campaigns; whenever one of them is involved in a major scandal the other also seems to be involved in a similar one. In most if not all cases Trump is involved in many scams like Trump University, not paying contractors, Casino scams where other investors lose money while he makes a lot, in the private sector; while Clinton is involved in one scandal after another including connections to the Clinton Foundation and her official duties in the public sector. In Clinton's case she collects enormous amounts of campaign donations and speaking fees from corporations that receive preferential treatment from the government when she's in office; but according to rules made by those involved this isn't considered bribery.

Trump outsources in the private sector; Clinton uses public office to help outsourcing; Trump suppresses wages by busting unions in private sector; Clinton's State Department lobbied to keep Haiti's minimum wage from rising to 61 cents from 31 cents, remained silent on the fight for 15 until it gained momentum then supported 12 to head it off; when she failed and it went up in NY and California she tried to take credit for it; Trump has 13 economic advisers from corporate sector including hedge fund managers; Clinton gets the vast majority of donations from hedge fund managers, presumably to encourage her to stand up to them, if you believe her.

This trend just keeps going on one issue after another.

Whether you call it bribery or not, while she's been fighting for us including the poor women children and workers the people she fights for keep getting poorer and she keeps getting richer along with her campaign contributors.

Is it any surprise that many people were skeptical when Clinton friend McAuliffe says Clinton will flip on TPP, then walks it back? 07/26/2016

This isn't the first time her backers have claimed they could rely on her once she gets in office, assuming she wins it wasn't that long ago that Chamber of Commerce President and Lobbyist Tom Donohue said Clinton Will Support TPP After Election. 12/28/2016 He said, "If she were to get nominated, if she were to be elected, I have a hunch that what runs in the family is you get a little practical if you ever get the job," and he has good reason to believe that she would do this since not only has she had a track record of doing just that but so have their other supporters that take their donations, including Barack Obama who also promised to stand up to free trade deals once elected, refuse to hire lobbyists and even "put on a comfortable pair of shoes" and march with protesters after being elected if necessary.

Barack Obama, of course broke everyone of those promises and Hillary Clinton has broken her share of promises after taking donations from the corporations that she claims she will stand up to; this includes her reversal as Senator on the banking bill after taking donations from the banks.

Choosing one of the leading supporters of TPP for her running mate adds to the doubts about her opposition to TPP and her surrogates blocked opposition to it in the Democratic platform. Of course she also called in "the Gold Standard" as secretary of state" before claiming that when she finally found out what was in it she decided to oppose it. It was actually watered down a little since then as a result of all the protests but it is still far worse than most people would support; however this is according to leaks, since the government has been reluctant to release the full details of the agreement they want to approve.

If it's so good why won't they let us know what is in the deal?

How did she negotiate it or come to the conclusion that it was "the Gold Standard" if she didn't know what was in it until her campaign when deciding to oppose it?

We're supposed to believe her when everything she says doesn't make sense and contradicts her track record.?

This is just the beginning of the conspiracy theories surrounding the election, and some of the more rational ones that are almost certainly at least partially true. However even when it comes to the less rational ones, or at least those that seem less rational there often seems to be some behavior on the part of the establishment that enables or encourages conspiracy theories and some of their defenses of them don't make much more sense than the bizarre conspiracy theories, implying the possibility that even though the conspiracy theories are often wrong their denials may also be wrong as well and that something else might be going on. On top of that they often use fringe conspiracy theories to distract from their corruption; so is it that surprising that some people speculate about the possibility that they might be creating them to look better by comparison?

Even though there's no evidence to support this hypothesis, they do take advantage of conspiracy theories when they come up to ridicule rational complaints along with irrational ones clearly using it for effective propaganda stereotyping their opposition; and even using it to justify using supportive audiences that have been screened by the campaign like in Orlando when they did a surprisingly bad job screening them and Seddique Mateen was smiling in the background while Hillary Clinton gave a speech honoring the victims of his son.

This high profile blunder gave some fringe conspiracy theorists the opportunity to create a meme falsely claiming that he visited Hillary Clinton's office while she was Secretary of State; however he did apparently visit the office after she had left, although many of his claims were almost certainly exaggerated. According to The Father of the Orlando Shooter Recently Visited Congress, State Department, Writes Open Letters To President Obama June 2016 he visited Washington in 2014 and posted many pictures on Facebook or other Social Media outlets. These photos don't appear to be faked including pictures with three congressmen; however according to Congressmen Dana Rohrabacher, Ed Royce confirm meetings with Orlando shooter's father 06/13/2016 and Congressmen Dana Rohrabacher, Ed Royce confirm meetings with Orlando shooter's father 08/13/2016 they were brief meetings in hallways without much if any further discussion, which they couldn't remember after the shooting.

Even though there is no evidence to a bizarre conspiracy it should be worth considering that the vast majority of their rallies are carefully staged with supporters rarely letting opposition in if they can screen them out. If they wanted to avoid embarrassing photo ops like this and stop staging their rallies they could easily find a consistent way of screening people and they wouldn't automatically assume that everyone in their rallies is a supporter or has been approved by the campaign. However they don't want to do any such thing since they use these staged rallies to make it seem like they have much more support than they do and it has worked for a long time; and still does, at least for constituents that rely on traditional media for their information.

Some of the bizarre conspiracy theories about her came as a result about her bizarre behavior which, intentionally or not have served to distract from more important issues like epidemic levels of corruption that really matter and lack of coverage of candidates that don't have all these scandals. This includes a bizarre joke from her about Hillary: I don't sweat ... because I'm a robot 10/12/2015 and an extremely weird laughing scene that distracted reporters from addressing issues and was later interpreted to be a possible epileptic seizure.

If the two leading candidates really did want to avoid bizarre conspiracy theories that distract from the issues, not only would they stop coming up with some of them but they could at least try to stop providing the bizarre behavior that encourages others to come up with even more. Some of the absurd theories actually make more sense than many of their promises, which have no credibility after their record or many of their bizarre conspiracy theories since the facts seem to provide circumstantial evidence that they might be true; like a relatively common one that Trump is helping Clinton rig the election for her with his odd behavior.

In many cases when she needs help getting out of one scandal or another he provides it intentionally or not by coming up with something stupid. Hillary Clinton's record and favorability ratings are so horrendous that she would never have any chance at all unless she was up against someone as outrageous as Donald Trump!

Even if most people don't take this absurd conspiracy theory seriously most of the time there is something seriously wrong with this situation and a rational explanation as to how we wound up in this situation. The DNC leaks exposed enormous rigging of the coverage for Hillary Clinton and as I reported in Can Hillary Clinton win without cheating? even that wasn't enough; they had to rely on voting irregularities to win or create the appearance that they won.

There is no doubt that Donald Trump and the extreme right wing exaggerate and even come up with absurd lies about many of Clinton's scandals; however that doesn't mean that there's nothing to them. In many cases, after sorting though the details, there are serious problems but the traditional media often doesn't do this; and the best criticisms of both candidates are often on lower profile alternative media outlets.

Whether this is intentional or not, it enables the Clinton campaign to claim that most if not all of the critics of her are fringe conspiracy theorists often with the help of the media that is supposedly impartial, or other allies of hers including President Obama. One of the most blatant examples of this is when He said "Of course the election will not be rigged! What does that mean? That's ridiculous. That doesn't make any sense."

After all the coverage of the DNC leaks this comment is as ridiculous or senseless as the claims he's trying to debunk! However he's right that it isn't being rigged against Donald Trump. Donald Trump has received enormous amounts of air time that gave him an enormous advantage and enabled him to get the nominee. As I've said previously numerous times including in this series of posts, the most effective way the media rigs elections, isn't the discussion in the leaked E-mails or the voter suppression described in Can Hillary Clinton win without cheating?, the elections are rigged when the media gives enormous amounts of coverage to candidates they like year after year, while refusing to cover those that they don't like so that voters only choose from those that the media tells them are viable.

The election is being rigged against the candidates that actually discuss the most important issues, and against the vast majority of the public that never gets to hear from the best candidates or many of the most important educational information that enables them to make their decisions!

Donald Trump won thanks in large part because the media gave him enormous amounts of air time for years as a reality TV star to build up his popularity; then when he declared his candidacy they provided enormous amounts of air time covering his rallies even though they didn't provide many other candidates including Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein nearly as much time and they avoided fact checking a lot of the issues for years, which continued during the election. There are plenty of psychologists studying what Irving Janis called "groupthink" and how crowds can be manipulated by demagogues. Is it really that unreasonable to think that advisers to the Trump campaign might be providing hims some advise about how to manipulate crowds? There are plenty of books where some of these manipulators virtually admit they're doing this including "Words That Work" by Frank Luntz and "The Lucifer Effect" by Philip Zimbardo that indicate that not only is it reasonable to speculate about this but it is virtually guaranteed that psychological manipulation research is routine; and the DNC leaks confirm some of the details behind that.

Even Mika Brzezinski has come out and said that she doesn't think Trump is trying to win after hearing Mark Halperin say his campaign makes no sense if he's trying to win. Rachel Maddow, often a skeptic of conspiracy theories, has also made similar statements, floating the possibility that many presidential candidates like Donald Trump and Newt Gingrich do it to sell books and other items or to increase their status so they can make money off of other scams. She has also provided an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence to indicate that even if that wasn't what they intended that was what they were doing.

Mika Brzezinski was also mentioned in the DNC leaks when Debbie Wasserman Schultz was trying to get management including Chuck Todd to stop criticizing her.

Could this be a conspiracy to give her credit for standing up to bad reporting? Absurd of course; however it wouldn't be the first time she did something that appeared to stand up to pressure; there was also a story about her refusing to read trivial stories about Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton and pass them off for news. They made a big deal about this for a while which might make her seem like the hero of MSNBC to many people; but considering her family connections is she really someone that is inclined to stand up to corrupt media?

It may not seem like a rational theory to most but there is no way someone without connections could get away with that and people with connections routinely get presented in a positive, often heroic way. As far fetched as it sounds I wouldn't rule this out or something similar. And I certainly wouldn't count on her to be the hero of the corporate media.

That still doesn't answer everything, since this research also indicates that they know how to do a much better job rigging elections and have been doing just that for decades without making it so clear.

There's a good chance that there's a much more far fetched conspiracy going on right now; but the simple ones joked about are either too simple or not nearly complicated enough. As I said before Yes Virginia There Is A Trump And Clinton Conspiracy but even though some smaller conspiracies have been proven if there's a bigger one involving something as absurd as Clinton and Trump working together it may be much bigger involving many other interlocking conspiracies and I won't completely rule out the possibility that if we could expose them it wouldn't stop until someone claims it involves UFOs and alien technology using us for a research project, assuming that hasn't already happened.

Even without such a bizarre conspiracy something extremely bizarre is going on at a time when epidemic levels of income inequality is escalating; environmental destruction and permanent war is threatening to cause escalating problems that could destroy society and the entire establishment is behaving insane.

Assange Claims ‘The Clinton Threat Machine Is Ferocious’ 08/08/2016

Wikileaks Says They Have 1,700 Emails Proving Hillary Clinton Knew About U.S. Military Weapons Shipments To Al Qaeda And ISIS 08/11/2016

Julian Assange: My Next Leak Will Ensure Hillary’s Arrest 07/24/2016

Highlights of Additional Leaks *

The following are some additional stories including some of the best leaks not previously covered in other posts in this series. They include efforts to help give Debbie Wasserman Schultz an unfair advantage in her own reelection campaign which she may wind up losing in less than two weeks now that her corruption has been exposed. Either that or her constituents are either complicit or perhaps more likely being used by more corruption.

Hacked Emails Prove Hillary Sold Weapons To Terrorists, Worse Than You Think 08/02/2016

Clinton State Department approved U.S. weapons shipment to Libya despite ban 10/20/2015

The Juiciest Leaks so far 08/0/2016

DNC Jusiest leaks so far

Here are the latest, most damaging things in the DNC’s leaked emails 07/25/2016

Freedom Rider: Wikileaks Exposes Democrats’ Corruption 07/26/2016

9 Leaked Emails the DNC Doesn’t Want You to See 07/23/2016

The DNC Is Playing ‘Chicken’ With Progressives 07/25/2016 Debbie “will continue to serve as a surrogate for my campaign nationally.”

Wasserman Schultz to Have a New Role in Clinton Campaign 07/24/2016

DNC sought to hide details of Clinton funding deal 07/26/2016

WikiLeaks releases hacked Democratic National Committee audio files 07/28/2016

In Leaked Recordings, DNC Shown Controlling Donor Access 07/27/2016

W: Question regarding 04/28/2016

HERE IT IS=> Detailed List of Findings in Wikileaks DNC Document Dump 07/24/2016

"Sha-dyyyyyyy" Secret DNC plan to win Sanders' Millennials by using LGBT issues. #DNCLeak

Re: Millenial Engagement Plan 05/05/2016

Re: Robbie Kaplan blast language 05/07/2016 For the invite you just sent me (Robbie Kaplan Blast language), you have to remove Tina Tchen’s name because there is a hard ask in the e-mail

RE: Gloria Allred blast language for lawyers approval 05/19/2016 When sending out an e-mail fundraising blast, the ask cannot have the appearance of being earmarked for the purpose of defeating Trump.

Christina Freundlich Woman who posed for a selfie at scene of East Village gas blast has been hired as DNC spokesperson 07/08/2015

Wikileaks E-Mail RE: need comms approval - craigslist job post 05/18/2016 From: Freundlich, Christina .... digital created a fake craigslist jobs post for women who want to apply to jobs one of Trump’s organizations.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Served Class Action Lawsuit for Rigging Primaries 06/30/2016

WikiLeaks releases thousands of documents about Clinton and internal deliberations 07/22/2016

Wikileaks E-Mail: RE: Offered support for Congressman Nadler 05/20/2016

Julian Assange: WikiLeaks will show how US intelligence interferes in European elections 08/10/2016

Paris strikes astonishing partnership with secret Isis sponsor tied to Hillary Clinton [EXCLUSIVE] 07/29/2016

Catastrophe: Hacker leaks phone numbers, email addresses of every House Democrat 08/12/2016

Julian Assange: WikiLeaks will show how US intelligence interferes in European elections 08/10/2016

RE: Getting on same page from Mark Paustenbach to Luis Miranda 05/20/2016

FW: Getting on same page from Luis Miranda to Mark Paustenbach 05/20/2016

With or without a fringe conspiracy theory it should be clear to people that check their own facts that the candidates the media presents as "viable" are often the most corrupt while those they decline to cover unless they're under enormous amounts of grassroots pressure are much less inclined to support corrupt policies benefiting corporations donating to campaigns like Jill Stein. As long as we allow the media to pre-select which candidates are "viable" we'll never have a political establishment that represents us or a real democracy.

Thursday, August 11, 2016

Corporate Media Rigging Elections By Rigging Coverage

Before the DNC leaks exposed epidemic levels of corruption in the Democratic Party and that they were colluding with many of the biggest media outlets, these media outlets consolidated into six large conglomerates that control over ninety percent of the media in the country, especially the media that reaches the entire country. Small alternative media outlets can reach the entire country but if no one knows about them they won't check them.

Several researchers including Robert McChesney, author of "Rich Media Poor Democracy" and "The Problem With the Media," have exposed the details of how they consolidated; but in summery the consolidation escalated in the eighties when Ronald Reagan eliminated the fairness doctrine and escalated even more when Bill Clinton allowed them to consolidate into six oligarchies. Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama tried to consolidate them even more; however they were faced with enormous grass root opposition.

Unfortunately the damage is done and we have already demonstrated with traditional establishment that the best we can hope for from them is to slow done the corporate take over of the government, not to reverse the damage they've already done, even though it will eventually escalate to cause escalating destruction to both the environment and enormous income inequality.

Some of the consolidated control of the media has become so routine that it is treated as if it is normal and justified including a recent article that dismissed on scandal by indicating that it is what they portray as a larger sex scandal. Not that I think sexual harassment by Roger Ailes isn't a big problem along with his other activities but the following exceprt and it's implications have hardly been noticed by most people:

Fox News Host Andrea Tantaros Says She Was Taken Off the Air After Making Sexual-Harassment Claims Against Roger Ailes 08/08/2016

..... Fox’s attorneys dispute this. The network says Tantaros was suspended with pay because she violated company policy by not allowing Fox to vet her 2016 book, Tied Up in Knots: How Getting What They Wanted Has Made Women Miserable. Fox attorneys told Burstein the network was embarrassed by her book’s cover, which depicts Tantaros bound by ropes. .... Complete article

By now a relatively small percentage of the public is well aware that the vast majority of good non-fiction books get little or no promotion from the traditional mass media and they aren't placed very prominently in chain book stores, unless there's an enormous demand created by word of mouth from people accustomed to reading alternative media outlets. This includes books, that expose epidemic levels of corporate bias, like the ones previously mentioned by Robert McChesney, books that expose advertising indoctrination methods like "Born to Buy' by Juliet Schor, "Consuming Kids" by Susan Linn, "No Logo" and "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, "Big-Box Swindle" by Stacy Mitchell and many more that the vast majority of the public don't know about.

Non-disclosure agreements or agreements to allow corporations to vet books before publishing are almost never mentioned at all by traditional media so hardly anyone even thinks about them or realizing that they exist at all, let alone realize how big the implications are for them.

Major celebrities have enormous potential audiences from the beginning simply because they're famous abut they couldn't become famous without the help of large corporations that require non-disclosure agreements which most of us aren't even allowed to know about.

What many people familiar with non-fiction books about a variety of subjects might realize is that the ones promoted by the traditional media that get enormous sales thanks to these promotions are among the least credible ones once fact checking is done with more credible books that are peer reviewed.

This includes books about how to prevent violence from escalating starting with early child abuse and bullying, while books from Nancy Grace get enormous promotion; books exposing how war based on lies are routine, while those from traditional war mongers like Bill O'Reilly get lots of promotion and turned into movies; books about school privatization from authors like Diane Ravitch or school segregation by Jonathan Kozol, while propaganda from Bill gates get enormous coverage and many more. If Andrea Tantaros's book is typical of the empty gab that comes from media pundits it is probably useless yet this is what they make a big deal out of; and this was true even before the DNC leaks exposed how corrupt the media is.

The media is already starting to move on and if the majority of the public forgets quickly enough then little or nothing will change from this but the majority of the scams exposed in these leaks haven't even been discussed in the traditional media any more than they discuss whether allowing a small fraction of one percent of the public controls well over ninety percent of the media, while the rest of us could be restricted to "free speech zones" where no one is listening is exactly what many of us were taught the first amendment was supposed to prevent.

Instead of preventing this from happening a perverted interpretation by the Supreme Court has been used to bring this about creating the greatest threat to our democracy since they can rig election by simply refusing to cover honest candidates and giving enormous coverage to clowns like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

If not for media malpractice could either of these two have ever even come close to getting the nomination with their outrageous records and incredibly high disapproval ratings?

* Wink and Nod Bribery Tactics * Hispanic and Other Demographic Groups Indoctrination Tactics * Betraying Karla and other Latinos for Political Reasons * Long List of Demagogues Selling Out Pretending to be Progressives * Bipartisan Worship of War * Infighting at the DNC including biased rigging of the Primaries for Hillary * Collusion with Consolidated Corporate Media to rig coverage so only Corporate candidates have a chance * Coverage of protests almost absent from traditional media * Russian or Mika Conspiracy Theories * Highlights of Additional Leaks *

Collusion with Consolidated Corporate Media to rig coverage so only Corporate candidates have a chance

The previous post about "Convention War Mongering Demagoguery Result of Indoctrination Research" already covered some of the collusion by the media to provide coverage favorable to the Clinton campaign over Bernie Sanders; I tried to provide links to most if not all E-mails even if some other reports don't however if I missed any or some of the sources don't do so simply use Wikileaks search engine to find the E-Mails or confirm them. In some cases if they don't turn out the E-Mail, before concluding that they're fake try a different spelling, since that occasionally causes legitimate E-Mails not to turn up in a search. The following are more stories or leaked E-Mails covering additional collusion and planting of questions or censoring of information that DNC didn't like, Starting with the New York Times, which is considered to be among the most reliable sources by many liberal politicians or voters:

New York Times Edited Bernie Sanders Article For Hillary Clinton’s Campaign by Edison Starkweather 07/27/2016

Emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee reveal that Nicholas Confessore suppressed information about Hillary Clinton’s victory fund in an article he wrote about Bernie Sanders. The New York Times political correspondent made the omissions at the request of Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer, Marc E. Elias, and DNC officials.

The emails, published by Wikileaks, also appear to show that Confessore made other edits to the article at the request of former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz. After Confessore’s revisions, DNC National Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach suggested that the DNC Chairwoman grant an off-the-record interview to a group of New York Times writers.

In an email to Paustenbach, Miranda writes, “We were able to keep him from including more on the JVF, it has a mention in there, but between us and a conversation he had with Marc Elias he finally backed off from focusing too much on that.”

The initials JVF stand for: joint victory fund, a name DNC staff use interchangeably with Hillary Victory Fund. On April 18, Bernie Sanders’ campaign questioned whether the DNC is using the victory fund as a way of “improperly subsidizing Clinton’s campaign bid by paying Clinton staffers.” Complete article

Re: NYT: Bernie Sanders and Allies Aim to Shape Democrats’ Agenda After Primaries 04/25/2016

DNC Wikileaks Email Hack Confirms CNN is in Bed With The Democratic Party 08/0/2016

In his piece entitled “DNC Wikileaks hack reveals Politico in bed with Dems,” American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson recently busted an “influential reporter” at Politico for running an article past a Democrat official for review before he submitted it to his Politico editor.

Now, another email made public by Wikileaks documents Jason Seher, Writer/Producer of The Lead with Jake Tapper, coordinating the content of an interview between Tapper and a representative of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Pablo Manriquez (AKA: “Pablo”), DNC Director of Hispanic Media. Complete article

Window closing on this. Need to know asap if we want to offer Jake Tapper questions to ask us.

Re: Pablo! 04/28/2016

Leaked emails reveal Politico reporter made 'agreement' to send advanced Clinton story to DNC 07/22/2016

An influential reporter at Politico made an apparent "agreement" with the Democratic National Committee to let it review a story about Hillary Clinton's fundraising machine before it was submitted to his editors, leaked emails published by WikiLeaks on Friday revealed.

Reporter Kenneth Vogel sent an advanced copy of his story to DNC national press secretary Mark Paustenbach in late April.

The email's subject line read: "per agreement ... any thoughts appreciated."

"Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn't share it," Paustenbach wrote in an email to Luis Miranda, the DNC's communications director. Complete article

Fwd: per agreement ... any thoughts appreciated 04/30/2016

Wikileaks Reveals Mainstream Media’s Coziness With Clinton 08/08/2016

Wikileaks E-Mail: Platform Rollout Plan 05/22/2016 w/o Chairwoman. I have pasted below some Q and A l thought might be helpful for everyone to see before the call. (Prepared questions and answers ahead of time for possible planted interview in Washington Post.)

RE: Tv coverage of protest great 05/12/2016 Yes, but going forward, when our allies screw up and don't deliver bodies in time, we either send all our interns out there or we stay away from it (Apparent discussion about sending interns to appear to be grassroots protesters when organizers from allies don't come through, and indication that the media is consciously covering establishment sanctioned "protests" more than real grassroots protests)

Wikileaks E-Mail RE: Video Request: msnbc right now 05/18/2016 Can we pull the commentary segment right now on msnbc? Talking about the DNC and the relationship between the DNC and the Clinton campaign With rush transcript please once it wraps up. Christina Freundlich

Re: Chuck, this must stop 05/18/2016

Numerous additional stories about conflicts of interests between reporters and politicians have been reported in the past; however they're generally reported very briefly and forgotten so most people don't suspect how often it happens. Even some obvious conflicts of interest like having a revolving door between political operatives like George Stephanopoulos who started out as a leading part Bill Clinton's rapid response team in 1992 before becoming a reporter claiming to be impartial covering Hillary Clinton campaigns and even donating to their foundation are routine, but rarely mentioned by media so only those who pay attention recognize this conflict of interest among the consolidated press.

Poof! CNN's Jake Tapper disappears from Clinton Foundation website: Column 05/20/2015

Journalists are supposed to report the news, not be part of it.

Yet another high-profile TV newsman may find himself embroiled in controversy over his connections to the Clinton Foundation.

Until late Tuesday afternoon, the Clinton Foundation website listed CNN anchor Jake Tapper as a "speaker" at a Clinton Global Initiative event scheduled for June 8-10 in Denver. After USA TODAY asked CNN about the event, Tapper's name was swiftly removed from the Clinton Foundation website.

One reason for CNN's quick reaction is easy to understand. Last week, ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos, once a political operative for former president Bill Clinton, was widely attacked after he failed to disclose $75,000 in donations to the Clinton Foundation even as he covered the Clintons. Complete article

The most effective way the consolidated commercial media rigs elections in favor of the two established political parties is to simply refuse to cove alternative or "third party candidates;" However when they gain enough support, despite medias refusal to cover them, they're pressured to provide a minimal amount of coverage on them; and they respond by discussing them as if they're fringe or trivial to give the public the impression they don't have a chance. Even when it is overwhelmingly obvious that these alternative media outlets are the only parties addressing many of the most important issues which the two establishment parties refuse to do so as demonstrated in Third party candidates won’t really matter in November 08/04/2016; where they portray them as a lost cause, trying to ensure that is what happens.

Of course unbiased news reporters don't celebrate when candidates that they don't officially support win even if some news stories make appear that they do like Watch CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Drink Wine and Dance in Total Not-Celebration of Hillary Clinton 07/29/2016 CNN claims that he was "only celebrating the end of the network's coverage of both parties' national conventions" Perhaps he has good reason to celebrate along with a few of the other high profile talking heads that practically never cover grassroots candidates like Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or many others that don't even get as much coverage as these two considering how much a few of these pundits get paid.

Some of these estimates may fluctuate; but they can be confirmed either through the sources cited here or by searching each individual on Google:

Wolf Blitzer Net Worth: $16 million Base Salary: $5 million

Rachel Maddow Net Worth: $20 million Base Salary: $7 million

Chris Matthews Net Worth: $16 million Base Salary: $5 million

Anderson Cooper Net Worth: $100 million Base Salary: $11 million

Bill O’Reilly Net Worth: $75 million Base Salary: $18-28 million

Sean Hannity Net Worth: $80 million Base Salary: $29-30 million

Megyn Kelly Net Worth: $15 million Base Salary: $6 million in 2013

'Megyn will demand a salary equal to Bill O'Reilly': Kelly's threat to quit Fox 'is a bargaining chip to give herself a pay rise to $15million' already up to $9 million now 04/08/2016

If they had a free market for people willing to cover the news including grassroots candidates I have no doubt that they could find people for much less money; however if they provided fair and balanced coverage I find it hard to believe that they could get advertising revenue from corporation profiting off of political corruption at the expense of the vast majority of the public.

They aren't paid to do a good job giving the public the most accurate information they need to participate in the democratic process; they're paid to maximize profits for corporations by indoctrinating the public with propaganda while suppressing coverage on grassroots candidates!

Coverage of protests almost absent from traditional media

Not surprisingly when the media is colluding with the DNC or almost certainly the RNC as well to cover protests that they help stage, they're much more reluctant to cover real grass roots protests. On the rare occasions when they do cover a fraction of them they often present them as interruptions while only selectively reporting on their concerns, at best. It takes time to cover the details well on many subjects but the best protesters with the most rational concerns rarely ever get that time in the mainstream media and get portrayed as trying to interrupt other speakers, which the establishment give plenty of time to speak, often even implying that it is the protesters trying to interfere with the speakers free speech rights.

If we had equal rights to free speech and the protesters had their chance to provide opposing views to the majority and they still interrupted speeches then I might agree that they're interfering with other people free speech rights; however when the same people repeat the same propaganda over and over again and the most important issues are not discussed fairly remaining silent while protesters are relegated to "free speech zones" or blog posts where hardly anyone knows to look then remaining silent about the real censorship is far more justified than the consolidated media

During the DNC there was so much protest that even the mainstream media couldn't completely ignore it; however there was much more than they let on; and they quickly stopped covering the protests even though some of them continue on a regular basis at rallies. They only cover a fraction of those as well. Searching alternative news outlets on the internet does a far better job finding out what is really happening. This clearly indicates that this democratic process isn't remotely legitimate and isn't addressing the vast majority of concerns of the people that pay attention to many issues.  They also show some of the tactics the Democratic Party use to cover up some of these protests as much as they can get away with.

The mainstream media would have the public believe that those that are more interested in sports or celebrity worship or other issues all support the agenda of multinational corporations; however these people are the least informed and even many of them are outraged.

The following are a much large sampling of the protests at the Convention as well as some from before or after; however it is still only a small fraction of the protests outraged with epidemic levels of corruption. For additional information click on articles or pictures most of which have additional details for the protests.

‘What A Disaster’: Boos, Catcalls Mar Hillary Clinton’s Coronation Speech 07/28/2016

Here’s What Philly Cops Thought of the DNC Protests 07/29/2016

How DNC protesters say Philly police are treating them 07/31/2016

Why America Couldn’t Hear Or See Bernie Protesters During Hillary Clinton’s Speech 07/30/2016

"No More War": Protesters Disrupt Ex-CIA Director Leon Panetta's DNC Speech 07/28/2016

Boos and shouts of 'shame on you' then a minute's silence from anti-war protesters outside parliament after MPs vote to bomb ISIS in Syria 12/03/2015

PHOTOS: 13 Greatest Protest Signs at Democratic National Convention 07/25/2016

Chaos on Convention Floor: Protests, Boos and Chants of "Bernie" Mark Opening of DNC 07/26/2016

As Obama Speaks at DNC, Hundreds Protest Against TPP 07/28/2016

Backers of Sanders Mobilize to Overthrow DNC Platform's Pro-TPP Stance 06/30/2016

Behind The Booing: A Sanders Delegate Reflects On DNC Protests 08/11/2016

It should be clear that by refusing to cover the vast majority of the concerns of the public the media and the political establishment are trying, intentionally or not, to "make peaceful revolution impossible," fortunately there is an enormous grassroots movement trying to avoid making "violent revolution inevitable." Perhaps the best chance to avoid what the political establishment is pushing us towards is Jill Stein who does a far better job than the two clowns addressing the issues. She also does a better job than Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, who both came from the establishment they're now opposing, even though they're also far better than the two clowns nominated by the establishment.