Christchurch Shootings: Media Suppresses Research Again Or Worse

Within hours after the shootings in New Zealand, there were a massive amount of conspiracy theories about it being a false flag, almost as fast there were more articles debunking these conspiracy theories. My best guess is most of the articles debunking them are closer to the truth on most issues, especially since there's no way the conspiracy theorists could have checked their facts so fast before posting these theories; however there are major problems that haven't been fully explained, and the so called skeptics aren't addressing them adequately.

(Edit: since this shooting there have been at least three more mass shootings in Sri Lanka, Poway, Ca. and Baltimore Md. There are already more conspiracy theories about alleged false flags in both Poway and Sri Lanka; I didn't find any for Baltimore, at least not this shooting, but there are some from the Capital shooting last year. As indicated in this article the evidence for many of these conspiracy theories is often weak, but the best research to reduce violence is still absent from the media; they're using this as an excuse for more censorship; and there is something absurd going on, even if the highest profile conspiracy theories don't make sense. Additional details have been added below.)

Some of the strongest evidence of something seriously wrong with the way they cover these massacres isn't from what most people consider bizarre conspiracy theories, it's from credible academic research showing the leading causes of violence that is virtually absent from the mainstream media, as I pointed out in Research On Preventing Violence Absent From National Media. One of the leading causes of violence is definitely early child abuse, including corporal punishment, leading to escalating violence later in life. Children that are subject to extreme abuse at a young age are much more likely to become extremely violent later in life.

For the past ten to eleven years the murder rates in states that still allow corporal punishment in schools, and presumably use it more at home as well has been between 22% and 31% higher than the states not allowing it and there's also plenty of other peer reviewed research showing that this is a major contributing factor to violence from many credible professors or other researcher studying this. There's also plenty of research showing that income inequality, poverty lack of education, and abandoned inner cities where the worst violence takes place is also a major contributing factor to violence and why it's so much worse in the United States than many other developed countries including most of Europe, New Zealand and Australia.

However the mainstream media practically never mentions this! This is far more important than the fact that they're now trying to censor his manifesto, with a significant amount of success, and even refusing to mention Brenton Tarrant's name in the mainstream media very often. This is downright silly, and if he's doing this for recognition it does just as well & he might laugh at how they're smearing him. However, unless there's something very different from all the other mass murders it's virtually guaranteed that he went through an abusive upbringing in as a child perhaps teaching him to blame all the wrong sources, as most of the good research seems to indicate.

The claim that "That's no excuse! I was abused as a child and I didn't turn into a mass murderer," may appeal to many people but it misses the point. Of course it's not an excuse; however it would help people understand what's causing our high rates of violence in the United States, and to prevent it. Furthermore, the amount of abuse the majority of people with strict parents go through isn't nearly as bad as the abuse many of these mass murderers go through, but many people refuse to look at the abuse based on emotional reasons.

There's also no excuse for continuing to allow epidemic levels of income inequality, and cuts to education, child care, and social programs that help reduce child abuse leading to much lower rates of violence, yet that is routine in our political establishment. And there's no excuse for declining to report on the best research to understand how to reduce violence in the mass media or in political debates, even though this is available to those that look for it in libraries, academic journals, or alternative media; as a result of this negligence, political decisions that could reduce violence are based on ignorance, and the majority of the public isn't even aware of what they're missing.

This censorship restricts the debate about the causes of the problem, among other things and could be part of a slippery slope, which is quite common after mass shootings where people are expected to sacrifice some of their rights in attempts to "fight terrorism" or protect the public, however these restrictions ignore the most important causes of this crime. Binoy Kampmark's article in Counter-punch makes the following additional points, comparing it to suppression of Mein Kampf in Germany which didn't prevent their problem with white supremacist from rising again:

Reading Manifestos: Restricting Brenton Tarrant’s The Great Replacement 03/22/2019

A censorious and censoring attitude has engulfed responses to the mental airings of the Christchurch shooter. Material in connection with Brenton Tarrant, the alleged gunman behind the killing of 50 individuals at two mosques in New Zealand, is drying up; his manifesto, for one, is being disaggregated and spread through multiple forms, removed from their various parts with blunt razors. Doing so does a disservice to any arguments that might be mounted against him, but having a debate is not what this is generally about.

Arguments on banning the incendiary and dangerous are easily mounted against a range of publications. The smutty supposedly corrupt public morals; the revolutionary supposedly give citizens strange and cocksure ideas about overthrowing the order of things. Then there are just the downright bizarre and adventurous, incapable of classification, but deemed dangerous for not falling into any clear category. Certitude is fundamentally important for the rule-directed censor and paper shuffling bureaucrat.

One example stands out, a testament to the failure of such efforts and the misunderstandings and distortions that follow. Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, as a stellar case, was banned in Germany after the Second World War. In January 2016, it was republished on the expiry of copyright held by the Bavarian government. As Steven Luckert remarked in The Atlantic at the time, “the history of the book, and of Hitler’s words more generally, demonstrates that there’s no clear-cut relationship between banning speech and halting the spread of ideas.” The Nazi party did not disappear in the aftermath of the ban; nor could it be said that his ideas had captivated whole states and their governments, despite being accessible.

The book, deemed to be an insight into the darkened corridors of Hitler’s racial and biologically charged mind, was not initially seen as off limits in the war of ideas; even as the United States was doing battle against Nazi Germany, advocates for understanding the mental baggage of Hitler was sought rather than dismissed. Houghton Mifflin made it a patriotic duty for Americans to familiarise themselves with the tenets of the text.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was also keen that those battling Germany have a sense of what they were up against. As he noted in his history of the Second World War, “There was no book which deserved more careful study from the rulers, political and military, of the Allied Powers.” All the elements were there, from “the programme of German insurrection” to establishing “the rightful position of Germany at the summit of the world.” Complete article

In the case of Mein Kampf, studying it would only provide part of the explanation as to how he was able to indoctrinate so many people to blindly follow orders; additional research would, of course have to be done into the back ground of his upbringing and the upbringing of the German people and many others that went along with his agenda, including in Europe and in the United States. Of course some of it is racist; but Hitler also described indoctrination tactics in that book, and learning how to recognize that could help warn the public about how to avoid falling for it again. However, our own government and media implement many of these indoctrination tactics, themselves, so they clearly don't want to warn people against it, although they don't have the same agenda as Adolf Hitler.

John Toland wrote about how Hitler was badly abused as a child, in his biography, and Alice Miller elaborated on how this is typical of many mass murders leading them to grow up to become violence adults, in "For Your Own Good." A lot of angry people might be outraged that anyone might offer this as an "excuse," but that isn't the point; if Hitler and many Germans that blindly followed his orders were't abuse in an institutionalized form of indoctrination that taught people to blindly obey orders and resort to violence to solve their problems then World War II never would have happened.

If society was willing and able to learn from this then many of the wars that we fought since then based on lies could have been prevented, and our current practice of suppressing the best research while getting angry at the shooters, who were once victims of violence themselves, prevents us form learning how to reduce violence in the future. This isn't based don fringe conspiracy theories, it's base don credible research, that the public almost never hears about.

In some cases some of these people writing manifestos do have some legitimate concerns, although they go about them in the wrong way as I pointed out in Driving People to "Go Out In A Blaze Of Glory" isn't working so well!; but in order to sort out the racist rants form legitimate concerns we have to have access to the manifesto; furthermore as Binoy Kampmark pointed out, by suppressing it the media is enabling many people to rewrite it for their own purposes, and many of us won't be able to know that they're twisting his manifesto for their own purpose. Joseph Andrew Stack, Christopher Jordan Dorner, and Gavin Eugene Long all had some legitimate grievances, which protesters also tried to address but the political and media establishment suppressed them and they felt that legitimate protest wasn't working, so they went out in a blaze of glory; John F. Kennedy once said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable," and some of these shootings clearly indicate that he's right but the debate about it is being suppressed when they censor these manifestos, passing up an opportunity to prevent future shootings.



By suppressing this manifesto, and many others and marginalizing research on the leading causes of violence they're depriving people of the educational information they need to make these shootings far less likely; and they're making violent revolution, or terrorist attacks more likely!



Of course, that doesn't guarantee that Brenton Tarrant's manifesto is completely rational; but to find out why he did it, may require an honest look at it; and by declining to cover some of the best research into long term causes of violence the mainstream media has indicated that they're not reliable sources to screen it.

One example repeating a common myth spread by the mass media, that terrorists are "radicalized on the internet" is What the New Zealand Killer’s Manifesto Tells Us About the Radicalization of White Men 03/15/2019 which says, "2. Tarrant Was Radicalized on the Internet. 'From where did you receive/research/develop your beliefs?' Tarrant asks himself. 'The internet, of course,' he replies. 'You will not find the truth anywhere else.' The sarcastic tone is typical of the manifesto, but it’s also obvious he means it. While the overall notion of the 'Great Replacement' is not new, the internet provides ample vectors to stoke hysterical resentment into violent calls to action."

This is a highly unscientific conclusion which the media repeats over and over again, giving people the impression that an ordinary rational person can go on the internet, read propaganda and suddenly become a mass murder, which they repeat over and over again without rational scrutiny. Part of the message they're trying to give people is that the information they get from the internet isn't as reliable as the mainstream media, which in some cases, it isn't however, in many other cases it's far more reliable. The claim that you won't "find the truth anywhere else," isn't quite right either, libraries also have good research once people are accustomed to sorting through the best non fiction books and academic journals, although for many of us the easiest way to access those is from the internet.

As I explained in Fundamentals of Psychology behavioral patterns begin in early childhood, and unless they're corrected at some point they stay with people throughout adulthood; this includes violent tendencies and bigotry, or willingness to go along with the crowd pout of insecurity. According to research done by Dorothy Otnow Lewis author of "Guilty by reason of Insanity" it's virtually guaranteed that Brenton Tarrant went through an abusive upbringing; she claims that she was able to find evidence of this in every murder she researched thoroughly, often with police reports or hospital records to back it up; and James Garbarino, author of "Lost Boys" also made similar statements in his research, as have many other good researchers.

At this point there's no research thorough enough into his background to confirm this, but some reports have also come out about him living in areas of desperation, although they don't mention early child abuse, they don't rule it out and these environments often include that, and other reports indicates that he was into violent video games. To the best of my knowledge, violent video games alone isn't a leading cause of extreme violence as many pundits try to imply; however combined with early child abuse that contributes to later violence and racism it may make it more likely.

This isn't nearly as far-fetched as the fringe false flag conspiracy theories that Alex Jones and many other right wingers come up with and it can be confirmed with rational research from reliable sources; which shows that at best the media and political establishment is incredibly incompetent, even if they're not intentionally creating a false flag; however the entire political establishment has been highly irrational often coming up with their own fringe conspiracy theories, like Russia manipulating the elections; without mentioning the fact that by giving obsession coverage to a small number of candidates while refusing to cover the vast majority of them as I've pointed out in numerous articles including More Censored Candidates From The Underground and a long list of other absurd behavior including fighting one war after another base don lies, and ignoring climate change despite the fact that it will eventually cause as much damage to the wealthy as it does to the rest of us. which means that I wouldn't completely rule out all conspiracy theories; although false flags to take away guns clearly won't hold up since if that was the case they would have done far more to do so by now.

Furthermore, while reviewing the statistics previously for school shootings and how they're more common in states still allowing corporal punishment in schools in Inciting School Shootings In Trump Country I did find some statistical evidence of something highly improbable, which might raise some doubts. One of the studies that I cited for this article was School Shooting Fatalities and School Corporal Punishment: A Look at the States 2002 PDF, which was peer reviewed by traditional academics and is consistent with an enormous number of other studies showing that violence is far more common in states that allow corporal punishment or that early child abuse leads to escalating violence. This study says, "Student deaths from school shootings were examined across all 50 states according to the state’s policy on the use of corporal punishment in schools after controlling for associated differences in poverty rates and the prevalence of conservative Christian religions. There were significantly more school shooting deaths found in states allowing school corporal punishment compared with those that do not. The odds of fatal involvement in a school shooting were greatest in states permitting school corporal punishment compared with those prohibiting it (odds ratio, 2.04) or restricting it to districts serving less than half the student population (odds ratio, 1.77). Moreover, the rate of school corporal punishment was moderately correlated with the rate of fatal school shootings both across all states and within the South, the region in which endorsement of school corporal punishment is most prevalent. Aggr. Behav. 28:173–183, 2002."

This study was consistent with my review in early 2018, which at the time said that 36 out of 41 deaths in school shootings were in states still allowing corporal punishment, and that all those states, along with two additional states with three more deaths were ones voting for Donald Trump; which meant that in the first five months of 2018 39 out of 41 of the deaths in school shootings were in states voting for Trump. Since then I checked the whole year and found that twenty-five out of thirty-six school shootings in 2018 took place in states still allowing corporal punishment even though they only account for 40% of the population, this is about 69% of the shootings. they also had 37 out of 44 deaths from school shootings and 69 out of 82 injuries from school shootings; which comes to about 84% of the deaths or injuries in school shootings, despite the fact that they only have about 40% of the population, which is and even bigger difference than the peer reviewed 2002 study. However this is a smaller sampling so it's bound to be a little higher some years and lower in others, which makes it consistent, with the previous study and many other statistical reviews from many sources.

However, the years from 2002 to 2017 aren't even close to these statistics, with more shooting per capita in states allowing corporal punishment in schools but far more deaths and injuries in states not allowing it. From 2002 to 2017 there were 185 school shootings with only 84 of them in states allowing corporal punishment, which in the first few years was still 23 dropping by four between then and 2011 when four states banned it, Delaware in 2003, Pennsylvania in 2005, Ohio in 2009, and New Mexico was the last to ban it in 2011, bringing it down to nineteen states, which continues to this year. These school shootings caused 228 deaths and 323 injuries and only 57 of the deaths and 95 of the injuries were in states allowing corporal punishment almost a complete reversal of the statistics found in the 2002 study or in 2018; which is a massive swing that lasted about 16 years, which a=is a long time for statistical purposes.

The massive difference comes mainly from ten shootings with five or more dead from 2002-2017 all in states without corporal punishment in schools; there were two shootings with five or more dead in 2018 both in states allowing corporal punishment in schools. Seven out of nine shootings with five or more deaths were in states allowing corporal punishment prior to this, which was the time period studied in the 2002 study, although some of them have since banned it.

This certainly isn't enough to support the right wing conspiracy theories about false flags designed to give the government justification to take away their guns, since they clearly aren't even coming close to doing any such thing, and if they were sophisticated enough to create massive number of false flag shootings to drive people into a panic they would be able to do a much better job taking away guns, assuming they actually wanted to. furthermore, there should be reasonable consideration of less far-fetched sociological causes to this; however this is a massive swing in statistical patterns of behavior. All but one of those ten school shootings were in cities with very low murder rates; New Zealand and the Netherlands, where another shooting three days after the Christchurch shooting happened also have even lower murder rates, less than one fifth of the rates in the United States.

These shootings simply aren't fitting a rational statistical pattern.



On top of that, even though the theory about taking away guns doesn't make sense they are using it as a justification to shroud their activities in secrecy, treat everyone as if they're potential terrorists, spy on us, and censor people, among other things; so even without a false flag conspiracy that's something to be concerned about.

If there were a false flag operation of some sort, what could it possibly be trying to accomplish? And how could they possibly convince so many people to go along with it? If there isn't a false flag operation why is there such a massive organization trying to convince us that there is one? A close look at these conspiracy theorists may indicate they're not as irrational as they seem and that they're much more coordinated than you would expect from a bunch of fruitcakes creating these theories incredibly quick.

The answer to this may not be nearly as conclusive as some of the research about how early child abuse, poverty, income inequality, abandoned inner cities, lead to escalating violence; however, it's one of many major unsolved mysteries that takes a close look to figure it out, assuming there's enough information available to figure it out, which is in doubt.

Skeptics claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, with justification; the evidence of a massive shift in statistical trends starting after the 2002 study and continuing until 2018 when it reversed again isn't strong enough evidence to draw a conclusive conclusion, and many might not even consider it strong enough to prove that there's a big mystery here. However, there is extraordinary evidence of many unsolved mysteries, although there might not be enough evidence to connect it to this one, at least not without careful research and review.

Thousands of years ago ancient civilizations with primitive technology allegedly moved massive megaliths, some over 700 tons dozens if not hundreds of miles, despite the fact that experiments to replicate this failed miserably. The only high profile explanation for this that I know of are either supposedly scientific explanations by skeptics that routinely spin the facts that they can't explain adequately, or the Ancient Aliens theorists, most famously from the history channel, who often mix their theories up with major blunders and wild speculation. Both of these are seriously flawed; however, if there was an unknown advanced intelligence of some sort that impacted early development of our society, whether you call it Aliens, God or anythings else it could have influenced the creations of the pyramids and many other structures that shouldn't have been possible for primitive societies to build; although the blunders made by History Channels Ancient Aliens theorists need to be fixed before their theory becomes reasonably viable; and if it's not true the skeptics need to do a better job explaining how this megaliths have been moved.

In 1997 Philip Corso published his book "The Day After Roswell." where he claims that he was part of an effort to share alien technology with corporations to develop starting in the late forties; I went into this more in several articles including False Flag Bombs, Incredible Incompetence or Both? and Who's Controlling Oligarchies Dividing The Market? Aliens? which are among my most recent. If there is something to this then it has to have an enormous impact on both early development of society and more recent rapid development of technology much faster than it's been developing for thousands of years. If it's not true then in addition to a better explanation about how the megaliths were moved, and many mystics, which require a closer look to understand were able to carry out strange phenomenon, or at least convince people that they did, but there has to be a better explanation for why there's such a massive organized effort to make it seem why this is happening when it isn't.

The rapid development of technology is refuting one of the strongest arguments against alien visitation, that it's just to far to a habitable planet to travel and that it would take thousands if not millions of years to get here from there. A combination of advanced propulsion, nanotechnology, robotics, artificial intelligence, etc. is proving that even if they didn't come here, it may be possible for us to go there; or perhaps they did come here and they've had an undisclosed agenda all along. If so one possibility that I speculated about in the past was that they might be experimenting with advanced medical research as pointed out in Researching Poor, Slaves, Prisoners, To Benefit Ruling Class With Alien Technology?; or if there Climate Change is influenced by man that would indicate that some form of geoengineering or climate control is possible, although not necessarily as much as indicated in many science fiction books or movies as I pointed out in Hurricane Apocalypse Coming With or Without Fringe Conspiracy Theory. If aliens did come from another planet and developed laws protecting their own citizens they might have been reluctant to conduct risky climate change experiments on their own planet; but after arriving at other planets where people don't have organized societies to resist such an extreme experiment they might do it there, or here.

A lot of this is just speculation, of course, since there isn't enough information to come to hard conclusions but something like this might be big enough to go about some crazy false flag conspiracy, creating or faking mass shootings. However, if there is an advanced intelligence, perhaps one that religious people refer to as God, influencing society, then at best we have enough information to know that he or it withheld educational material that could have prevented massive amounts of violence including the crusades, inquisitions or holocaust, since God could have found a way to say this wasn't what he had in mind; and instead of inspiring profits from multiple religions that often fight each other he could have maintained an open honest line of communication advising how to get along with each other instead of staging wars as the Bible claims, or remaining silent while we fight them based on misunderstandings or lies of our leaders.

God could have also provided better advise on how to prevent diseases, develop better health care, prepare for weather beyond our control and much more, including teaching better parenting methods that are more concerned with education children than using corporal punishment as part of a control process to teach them to blindly obey orders.

If on the other hand, there aren't any aliens; we still have much better research about how to prevent violence than the mass media is providing and it can be found in libraries, alternative media or academic journals. It would still be a good idea to inform the public of epidemic levels of fraud by our own government and massive corporations profiting off this fraud and corrupting the government.

Additional information on this theory is also available on Do Aliens own Stock in Monsanto, DuPont, or Microsoft? which includes a list of most of my other articles on the subject.



'If This Guy Can Be Senator, You Can Do Anything': Progressives Mock Mike Lee's Climate Speech 03/26/2019



If there's a massive charade to cover up a conspiracy like this, then it could explain some of the insane activities of our politicians who have access to some of the best political research to enable them to do a far better job pretending to try to do a good job, even if they're still selling us out to corporations. It could have something to do with Mike Lee's incredibly foolish attempt to ridicule the "Green New Deal" which is base don far better science than the Republican Party routinely comes up with.

Even if the research on Climate Change isn't perfect, there's plenty of other research about many other ways that environmental destruction is causing massive amounts of health problems killing mainly the poor. Yet these demagogues have convinced many people taught to blindly believe what they're told from their leaders when based on appeals to emotion and intimidation to keep them in their place.

It could also explain a long list of additional insane and idiotic activities like Devin Nunes lawsuit against a Twitter Cow or Mom, which predictably backfired in a massive way; before Devin Nunes’ cow was sued it supposedly only had a few thousand followers and many people including me never heard of it, now it has over six hundred thousand followers, and there are dozens more satire accounts named after his cow, mom or some other satire, not to mention the fun comedians had with it defeating the purpose even if he managed to win his frivolous lawsuit which is unlikely. This may seem like an idiotic blunders; however before he filed this suit he would have had to consult with lawyers or advisers and many of them must be aware of the McLibel lawsuit and numerous other examples that were as frivolous and extreme and backfired as well, yet they did it any way!

If on the other hand there is a massive charade going on to keep us distracted while they pursue what ever goal they're accomplishing this can be just another part of the charade.



Edit 04/29/2019: Since the Christchurch shootings there were a series of bombings in Sri Lanka. they responded by blocking all social media, and there was little or no criticism of this in the press. Then there was a shooting in Poway California, the shooter also had a manifesto which was promptly taken down and censored, without criticism by the media. They made a point of not mentioning his name more than once on the mainstream media, as if that was a major motive for these shootings. they continue declining to cover many of the most important long term causes of violence. This is still available in libraries, however with all the appeals to emotion the majority of the public aren't thinking to learn about it on their own, and the media continues to hype it without letting people know what they're missing.

Sri Lanka attacks: Suspect Zahran Hashim's relatives die in raid 04/28/2019

Sri Lanka bombers had clear links to ISIS, President says 04/29/2019

Sri Lanka Blocks Social Media Following the Deadly Easter Bombings 04/22/2019

Did the shooter declare his intentions online? 04/28/2019

San Diego synagogue shooting: What we know about suspect John Earnest 04/27/2019

Alleged Synagogue Shooter Lives With Parents, Thinks Jews Control The World 04/28/2019

Police: 8 shot, 1 fatally, in latest Baltimore shooting 04/29/2019

The following are some sources or related articles:

What we learned from analyzing thousands of stories on the Christchurch shooting 03/15/2019 This article does little or nothing to report on research that could help prevent violence from escalating yet it plays in to prejudices and appeals to emotion that's designed to make censorship look justifiable calling for suppression of some information that could help this research. It doesn't call for suppression of best research like some that I cited in this article, and much more but it doesn't draw attention to it either, nor does the vast majority of establishment media.

Dutch shooting: Utrecht police arrest suspect after three killed 03/19/2019

Alleged Christchurch terror attacker’s manifesto banned 03/23/2019 A manifesto reportedly written by the alleged Christchurch gunman has been officially classified as objectionable — with those who have copies told to destroy them — the Office of Film & Literature Classification has confirmed.

Chief censor David Shanks confirmed the move on Saturday to the New Zealand Herald, urging anyone who had copies of it to destroy them.

Brenton Tarrant: Nowhere Man 03/18/2019

'HE CHANGED' New Zealand shooter Brenton Tarrant’s gran reveals how he went from computer nerd scared of girls to terrorist after foreign trip as family apologise for massacre 03/17/2019

Terrorist Brenton Tarrant makes reference to Hagia Sophia in his manifesto 03/16/2019

The Great Replacement: The Manifesto of Brenton Tarrant – The New Zealand Mosque Shooter 03/16/2019

Former CIA Officer: Christchurch Shooting Smells like a ‘False Flag’ 03/24/2019

Erdoğan: Agia Sophia will never be a church as long as there is Turkish people 03/18/2019

White supremacism has turned into terrorism 03/18/2019

Rodney Tarrant: Brenton Tarrant’s Father Died Young 03/15/2019

Rush Limbaugh Claims New Zealand Mosque Shootings Were False Flag Operation, Offers No Evidence 03/15/2019

The Christchurch terrorism conspiracy theories are not just false. They’re dangerous 03/20/2019

The fifth suspect of Christchurch shootings has defected to Israel 03/16/2019

Limbaugh: ChristChurch Shooter A 'Leftist' Who Staged 'False Flag' Attack To Frame Conservatives 03/16/2019

Counties that hosted a 2016 Trump rally saw a 226 percent increase in hate crimes 03/22/2019

School Shooting Fatalities and School Corporal Punishment: A Look at the States 2002 PDF



Some statistics cited on this page are based on Wikipedia's List of school shootings in the United States The following are the statistics for shootings/deaths/injuries in each year from 2002 to 2018:

States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2002 1 school shooting/4 deaths/0 injuries
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2002 5 school shootings/4 deaths/7 injuries
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2003 3/4/5
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2003 1/2/1
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2004 0
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2004 3/1/5
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2005 2/2/2
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2005 3/10/9
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2006 2/3/2
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2006 7/11/16
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2007 0
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2007 4/35/25
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2008 6/7/3
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2008 4/9/24
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2009 2/2/0
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2009 5/1/12
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2010 6/5/8
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2010 6/4/6
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2011 6/1/10
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2011 3/4/3
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2012 3/2/3
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2012 7/39/14
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2013 16/7/19
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2013 9/10/15
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2014 18/5/16
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2014 16/10/21
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2015 12/8/17
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2015 9/12/24
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2016 5/5/8
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2016 10/5/20
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2017 2/2/2
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2017 9/14/26
States allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2018 25/37/69
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: 2018 11/7/13

States allowing corporal punishment in schools: Total 2002-2018 109/94/164
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: Total 2002-2018 112/178/241

States allowing corporal punishment in schools: Total 2002-2017 84/57/95
States not allowing corporal punishment in schools: Total 2002-2017 101/171/228

There were ten shootings with five or more dead from 2002-2017 all in states without corporal punishment in schools; two shootings with five or more dead in 2018 both in states without corporal punishment. Seven out of nine shootings with five or more deaths were in states allowing corporal punishment prior to this, although some of them have since banned it.

From 2002-2017 states allowing corporal punishment had .039 school shootings per million people, .026 deaths, .044 injuries.

From 2002-2017 states banning corporal punishment had .037 school shootings per million people, .062 deaths, .083 injuries.

In 2018 states allowing corporal punishment had .183 school shootings per million people, .272 deaths, .506 injuries.

In 2018 states banning corporal punishment had .058 school shootings per million people, .037 deaths, .069 injuries.

More Censored Candidates From The Underground

For decades politicians have often said they're proof that anyone can rise up to get elected to higher office, including the presidency; although they don't repeat this claim nearly as often as they used to, perhaps because it's obviously not even close to the truth.

Technically there aren't supposed to be many requirements to become president, including being a minimum of thirty five years old, being born in the United States and living in the United States for the past fourteen years; outside of that there are few additional requirements, including the term limit of ten years, assuming the previous president leaves office for one reason another after serving at least two years and the vice president finishes that term and gets elected for two more terms, otherwise it's of course, just two terms, since FDR.

However the most obvious additional requirement is to get an enormous amount of name recognition, which can't happen without the help of the media. There are only six corporations that control over ninety percent of the media and several of the biggest independent media outlets not owned by these six oligarchies, including the Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Time Magazine and several other national outlets are owned by billionaires.

These oligarchies can, and routinely do, rig elections so that only those they cover can get the name recognition necessary to have a viable chance of winning. The Democratic and Republican Parties both add to the advantage of establishment candidates by setting the rules so that only those they approve of can get into the debates.

All of this is controlled by a fraction of the public, primarily multimillionaires and billionaires that use their influence to rig the elections process and economic system in their own favor, which is why we have an enormous problem with economic inequality and many other things giving the rich overwhelming advantages at everything!



In 2016 The Democratic Party demonstrated how they felt they had the right to give an unfair advantage to candidates of their choice according to DNC to Court: We Are a Private Corporation With No Obligation to Follow Our Rules 05/02/2017, DNC attorney Bruce Spiva said, "We’re gonna, you know, choose our standard bearer, and we’re gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily deciding, we could have — and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That’s not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right, and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to answer those questions.”

A federal judge accepted this argument saying “To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, the DNC’s internal workings, or their right of free speech — not through the judiciary.” However the mainstream media hardly reported this court case to the vast majority of the public at all so most people aren't even aware of it essentially enabling them to continue rigging elections.

In 2016 they clearly gave an overwhelming advantage to Hillary Clinton, enabling her to defeat Bernie Sanders, who is by far the best candidate that the mainstream media has covered in a presidential election in decades. Just because they used a slightly more sophisticated method than going "into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way," doesn't mean they didn't rig elections as I pointed out at the time in Can Hillary Clinton win without cheating?

But at least Bernie Sanders got enough coverage to run a national campaign that many people supported.

As I pointed out previously in Censored Candidates For President By Mass Media there are hundreds of candidates that file for president every four years, yet the media not only doesn't cover them at all they practically never even mention the fact that so many people are running so most people don't even consider the fact that they're rigging the media coverage so that only candidates supported by mainstream media have a chance to get elected!

Now, of course, once you look at this long list of candidates it will be clear that there has to be some screening process to narrow it down; however, what we're doing now is allowing a small fraction of the public control the entire process without explaining it to the public or letting them participate in the decision making process. However, the criteria the mainstream media and political establishment use to decide which candidates should get some coverage has little or nothing to do with whether or not they're looking out for the best interest of the majority, instead providing enormous advantages to those collecting bribes thinly disguised as campaign contributions.

The mainstream media is run by multimillionaires and billionaires that make a fortune selling ads to candidates that collect money from Wall Street, using public airwaves. They only cover candidates that decline to question their preferential treatment enabling them to control the vast majority of media and these candidates know they can't get favorable coverage to get elected if they speak out against these oligarchs effectively ensuring that little or nothing can be done to stop election rigging unless there's a massive amount of education at the grassroots level!

The truth, according to the mainstream media, is for sale!

The mainstream media routinely provides an enormous amount of coverage for one billionaire after another presenting them as viable candidates of office, including Howard Schultz, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Bloomberg, Mark Cuban, and many more.

Mainstream media also provided obsession coverage for Joe Biden, who presumably will announce in April that he's going to run. This isn't the first time they've provided this obsession coverage for him, or misrepresented his record; they also did this in 2016 teasing the public with emotional appeals about his son Beau who supposedly urged him to run saying that his country needed him, that he was the best man for the job, or something like that. However, his record clearly favors Wall Street overwhelmingly as Norman Solomon pointed out in Joe Biden Isn't Coming to the Rescue 03/12/2019. It's standard operating procedure for the mainstream media to repeat propaganda over and over again while only reporting hard news briefly before letting it fall down the memory hole, enabling them to convince a large number of people that don't check facts that he's "progressive" as he falsely claimed this weekend.

Even in most alternative media outlets it's rare to find people,that mention the vast majority of these candidates ignored by mainstream media, but tehre are a few exceptiosn, often especially either the Libertarian or Green Parties, including You won't have Jill Stein to kick around any more 02/28/2019 who cited an article by the New Republic reviewing candidates in The Democrats Stole the Green Party’s Best Idea 02/22/2019 When Googling candidates from this list I found quite a few comments from the grassroots from people on discussion boards or low profile blogs but few better known media outlets, but another more extensive review was provided by Open Secrets in the following article, although they don't try to come up with details to point out many of the flaws in the rigged system or how to repair it:

Meet the 2020 presidential candidates you haven’t heard of 02/29/2019

If you think the 2020 presidential candidate field is crowded, head over to the FEC’s website to check out the scores of ordinary Americans who are filing paperwork every day to run for president.

On Feb. 21, the Center for Responsive Politics reached out to lesser-known presidential hopefuls to ask why they were running. Given that a successful presidential candidate has to raise in the neighborhood of $500 million to run for office, why file the paperwork? What is the best possible outcome an average citizen can hope to achieve mounting a presidential campaign that is certain to fail? ......

As a group, these candidates are overwhelmingly sincere in their desire to lead the United States as president and confront its problems and challenges. ..... Complete article

Open secrets briefly reviews eight or nine candidates including Joe Collins who has his web site up with a modest amount of positions on the issues, this could use more details but it's early so I wouldn't hold that against him, Mark Pierce, who also has a brief description of his positions focusing mainly on Climate Change but with some additional details on other issues and Crystal Bergfield who provides a little more detail on her page.

Crystal writes about education saying "What is the purpose of education? What is currently in the way of this purpose? If the purpose is to create a brighter future, we have lost our way. Our government should have a clear vision for education including the content in schools, the education of our teachers, and the implementation of practice must reflect this purpose. ..... All children should have an equal opportunity at supporting our nation and being an innovator who changes the world." Few if any of the mainstream candidates are serious about equalizing opportunities to prove education to everyone and when they do make promises like that they routinely break them.

She still could provide more information but this is already better than what many candidates covered by traditional media provide. Sanderson Beck, who I covered in my previous article provides a much more extensive web page covering his views on many issues including dozens of articles and books some that go back decades before he began his campaign for president. This is the kind of detailed positions on many issues that we should look for in all candidates, although few of them could go into as much detail. Most traditional politicians avoid doing this like the plague, because they routinely give one group of people one set of positions while speaking to them, then provide another for another group of people guaranteeing that they have to break many promises. Part of the problem is that many people fall for this, often even when informed of contradictory promises; which means, not only do we need to hear more from many different candidates, but we need to teach many people about how they're being manipulated to help them become more savvy voters. Often we should respect honesty more than false promises, even if we do disagree with them on some issues.

The best candidates should fill out the closest thing to a job application, which could include a detailed web site with clear positions so people know what to expect from them and filling an application, or the closest thing to it, which for now the best that I know of is a questionnaire from Project Vote Smart (Saving Project Vote Smart and improving it or replacing it) which I've previously said could use improvement that involves more input from the grassroots. They've had a few scandals about a sharp increase int he pay of the founder while, if anything the quality of their questionnaire might have gone down slightly instead of improving. Part of the reason for this might be because so many candidates refuse to fill them out so they made them shorter, but part of it might also be that they're cutting back perhaps getting fewer funds. I wouldn't recommend many if any donations to them unless they're willing to listen more to the grassroots, but they're still providing the best questionnaire that I know of a day or so ago Sanderson Beck informed me that they haven't prepared their questionnaire for this year yet but that he would be filling it out when they do.

One of the few candidates the mainstream media was willing to cover was Marianne Williamson, (included in the list below) Oprah's Spiritual Adviser. There were dozens of relatively low profile articles on the web about her. Many people are skeptical of her, and she's been accused of being a fraud; Oprah, claimed she experienced “157 miracles” after she read the book, which I'm skeptical of; however at least some of her views on the issues are worth a close look on her page about crime and violence prevention she opens with a quote from Deborah Prothrow-Stith, M.D., Dean, Drew College of Medicine saying, "Gang violence is connected to bullying is connected to school violence is connected to intimate partner violence is connected to child abuse is connected to elder abuse. It's all connected. We operate in these silos that we've got to break down."

She goes on to say, in her own words, "Among all industrialized nations, the United States ranks at the top in violent crime. We have the highest homicide rates, seven times higher than the average for others. For much of the neighborhoods and communities throughout the country, our local governments have failed to supply effective crime prevention solutions. ..... In America, our approach to managing violence and crime has typically trended towards largely ineffective punitive approaches, ignoring the underlying causes of our problems. In addition, the punitive -- rather than rehabilitative -- approach to holding violent criminals accountable only increases the statistical probability that, once released, such criminals will again perpetrate acts of violence.

On her child advocacy page she writes, "A small child can’t feed, clothe, or educate herself. Children cannot vote against special interests that profit financially from activities that harm their health, deny them education, or profit off their problems. Advocacy for our children isn’t a charity issue, it’s a justice issue."

"The United States is the only country in the world that funds its education system through property taxes, thereby ensuring that children in a poorer neighborhood will get a poorer education. Even where states do their best to compensate for the disparity, the gaps are appalling."

There should be little or no doubt that we could greatly reduce violence, as I've pointed out in many articles including Research On Preventing Violence Absent From National Media, by preventing child abuse, including banning of corporal punishment in schools, and perhaps, even in the home. This should be accompanied by an educational effort to teach people how it leads to escalating violence. The murder rates are 22% to 31% higher in states that still allow corporal punishment in schools in our country; and the countries in Europe that ban it both in schools and at home have murder rates that are a small fraction of ours often below 1 per 100,000, while our national average is about 5.3 and Louisiana is routinely over 10.

She doesn't deserve any more recognition as a minor celebrity who associates with much better known celebrities, and I wouldn't completely trust her without a much better look, but clearly many of her positions are worth consideration. Even if she doesn't win the presidency, which seem unlikely, we should take a closer look at her views, along with Sanderson Beck and other candidates coming up with good ideas and push them at the grassroots level.

Darcie Allen also provides better positions on issues than corporate candidates writing about health care, "I propose getting rid of Medicare and Medicaid and implementing a healthcare for all program that covers basic, preventative and emergent care that is government funded but not government owned and operated. Pharmaceutical companies need to be capped and negotiated, the profit margins are too extreme in comparison to the life sustaining medications people require. ..... Out of 30 countries the United States spends on average three times as much in comparison and the health results and life expectancy rates are still lower. When compared to 12 other countries, more people have died from PREVENTABLE diseases before the age of 75!"

She also supports a flat tax, which probably won't go over too well with many progressives, including me, and a minimum wage of $12.00, which isn't as much as the $15.00 grassroots are currently pushing for and in some cases getting at the state level. I'm not sure she'll get a lot of grassroots support with those positions, even though her comments on health care are much better than traditional corporate candidates, but she should be heard.

I haven't found updated positions on the issues from Raymond Haigood, but he filled out a Candidate Questionnaire or positions for the 2016 Presidential Green Party Nomination, although he's running in 2020 as an independent. One of the issues he listed as his top priority was "Separation of Corporation and State – I would push to remove corporate donations to political campaigns. I’d remind politicians that they are supposed to be representatives of the people not of the corporations. Push to remove corporations involvement in policy and decision making."

He seemed to be new to the Green Party at that time, and might not have had the same priorities, but he did agree with their platform which included, "Abolish the Electoral College and provide for the direct national election of the president by Instant Runoff Voting. As a step in that direction, support National Popular Vote legislation which would guarantee the Presidency to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia), which would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538)." However he didn't seem to think they would be his top priority in 2016, which might be why he's running as an independent this time.

Angela Glass's positions on issues according to her web page is mostly quotes from other sources, which although some of them are good she still need to clarify where she stands and what she would do, although it's still early. But she does have a domain name and fancy graphics, which may say a little about her priorities. Personally I'm not to impressed with fancy graphics or hype and would prefer that top priorities would be stating positions on issues, which can be done with a free web page, or at modest expense a domain name.

Raynette Kennedy Weiss also seems to have put more priority on fancy graphics than getting his positions out first coming up with many simple statements with little follow up about how he'll accomplish it, including "Repair the voting rights act, or update it. .... Have stronger gun control laws. .... Repeal citizens united. ...... A basic course should be given on how the Government works other than what is taught in school, so people are not at odds with the officials while they try to work with the Government which is a bit broken."

I would agree that a basic course should be given on how government and the election process, works and on how it's controlled by well connected people and what we can do to reform it. This should invite people to come up with their own ideas and people should recognize that the government is supposed to work for us, therefore we should have influence on the election process instead of letting media companies and political parties have total control without input on which candidates should be heard.

More of this should be taught in schools with some follow up in the media, that is partially controlled by grassroots organizations or researchers on various issues, not just organizations who's primary goal is profit, without serving the interests of the public. This needs to include warnings about how charismatic demagogues use hype to manipulate the people, and efforts to learn more details about many issues.

This is just a small fraction of the ideas that might be considered if the media was willing to listen to more diverse candidates, not just those collecting enormous amounts o campaign contributions, mostly from billionaires, or the billionaires themselves.

For example, Kirsten Gillibrand came out with a very passionate speech during her town hall Monday March the 18, that sounded very good and did a very good job making friends with the audience, who constantly applauded her. Thirty years ago it was recognized that excessive applause distracted from the issues and was often criticized when a tyrant like Stalin encouraged excessive applause from his people, even making a minister disappear when he thought it was going too far and stopped making everyone else feel relieved because they also thought it was going to far; now it's standard operating procedure, and there's little or no doubt that an enormous amount of it is staged, and designed to create the appearance of more support than the candidate actually has encouraging support from people that might not keep up just to go along with the crown like cult followers.

Now excessive cheering is the norm, and unless people stay focused and check facts independently, they can easily be misled by charismatic speakers. For example, when she was asked about trade she said that trade wars don't solve anything, only making prices higher, criticizing Trump, which is only partly true. His trade policy was wild and erratic, doing the opposite of what it was intended to, however being better than Trump isn't much to brag about. She did nothing to discuss how trade was used to reduce environmental protection, consumer protection, or workers rights; and her support of trade like almost all politicians plays into the hands of Wall Street corporations.

There was no discussion about the potential advantages of local economies including factory direct, or improved wages and reduced transportation that protects the environment and can lead to higher quality. In some cases prices ,might be higher but the products might last longer and people would have more money to pay for it, and with less pollution as a result of transportation reductions there would be less health effects from that and lower health care costs. There are, of course more details but they can't be covered in a brief emotional town hall speech where she's more concerned about making friends and flattering people than about going into details of complicated issues.

During Elizabeth Warrens's town hall, she wasn't much better; the first question she was asked was what she would do about Mississippi white people voting against their own best interest. Instead of thinking about the question and addressing it she went into a prepared passionate speech about inequality, which may have been fairly good, or at least sounded good, but it didn't actually address the question she was asked. This is typical of politicians that prepare their answers ahead of time without regard to what they're being asked which is incredibly phony.

She received an enormous amount of applause after this without any one commenting on the fact that her response ignored the question. my best guest is the town hall had a lot of supporters that were inclined to clap no matter what she said, which seems to be par for the course.

There's little or no doubt that large portions of CNN's town halls are clearly staged, they even require audience members to submit their questions in writing to be screened, and you can see them reading from their own questions on camera, which means they have the opportunity to censor questions or leak them both of which they've been caught doing in the past. MSNBC and other networks also do some sort of planning and screening of their audience without informing the public about it, which is part of the rigging process even if we don't know all the details.

Another question asked shortly after that involved whether or not she would eliminate private insurance which is routinely demonized in the media, and Warren went into another speech that distracted from the issue before saying that she wouldn't and that even Bernie Sander's plan wouldn't do that, although that's probably not entirely true.

A courageous politician that actually represents the people might have explained that an enormous problem with the private insurance industry is epidemic levels of waste and fraud, which should be eliminated. When it comes to lost jobs there could be some discussion about retraining for other jobs; the same corporations that are so concerned about insurance jobs, that primarily shift wealth to the rich, routinely cut many more jobs when it increases profits, clearly indicating they're not interested in jobs or efficiency, except when it comes to efficiently shifting wealth to themselves!

To put it simply the more money from premium dollars they spend on advertising, lobbying against the interests of the public, or huge CEO salaries, the less they have to pay for legitimate claims which is why health care is so expensive.

There's nothing wrong with eliminating industries that are almost entirely based on fraud!

In depth discussion of this issue and many others could help inform the public about the details of flaws in our economic system, instead we just get soundbites repeated over and over again. Many thorough reviews are available in the academic wold, library books, alternative media outlets or at the grassroots level, but is virtually completely absent from the mainstream media.

Recent news show that Beto O'Rourke has allegedly risen quickly in the polls again with him and Kamala Harris coming in third and fourth after Biden and Sanders. However this followed an enormous amount of obsession coverage about O'Rourke, and Kamala Harris also received an increase int eh polls following an enormous amount of obsession coverage when she made her announcement. The media and candidates have been using these polls to study how people react to their coverage and what causes the polls to rise, which enables them to learn how to more effectively manipulate the public with their coverage.

However the image they provide with this obsession coverage doesn't even come close to matching the records of these candidates. This weekend Joe Biden claimed that he was the most progressive candidate running, or that would run, which they reported as a slip of the tongue, and repeated over and over again. One media pundit even pointed out that this isn't true, but the mainstream media didn't repeat that part, instead letting it fall quickly down the memory hole, however alternative media outlets have reported repeatedly that none of these candidate, except Bernie Sanders are nearly as progressive claim, including a couple more articles cited below.

And most people seem to have forgotten that Joe Biden has an incredibly long history of saying foolish things, like getting caught at an open mike saying "this is a big fucking deal;" Obama had to caution him on several occasions to be more civil. We can expect many more blunders like this when his campaign begins and he starts speaking more, which may remind every one why his past runs for president failed so bad. It's only the media's positive propaganda and the public's short memory that makes him seem so appealing.

Norman Solomon's article also pointed out his previous comment saying “It doesn’t matter whether or not they were deprived as a youth, It doesn’t matter whether or not they had no background that enabled them to become socialized into the fabric of society. It doesn’t matter whether or not they’re the victims of society. The end result is they’re about to knock my mother on the head with a lead pipe, shoot my sister, beat up my wife, take on my sons.” However, he routinely votes to ensure that they continue to have the economic system rigged against them and that they can't get educational opportunities to prevent this, while routinely looking the other way at massive white collar fraud and helping rig economic system in favor of the wealthy. If not for this some of them wouldn't have become so resentful in the first place not to mention that he's exaggerating this fear.

In depth discussion on the research around this would also help solve the problem with more education and less prison, although mainstream media refuses to cover that research.

This doesn't, of course, mean that all these candidates are serious candidates, many of them are treating it almost like a joke, and there are a lot of them running for religious reasons, including some that seem fanatical, and at least one white supremacist. I clearly wouldn't recommend all of them but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hear about at least a few of them, preferably the best, but there's no doubt that the mainstream media and political establishment isn't doing a good job screening them, instead they're looking out for the best interests of their wealthy donors or investors.

As much as I would like to believe that one of these candidates has a major chance of getting elected this hardly seems likely, baring some dramatic circumstances of some sort, especially with Bernie Sanders running, who will attract many of the progressives. Bernie Sanders is one of the few progressives they provide a reasonable amount of coverage for, but they still try to smear him on many occasions. The most likely explanation why they cover him seems to be that he's been at it so long developing a good reputation at the grassroots and attracted so many crowds they felt they couldn't ignore him without losing the last shred of their credibility. In all fairness, even Bernie Sanders benefits from appeals to emotion and what I might consider excessive applause; however, if you check the facts, he keep his promises, and unlike other candidates he's been supporting progressive causes for decades, not just during the campaign.

However, even if Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, which will be the hard part, then goes on to beat Trump, we still need major reforms in the system and we may not be able to count on him to do all of it unless there's an enormous amount of grassroots pressure on him and he get a lot of help from progressive candidates from Congress.

After all, after the primaries were rigged last time, instead of calling it out, perhaps supporting the Green Party Candidate Jill Stein, he caved and supported Hillary, even trying to patch together the reputation of the Democratic Party when the leadership constantly sabotaged his efforts at reform, with Nancy Pelosi even signalling health care executives not to worry about all the campaigning for Single Payer. For this year anyway, he appears to be the only real chance of getting elected and helping with major reforms.

But there also needs to be many more people running at the local level; and we need the same media and campaign reform for local candidates, enabling them to get elected.

Run For Office.Org is trying to recruit people to do just that; and it might be a great help. However, some caution should be taken when dealing with this organization, or perhaps others; some of the supporting partners look reasonably progressive, and might be a great help but there are also some traditional campaign advisers like Jay Godfrey, who previously worked for the Mitt Romney for president campaign. He might have experience at running things the traditional way but that may involve collecting money from the same corporate donors and some of these people might be reluctant to support the reforms that we need including ranked choice voting or major challenges to the two political parties and media rigging the coverage for candidates supporting Wall Street.

If some of these advisers try to discourage real reforms we need people that are willing to speak up to them and rally the grassroots to end corruption of the system!

Some of the following people have already gained a significant amount of coverage at the grassroots level challenging the system, and even though most of them haven't won they've done a great deal to educate the public preparing for possible wins in the future. In the article from Open Secrets they claim that "Unfortunately, Facebook and Twitter disabled [Michael James Ott's] accounts, perhaps due to an overabundance of caution about fake election websites." When I checked them they were back up but several of these candidates also had the same problem temporarily, often only restoring it when there's a large complaint at the grassroots level, although it's not reported in the mainstream media, which is another way of rigging election coverage in favor of candidates supported by the establishment.

Ro Khanna

Gayle McLaughlin

Sema for U.S. Senate

Tim Canova

Paula Jean Swearengin

Stephen R. Jaffe

For more on how I think we could create a much better interview process see Saving Project Vote Smart and improving it or replacing it and Election Reform

The establishment is also constantly trying to cut back on small reforms enabling alternative parties to get some additional coverage as indicated in HR 1 Cuts Green Party Campaign Funding, Sics Homeland Security and Political Police on the Left 03/07/2019 Providing matching funds to campaigns isn't nearly as good as financing an interview process as I recommend in previous articles; however, the current system is much worse; which means they're trying to do away with even minor improvements!

Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor’ 01/17/2019

Beto O'Rourke is the new Obama. And that's the last thing we need 12/22/2018

The following are a few list of many more presidential candidates, which I used for this search:

Ballotpedia: Presidential candidates, 2020

Project Vote Smart: Presidential candidates, 2016

Project Vote Smart: Presidential candidates, 2020



05/01/2018-08/31/2018; 01/12/2019-02/28/2019

The following are about three dozen or so more candidates, and their web pages, twitter or Facebook accounts, including a couple candidates that aren't serious like a cat, but mostly legitimate candidates that should have a chance to be heard. My previous article Censored Candidates For President By Mass Media also ahs a few dozen links to additional candidates the mainstream media refuse to cover.

Darcie Allen 2020 Includes positions

Darcie Allen 2020 on Twitter

Angela Glass for president includes positions

Angela Glass for president on Facebook

Angela Glass for president on Twitter

Broomfield Resident Crystal Bergfield Runs for President of the United States in 2020 01/30/2019

Crystal Bergfield campaign page

Rose Kincade Platform

Seymour the cat for President

2020 Green Party Presidential Candidates 03/08/2019

Aaron Fraser's Biography: Vote Smart

Carroll M Price, Jr. For President

Cecilia Okugo for US President We Love Cecilia 2020

Cecilia Okugo fundraiser My causes are finding cures for cancer, education, $15 minimum wage, neroscience and fighting abortion.

Cecilia Okugo on Twitter

Cecilia Okugo rally on 03/29/2019

Dan "Taxation Is Theft" Behrman 2020 on Facebook

Tyrell Heaton for President

Tyrell Heaton on Twitter

Campaign for Robert Washington Cooper Jr for President of the United States of America in 2020

JAWAD HASHEM HAKEEM for president

George Miklos' Biography on Vote Smart

A man named Sexy Vegan is running for president

Michael Hallman Wiki web-page no longer online

Kasey Wells for president

Kasey Wells for president on Twitter

Bruce John Kenneway for president USA created by majority White People. Original migration law will be reinstalled period

Bruce John Kenneway on Twitter using name ")))ANOINTED BY MY SAVIOUR CHRIST JESUS((("

A Case Against Marijuana by Huhnkie Lee

Huhnkie Lee LETTER: Vote me for president in 2020 06/05/2018

David Frank for President.

David Frank Proudly Announces His Candidacy for President of the United States of America 02/26/2019 Includes links to Twitter & Facebook

Gary Swing, Standing for Progress

Gary Swing: Our Campaigns

Gary Swing: Vote Smart

Robert Carr Wells Jr.: Wikipedia

Jack Charbonneau for President I cannot do it alone… includes Twitter

Joey Anthony Camp for President 2020 on Facebook

Joey Anthony Camp on Twitter also has domain address with little content, at this time.

Joe Collins for President of the United States on Crowdpac

Joe Collins for President of the United States on Twitter

Joe Collins for President of the United States on Facebook

Rally for Peace and Equality!! 01/24/2019 Featuring 2020 Green Party candidate for the President of the United States Joe Collins

Joseph Anthony Camp of Colorado for president So, as you can see, I can run for, and potentially win and assume, the Office of the President of the United States of America. However, because I am on Parole in the State of Colorado, I cannot vote for the Office of President of the United States of America.

Who Is Marianne Williamson, 2020 Presidential Candidate and Also Oprah's Spiritual Advisor? 02/08/2019

Marianne Williamson is Oprah’s spiritual adviser. She’s also running for president. 01/30/2019

8 things to know about presidential hopeful Marianne Williamson 03/14/2019

Did presidential hopeful Marianne Williamson merit a cover story? Some readers had doubts. 03/13/2019 Dozens of other low profile stories about Marianne Williamson on Google

Pamela Danelle Rocker for president on Facebook

Rev. Pamela M. Pinkney Butts for president 2016 again in 2020

Raynette Kennedy Weiss for President 2020 includes positions

James Peppe for president Positions could be better organized

James Peppe on Twitted

James Peppe on Facebook

Sheila "Samm" Tittle for president “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their Land.” ~ 2 Chronicles 7:14

Sheila "Samm" Tittle: Our Campaigns previously ran in 2016 & 2012

Sheila "Samm" Tittle on Facebook

Zion/SHELLY SUZETTE SWEDBERG RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT on Twitter I had Yahshua Son Benjamin Revelations12:5 Isaiah66:7-11A Real Event. I was murdered in 99'YaHshua brought me back Thankful4 Everthing #FollowHisLaws Forgive: Account temporarily restricted due to unusual activity but allowing those that want to see it to do so.

Dennis Diaz for president 2020/2024 includes links to Twitter and Facebook

Dennis Diaz Go Fund Me raised at least $242

Tim Villari for president on Twitter

Najah Gabriel for president on Twitter

Doug Shreffler 2016 questionaire from Vote Smart filled out in 2016 running again in 2020

Akiva Leffert for president on Twitter wearing a mask

Dario David Hunter on Wikipedia running for Green Party

Dario Hunter seeks Green Party presidential nomination 02/19/2019

5 third-party candidates for the 2020 presidential election - but none will do a Teddy Roosevelt February 2019

Candidate Questionnaire or positions for the 2016 Presidential Nomination – Raymond Haigood running in 2020 as an independent

Aliaune Damala Badara Akon Thiam: Wikipedia rapper net worth $80 million; supposedly faked criminal record to improve image In October 2018, Akon received some media coverage for his "serious consideration" in running for President of the United States in the U.S. 2020 Election.

Alan Augustson for President 2020 on Facebook

About the Maroon Party Alan Augustson Founder and candidate America is a lie. Perhaps it always was a lie. The mission of the Maroon Party is to take that lie and make it true. We propose a new Constitution that takes money and class out of our democratic process.

Internet Beef for president

Willie Felix Carter for president

Willie Felix Carter: Our Campaigns

Patrick Little for president Campaign Slogan: Liberate the US from the Jewish Oligarchy

You won't have Jill Stein to kick around any more 02/28/2019 Stein has suggested she won’t seek the party’s nomination in 2020, so there’s potential for a new Green voice. But it’s not yet clear who that will be. Aside from Hawkins and Schlakman, only 12 people have officially declared their candidacy for the Green Party nomination. It’s hard to tell which are serious. Kanye Deez Nutz West most likely is not.

There are a ridiculous number of people on the New Hampshire primary ballot 02/09/2016 By Chris Cillizza Coming from a media pundit that has very narrow criteria for allowing coverage for candidates this is highly hypocritical, although we do need to think of a more rational way to screen them, that isn't controlled by mainstream media.