United Nations to Observe American Elections

There are generally two views of the United Nations. One is that of an insidious, oppressive organization hell bent on world wide government, and the other is that of a flawed, but indispensable organization that helps resolve conflict and has given us a better world.

The UN has many obligations and branches, all given authority by its member countries. One of their functions is to help ensure a fair, peaceful, and democratic election process.

Ever since 2002 the UN (via the Department of Political Affairs/Electoral Assistance Division and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) has sent observers to monitor US elections, both local and national. This has given a measure of assurance to some and dread to others. And while I personally do not treasure the prospect of seeing the "blue shirts" looking over my shoulder (which they can't literally do) and understand that it could raise questions for some, I also don't see them as a military force that has been placed here to ensure the election of a New World Order approved candidate.

When you look at the issues raised by many anti-UN/NWO groups, one of their key messages is that the US election system is rigged and that it's little more than a distraction aimed at keeping the unwitting masses thinking they still have some real freedom. And that the UN, our government, and others have worked to destroy our constitution and liberty worldwide. While there have been instances of voter fraud and intimidation from both the left and right, that isn't conclusive evidence that the system itself is rigged. And while it's easy to disrupt a local election where literally a single vote can change the outcome, altering a presidential election would require many thousands of invalid votes across multiple states - something that has been studied and and largely debunked.

Since 2005, the US based think tank Fund for Peace has issued a yearly index titled the "Failed States Index". This index grades every nation on a 120 point scale from "sustainable" to "alert" (or failed). This index looks at many different factors including political corruption, social pressures and economic issues. According to the index the United States is actually in the "more stable" category, number 158 out of 178 countries.

One of the biggest misconceptions is that these observers are either UN troops or that they can actually interfere in the election, e.g closing a polling station or preventing a person from voting. In fact these observers have zero power to interfere. The UN article on their observer missions states "In extraordinary circumstances international observers or supervisors in post-conflict countries may even be given the authority to certify or invalidate election results. Generally, however, observers have no power to interfere in the election process, but may only observe, assess and report."

The US is not a "post-conflict" country and in reality the observer missions are often more about training their people to see what a relatively open voting process looks like as much as it is to report any problems they may see. The UN sends observers to dozens of countries, and while the US does have some issues, the fact remains our election process is an ideal that many countries strive for and so it makes sense that the UN would send people here.

Another misconception is that the UN has forced themselves onto our territory to "observe and report". The truth is that over the years they have been invited by federal and state governments, as well as US based organizations, to come and watch. What seems to be left out of all this is the fact that just about anyone in the US can monitor an election, and that localities can invite international organizations to observe too.

While their reason for coming in 2012 was a bit of a farce (due to the erroneous allegations of a voter disenfranchisement scheme aimed at keeping millions of voters home), it is a sad fact that our system is not 100% fair, just not in the same way the folks at the NAACP and others think. The two-party duopoly we have in America is a real threat to democracy and our basic freedoms, and I would think many would be glad to see people keeping an eye out for any fraudulent activity. However, that isn't the same as saying the actual electoral process on election day is rigged.

Donald Trump likes to point out the Democratic National Committee's behavior toward Bernie Sanders as proof of a "rigged system". Well, the primary system is rigged. Primaries are the exclusive domain of two private clubs: the Democratic and Republican parties. That's a world away from how the actual election works. And claiming the media is "rigged" against him is likewise silly. The American media has been left leaning for generations, yet somehow the Republican Party has managed to win election after election. Indeed, over the last 8 years the only real defeats the Republicans have had are the two presidential races. The GOP controls the Senate, House, the majority of state houses, and the governorships. Simply being an unpopular candidate with some questionable positions, doesn't mean the universe is arrayed against you.

I do not relish the thought of having UN personnel in US cities, but they are not here in any policing fashion, and since we do have some problems, perhaps they could help bring them to light.

Jacob Bogle
www.JacobBogle.com
Facebook.com/JacobBogle
Twitter.com/JacobBogle
 

Additional Reading:
1. Trump, NATO, and Nuclear Proliferation, JacobBogleWrites.com
2. UN Dept of Political Affairs, UN
3. UN Group Will Monitor US Elections, ABC News
4. UN Electoral Assistance General Assembly Resolutions, UN (1991-2012)

(Originally published on October 26, 2012. Updated on October 26, 2016)

Clint Eastwood & Bohemian Grove

This picture has been making the Internet circuit lately.

It purportedly shows Clint Eastwood at the secretive Californian club "Bohemian Grove" in 1987.

The Bohemian Grove is a secret all-male group of people that meet at a large wooded compound in California. And while the location and club actually exist their purpose and what goes on there is subject to widespread conspiracies, many with little substantive facts.

This picture began showing up after Eastwood spoke at the 2012 Republican National Convention.

After a fairly extensive online search I have zero evidence that Eastwood is a member despite finding multiple lists of probable and real members. All I have found are a few "off-the-path" sites saying he is a "confirmed member", all the while giving no supporting evidence.

One key factor to pay attention to is the watermark on the image. It says "memcreator.org". The site allows you to take any picture and add whatever text you want to it and then pass it along as an Internet meme.

Now, while I can find no verifiable evidence that Eastwood is a member that doesn't mean he is not and there have been rumors that he is for a few years.

What I find amazing is that so many people are using this image as some sort of proof. It proves nothing. You would think that such an old photo would have been online, however, a Google image search for "Clint Eastwood Bohemian Grove" (and several other terms) yielded nothing, not even his name associated with the hundreds of Grove photos out there.

True or false, for anyone who loves truth over misinformation, you should always do your homework and verify things before posting them as fact.

Personally, the fact that this picture has only shown up since his RNC "speech" and was created via memecreator.org looks as though this is just a hoax...even if he is a member, this picture doesn't prove anything.

--Jacob Bogle

Soursop and Cancer Cures

Claim: Soursop can cure 12 different cancers and is 10,000 times more effective than chemotherapy.

This is Soursop, otherwise known as Graviola fruit (Annona muricata), or guyabano.

It has been used for many years as an herbal medicine. It is native to Central and South America as well as the Caribbean and is also grown in parts of Asia.

A number of sites have articles all detailing the same information with slight variances.

For example: http://aoand.com/profiles/blogs/graviola-tree-10-000-times-stronger-killer-of-cancer-than-chemo and http://www.jamaicans.com/blog/?p=347

The claims commonly ascribed to this fruit are (copied from claim supporter site):

*Attacks cancer safely and effectively with an all-natural therapy that does not cause extreme nausea, weight loss and hair loss
* Protect your immune system and avoid deadly infections
* Feel stronger and healthier throughout the course of the treatment
* Boost your energy and improve your outlook on life
* Effectively target and kill malignant cells in 12 types of cancer, including colon, breast, prostate, lung and pancreatic cancer
* The tree compounds proved to be up to 10,000 times stronger in slowing the growth of cancer cells than Adriamycin, a commonly used chemotherapeutic drug!
* What’s more, unlike chemotherapy, the compound extracted from the Graviola tree selectively hunts down and kills only cancer cells. It does not harm healthy cells!

After a fairly extensive search I only found 1, peer-reviewed, scientific article describing the benefits of Graviola extract (which is not the same as raw fruit). You can read it the abstract here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21767082

In the article it says that the extract "significantly downregulated EGFR gene expression and inhibited the growth of BC cells and xenografts." EGRF is a gene commonly found in breast cancer. The dosage of the extract was 200mg/kg which in an average human female equates to 6.4 grams per day for 5 weeks.  However, the study was only done in mice and so the therapeutic equivalent could be much higher.

Further claims of feeling stronger, energy boosts, improved outlook on life are all things that a simple can of Coke can provide or even being outside in the sunlight. They're also claims that are hard to show definitively came from the fruit since they're all subjective and can be caused by any number of everyday things.

The dubious claim that it is 10,000 times more effective than chemotherapy is one hard to substantiate. Even if it were 10,000 times more effective than Adriamycin (which is actually an anti-biotic used in cancer treatment) it is still only more effective than a single drug which is used in a limited number of cancers. Many people have taken the information to mean that it is more effective than all chemo agents against many cancers.

It is also purported that since Graviola comes from a natural source it is better for you than chemotherapy which is an evil man-made poison. However, Adriamycin (doxorubicin) and many other chemo agents and other drugs are derived from natural sources. Adriamycin comes from a bacteria, Taxol and Taxotere both come from the bark of the Taxus brevifolia tree, Thiopurine drugs are derived from Purine, an organic compound found in our DNA, the entire Anthracyclines and Camptothecins classes of drug come from natural sources like plants and fungi.

Another problem with the "Soursop cure" is that there are no verifiable third-party sources to be found in any of the pro-Soursop articles I have read. While they list groups like the Catholic University of South Korea and the Journal of Natural Products, other than the single article I mentioned above, none of these sources can be found. Even Wikipedia requires that facts or claims be backed up with 3rd-party sources.

One thing we do know is that while Soursop may have some benefits against breast cancer in mice it is also dangerous. The fruit contains high levels of annonacin, which in large doses (3-8mg/day) can lead to Parkinson's Disease. It can also cause general cell death by blocking the cell's ability to produce ATP which is basically the bodies source of cellular energy.

Proponents claim that there is some vast conspiracy to keep the "truth" about Soursop away from the public eye because, since it is a natural product, it cannot be patented and so profits are low. However, there is nothing to prevent you, a doctor, chemist, hospital, university or other group from conducting their own scientific studies of this fruit and publishing their findings. The theory that profits can't be made by selling healthy and natural products is absurd. GNC brings in over $2 billion a year and a study by the Natural Products Foundation showed that the dietary supplement industry alone has an economic impact of $60 billion/year.

The bottom line: Soursop contains some compounds beneficial to breast cancer, however eating or drinking the raw fruit may not yield any benefits at all. It is also potentially dangerous to do so. I can not find any scientific information to support the claim that it is 10,000 times more effective than chemotherapy or is greatly more helpful in other cancers than current treatments. The idea that this is a cure-all or that direct intake will slow or cure cancer is completely false.

Sources:

1. Chemo Natural Sources http://www.uesc.br/cursos/pos_graduacao/mestrado/animal/bibliografias/roueda/artigo3.pdf  and http://www.fmh.org/body.cfm?id=900

2. Causes Parkinson's http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14675150

3. GNC Revenues http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/15/15942.html

4. NPF Report http://www.naturalproductsinfo.org/index.php?src=news&srctype=detail&category=DSIB%20Releases&refno=181&view=DSIB_Releases_Detail

Also:

1. http://www.hoaxorfact.com/Health/graviola-tree-10000-times-stronger-killer-of-cancer-than-chemo.html

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soursop

Disclaimer: I used to work as a contractor with the US Veterans Department in one of their pharmacies so I may be a part of the grand scheme to block you (a free individual) from learning about a tree (that can be found world over) or from using the scientific method to discover its uses.

Obama's Law License Revoked

The hoax that Barack and Michelle Obama had their law license revoked has been around for several years. It usually entails a claim that it was revoked due to disciplinary proceedings and gives a link to some obscure blog as proof, and for good measure a link to the front page of the Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee.

This has been making the rounds again all over Facebook, Twitter and E-mail.
The truth of the matter is this:

Neither Obama's have an active license, they were voluntarily retired. Despite the claim that Michelle was forced to surrender her license due to "insurance fraud", neither Michelle nor Barack were ever suspected of any wrongdoing and have not undergone any disciplinary action.

Obama placed his license on "inactive" status when he decided to run for president and after he won he had it retired. According the ARDC, it is a fairly common practice to retire your licence if you no longer intend to practice law. A 2011 ARDC report shows that 12% of the states registered attorneys were placed on "inactive" status.

So please, stop spreading this lie. Even if you don't like Obama it is still no reason to propagate such a blatant falsehood.

Sources:

1. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/the-obamas-law-licenses/
2. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp
3. http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/Obama-Law-License.htm
4. ARDC Report http://www.iardc.org/AnnualReport2011.pdf
5. IARDC Barack Obama Page https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=368256064
6. IARDC Michelle Obama Page https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=498531424

Who am I and What is This About?

My name is Jacob Bogle. I live near Nashville, Tennessee, I'm gay and a libertarian. I am also somewhat educated (pharmacology, architecture and theology) and committed to the truth, even if I don't like it or if it upsets your world view. I have been studying, to varying degrees, astronomy, physics, medicine, government, world military capabilities, history and philosophy for much of my life.

I am not a singular authority on anything (very few people actually are) and I recognize I do not know everything. However, I do know a lot and I have confidence in my abilities to research and find the reality to just about anything if pushed to do so.

I have Asperger's Syndrome and like many of my kind I say what I mean and mean what I say. I rarely say things to insult or otherwise injure someone and I place a high value on facts, logic and reason.

I enjoy dialectics more than debate and I firmly believe that when a disagreement arises there is a fundamental truth that can be found even if that means those involved have to accept new facts and alter their opinions.

I spend a lot of time online and I come across any number of Internet memes, rumors, hoaxes and otherwise questionable materials. I feel strongly that spreading something which is flawed only serves to further the ignorance of others and causes many problems...as well as hurts your own reputation and credibility.

So, I have created this blog to tackle some of the more outrageous things I find. I will provide sources to back up my conclusions and hope that the efforts I put in to this will ever so slightly make a dint in the never ending flow of hogwash found and disseminated online.