The Case against Aspartame

I guess I have been a little bit reluctant to enter into the conversation surrounding Aspartame. This is mostly, because there is a very significant article on Snopes that mostly discounts all the articles written claiming there to be a significant Health Risk associated with Aspartame usage. That is, until I read the original article supposedly written by a non existant person who attended and lectured at a non-existant conference. Makes it look pretty much like scare tactics, as usual. Unfortunately, I began to smell a snake in the grass when I read that Donald Rumsfeld might be involved in a scheme to push the approval through the FDA in the early days of the Reagan presidency. As a matter of fact, GD Searle, the inventor of the original product re-submitted his request for approval the day after Reagan took office. This raised the hairs on the back of my head and I began to have serious suspicions of a government conspiracy at the very highest levels, much as we were pushed into the war in Iraq, by that same Donald Rumsfeld in a later Republican administration. Sure enough, I quickly learned the controversy goes much deeper than Snopes seems to have discovered. It makes you wonder if Barbara and David Mikkelson don't themselves own stock in Monsanto. I was especially concerned after discovering that Monsanto had bought GD Searle in 1985 for 2.7 billion dollars. I knew Monsanto had a history of manipulating their friends in Congress and the white House. Therefore, in my thinking, they must all be guilty as charged. Then when the U.S. Supreme Court, headed by Conservative, Clarence Thomas, who is a former attorney for Monsanto, refused to hear arguments by Consumer Groups that the FDA did not follow proper procedures in approving Aspartame, I was positive there was government and political manipulation going on here.

It was not until 1995 that Consumer activist Betty Martini managed to force the FDA to release documents under the Freedom of Information Act that supplied a list of all the adverse effects reported to the FDA by consumers associated with their Aspartame ingestion. The list is quite startling and includes four deaths and more than 90 unique symptoms, a majority of which are connected to impaired neurological function. They include: headache; dizziness or problems with balance; mood change; vomiting and nausea; seizures and convulsions; memory loss; tremors; muscle weakness; abdominal pains and cramps; change in vision; diarrhoea; fatigue and weakness; skin rashes; deteriorating vision; joint and musculoskeletal pain.

For a complete time-table in the history of Aspartame, visit the main link supplied in the title of this BLOG. I will be making further contributions to this BLOG, or modifying the existing content, in the coming days, as I further investigate the claims both pro and con.

Social Democrats

My brother, Ron had mentioned to me that he thought we needed to revamp the Democratic Party and get it back to what it was before "...The Socialists moved in and took it over..." He mentioned that it happened in the George McGovern campaign. I knew that my Dad always felt that the McGovern people more or less destroyed the party, but I was quick to point out to Ron that the Socialists had become a part of the party long before the McGovern run in 1972. In fact, they were instrumental in getting John F. Kennedy elected in 1960. I was not too sure when this change had come to pass, but knew that Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale were among those elite Minnesota Democrats who had roots in the Socialist movement.

Anyway, so I decided to write a BLOG about the Socialist movement in America and how it has been integrated into the Democratic party.

Dan's Documentation

I have been under a lot of pressure to provide some documentation for some of the claims I am making, so this BLOG will focus on a lot of links to various works by others showing how the World has been affected by the US and British Imperialists in the battle for control of the World's Oil Fields.

The story starts, Pre-WWI , when the Russian Czar made numerous treaties with Great Britain in an effort to divvy up the country now known as Iran. The original secret treaty was signed in 1907 and was called the "Convention of St Petersburg", which gave the Northern half of Persia to Russia and the Southern half to Britain, (which of course had all the oil fields). Persia's government was not even consulted. At that time there was not much of a government at all, and the British had little trouble maintaining control.

Anglo Persian began pumping oil in 1908 making Iran the first major area to have it's oil exploited by the Imperialists. Great Britain converted all it's ships to Oil and dominated WWI because their ships were so much faster and ranged further than the conventional coal fired ships of the day.

After the defeat of Germany in World War 1, Britain’s Lord Curzon declared that the Allies had “floated to victory upon a wave of oil.” (Everest, p. 31)

Anglo Persian eventually became British Petroleum and much of WWI was fought in Iran over Britain's claim to the oil fields they had established there.

BP became one of he world’s largest oil companies; it was founded solely on Middle Eastern oil. (Larry Everest, Oil, Power & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda, p. 30)

While promising independence to the Region's peoples, Britain, France and Russia were secretly negotiating to divide up the Middle East between them. This fact came to light when the Bolsheviks released all of the documents they found in the Czar's Foreign Ministry Archives, including the Treaty called the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement.

Once the Bolsheviks were in control in Russia, Britain launched a new offensive under the guise of fighting the spread of Communism, and in 1919, they imposed the Anglo-Persian Agreement, which gave them exclusive control of the government, including the transportation and communication, army and treasury. Beginning in 1921, the British supported a series of military coups, by Reza Khan, who eventually was established as Shah in 1926, operating as a Puppet of British Imperialism. This was the beginning of the Pahlavi Dynasty.

Enter the Good Old USA: Of course, sooner or later the United States had to become involved because of increased pressure applied by Standard Oil (now Exxon) and eventually a deal was worked out to share the spoils.

By 1928 the British were forced to give U.S. firms a cut of Iraqi oil, thanks to America’s rising global power and the leverage exerted by U.S. firms: Standard Oil (now Exxon) supplied half of Britain’s oil. Oil historian John Blair described the resulting “Red Line” agreement as “an outstanding example of a restricted combination for the control of a large portion of the world’s supply by a group of companies which together dominate the world market for this commodity.” (Everest, pp. 38-39)


Perhaps Dan would like to hear the same story from another perspective. At this point I will be quoting from The Encyclopedia Britannica . That source will probably bear a little more weight than the previous discourse. According to this source, the agreement included Afghanistan and Tibet.

Rise of Reza Khan

Until the beginning of World War I, Russia effectively ruled Iran, but, with the outbreak of hostilities, Russian troops withdrew from the north of the country, and Iranians convened the third Majles. Jubilation was short-lived, however, as the country quickly turned into a battlefield between British, German, Russian, and Turkish forces. The landed elite hoped to find in Germany a foil for the British and Russians, but change eventually was to come from the north.

Following the Russian Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, the new Soviet government unilaterally canceled the tsarist concessions in Iran, an action that created tremendous goodwill toward the new Soviet Union and, after the Central Powers were defeated, left Britain the sole Great Power in Iran.

During the reign of Reza Shah Pahlavi, Oil concessions were first granted in 1901, during the Qājār period, and the first commercially exploitable petroleum deposits were found in 1908. Reza Shah renegotiated a number of these concessions, despite the ire these agreements raised among the Iranian people. The concessions were to remain a violent point of contention in Iran for decades to come.

Reza Shah’s need to expand trade, his fear of Soviet control over Iran’s overland routes to Europe, and his apprehension at renewed Soviet and continued British presence in Iran drove him to expand trade with Nazi Germany in the 1930s. His refusal to abandon what he considered to be obligations to numerous Germans in Iran served as a pretext for an Anglo-Soviet invasion of his country in 1941. Intent on ensuring the safe passage of U.S. war matérial to the Soviet Union through Iran, the Allies forced Reza Shah to abdicate, placing his young son Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi on the throne.

Petroleum revenues were to fuel Iran’s economy for the next quarter of a century. There was no further talk of nationalization, as the shah firmly squelched subsequent political dissent within Iran. In 1957, with the aid of U.S. and Israeli intelligence services, the shah’s government formed a special branch to monitor domestic dissidents. The shah’s secret police—the Organization of National Security and Information, Sāzmān-e Amniyyat va Ettelaʿāt-e Keshvār, known by the acronym SAVAK—developed into an omnipresent force within Iranian society and became a symbol of the fear by which the Pahlavi regime was to dominate Iran.

Unfortunately, this source apparently has little to say about the Revolution that installed the Ayatollah Khomeini, or the taking of the 66 American hostages. On April 1, 1991 after the Shah had died in Cairo, following overwhelming support in a national referendum, Khomeini declared Iran an Islamic republic. That sort of ended Western influence over the oil in Iran.

Shock and Awe

This Post is written primarily in response to those who believe it is not only our right but even our command from God to Judge others, in spite of the admonition Jesus made in the "Sermon on the Mount" in Chapter 7 of Matthew to "Judge not, Lest you be Judged".

A dossier released by "Iraqi Body Count", a project of the UK non-governmental non-violent and disarmament organization Oxford Research Group, attributed approximately 6,616 civilian deaths to the actions of US led forces during the "Invasion Phase", including the "Shock and Awe" bombing campaign on Baghdad. Of course, this finding was immediately dismissed by the US government as being erroneous, however their own attempts at enumerating civilian losses was obviously disinformation and misinformation. Many people do not know that the idea of Shock and Awe as a military concept was conceived much earlier, even possibly by the Germans in the Blitzkrieg, but the idea was adopted by the Bush White house and came largely into the public awareness in the wake of the US led attack on Baghdad in March of 2003. The doctrine was formally written by Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade in 1996 and is a product of the National Defense University of the United States. The authors used, as an example, the theoretical invasion of Iraq 20 years after Operation Desert Storm, and they even cited the use of misinformation and disinformation as an integral part of the doctrine.

It should be pretty obvious to anyone willing to take the time to read the information available with an open mind, that someone in the Bush White House had read this doctrine and brought it to the attention of George Bush in some meeting in the White House, (or even before his election), where it was subsequently determined to give it a whirl against Baghdad. They proceeded, against overwhelming opposition in Congress and the united Nations. The proposed Invasion of Iraq was strongly opposed by some traditional US allies, including the governments of France, Germany, New Zealand and Canada. Only four countries participated in the initial invasion: The United States, Great Britain, Australia, Poland and in addition, support was given by Iraqi Kurdistan. As a matter of fact, the president ordered the plans for the invasion to be drafted within two weeks of the 9-11 attacks.

It is my belief that George Bush has read the Sermon on the Mount, or had it read to him, many times. He has also had it explained to him in depth. I believe this because GW Bush was very vocal about his Christian Faith, unlike many of his predecessors, who preferred to keep their religion out of their Politics. One of the most controversial passages in this sermon is found in Matthew 7; vs 1-5:

1 JUDGE not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Now in this context of his background and raising, how is it possible that arguably the most powerful man in the world at that time, could make this determination to invade Iraq, on his own, with only the support and consideration of his very closest circle of advisors. By February of 2003, largely through a campaign of misinformation and disinformation, and in spite of a UN inspection of Iraqi facilities in response to UN Resolution 1441, GW Bush was able to convince Congress to pass a Joint Resolution to authorize use of US Armed Forces against Iraq. Although a large majority of Americans polled were in favor of an invasion, by this time, a large majority also favored diplomatic solutions.

In summary, the Bush Administration, made the determination to proceed with this pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, based on disinformation and misinformation by his closest circle of advisors, and against the wishes of the American people and world-wide public opinion. This plan was essentially put into place on the day of his inaugeration.

Not so Proud to be an American

Why would I be "Proud to be an American"?? Because I was lucky enough to be born here?? As the title link of this Blog would suggest, Canadians are not "Proud to be Americans", per se, they might be proud to be Canadian, by the same misdirected logic that we use to be "Proud to be American". Maybe some are ashamed to be Americans for what the term suggests about them. Are Mexicans "Proud to be Americans"?? Their name for people from the good old USA is "Norte Americano". Do they exclude Canada in this description, or is it a general term that applies to "Those mostly white skinned pompous fat-headed, misguided people who live north of the Grand State of Mexico"?? And what about all those people who live South of Mexico. What do they think about being American. Are you "Proud to be an American" because they were the people who imported all those Black Africans into this country to work as Slave Labor on the plantations and in the big cities building all those "Proud to be an American" symbols, like the American Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. and the Washington Monument?? Are you "Proud to be an American" because you were descended from one of those Slave Laborers?? Are you "Proud to be an American" because you swam the Rio Grande River or came across in tiny boats from Cuba to find a better life in the "Land of the Free"?? Are you "Proud to be an American" because you are descended from one of the people who were here before the white skinned people came along and pushed them out of their homeland and forced them to live on Reservations in areas considered to be "no good for anything useful"??

Or, let's take it to another level. Are you "Proud to be a Minnesotan", because that is where you were born, or are you "Proud to be a Minnesotan" because your parents returned to Minnesota after living in California for a few years, to raise their kids in the same abject poverty they lived in before they left Minnesota for the easy money in California?? Or are you "Proud to be a Minnesotan" because your parents, who met and had all their children in Washington, returned to Minnesota while you were still in high school for the simpler life there?? Or are you "Proud to be a Minnesotan" because your Mother didn't want you, so you were adopted by a "Christian Family" in Minnesota out of the LSS Adoption clinic where you were born??

Dark Star and Pagan Pre-Cursors to Christianity

Life events shared by Osiris, Dionysus and Jesus:

The following stories appear both in the Gospels and in the myths of many of the god-men:

Conception:
God was his father. This was believed to be literally true in the case of Osiris-Dionysus; their God came to earth and engaged in sexual intercourse with a human. The father of Jesus is God in the form of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18).
A human woman, a virgin, was his mother.

Birth:
He was born in a cave or cowshed. Luke 2:7 mentions that Jesus was placed in a manger - an eating trough for animals. One early Christian tradition said that the manger was in a cave.
His birth was prophesized by a star in the heavens.

Ministry:
At a marriage ceremony, he performed the miracle of converting water into wine.
He was powerless to perform miracles in his home town.
His followers were born-again through baptism in water.
He rode triumphantly into a city on a donkey. Tradition records that the inhabitants waved palm leaves.
He had 12 disciples.
He was accused of licentious behavior.
Execution, resurrection, etc:
He was killed near the time of the Vernal Equinox, about MAR-21.
He died "as a sacrifice for the sins of the world." 1
He was hung on a tree, stake, or cross.
After death, he descended into hell.
On the third day after his death, he returned to life.
The cave where he was laid was visited by three of his female followers
He later ascended to heaven.

His titles:
God made flesh.
Savior of the world.
Son of God.

Beliefs about the God-man:
He is "God made man," and equal to the Father.
He will return in the last days.
He will judge the human race at that time.
Humans are separated from God by original sin. The god-man's sacrificial death reunites the believer with God and atones for the original sin.

All of the Pagan myths had been circulating for centuries before Jesus birth (circa 4 to 7 BCE). It is obvious that if any copying occurred, it was the followers of Jesus incorporating into his biography the myths and legends of Osiris-Dionysus, not vice-versa.

The Ten Commandments

Previous to this Post I made a good start on my Ten Commandemnts to a healthy life. I have returned to this BLOG numerous times to add and re-write, however it is still not yet half done. I suppose all writings are a work in progress, but I am especially exemplary of this notion that since you really don't know exactly where something is going and you never cease to discover new things about something that intrigues you, nothing is ever etched in stone and needs to be returned to many times before any degree of perfection is reached.

This perception, of course is exactly opposite to what happened on Mount Sinai when Moses got the original Ten Commandments and when he returned for a second set after smashing the first set in his anger at discovering his Brother, Aaron had fashioned a Golden Calf for the poeple of Israel to worship in his absence.

In this case, God did in fact etch these commandments in stone "With his Own Finger", as it is reported. Jewish tradition says that these writings went completely through the stone so it could be read from either side, and miraculously not in backward form from the reverse side. The attached link shows, if it were necessary to make that observation, that these laws were meant to be the Primary ten Laws that should never be broken or changed. Jesus himself, although showing that they could easily be summed up with only two "New Commandments", namely 1) Love Your Lord your God with all your Heart and Soul and 2) Your Neighbor as Yourself, nevertheless, in Jesus' own words, "..Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." The message is clear, "..Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled..." .

Now it has been recently suggested that I am attacking the Catholic Church, or as my Beloved Brother states, "..He feels no need to defend His Catholic Background". I want to make it perfectly clear that is not my intention, but only to point out an error of the entire "Christian Faith" that has existed since the 4th Century of the Common Era. In fact, a thorough reading of the Attached Document, that you may read in it's entirety for yourself by clicking on the Title of this BLOG, will I am sure convince you that the Catholic Church itself believes it has rewritten these Ten Commandments, and that if you perceive that the Scripture should be more infallible than Catholic Doctrine, you should not be following this Sunday Worship that they initiated, amongst other things they added, or changed from the original writing. They think the Protestants are pretty sily to be rejecting the Authority of the Catholic Church and still follow her teachings on The Sabbath.

And this covenant was meant to be forever. Exodus 31: 16 says" Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, [for] a perpetual covenant." In case that message was not clear, it is repeated in Leviticus 16; 31 " It [shall be] a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever. " However, I also want to make it clear at this point that my primary focus on this article is not the change from Saturday to Sunday of the Holy Day that was celebrated by God's people even before the writing of the Ten Commandments. My primary purpose in this particular BLOG is to point out that the original reading of the Ten Commandments has been changed to where, the Second Commandment is dropped altogether and the Tenth was split into two parts to bring the total back to ten. I have spent many hours arguing this point to a lot of converted Christians, who have given their lives over to God, and they invariably make light of it, like it is no big deal to add or subtract important passages from Scripture. Let me make it clear that these words still exist pretty much in their original form in the various Catholic and Protestant Bibles. I like using the King James, simply because it is so familar to most readers, and seems to be of a sufficient rendering to make it possible for most astute students of the Word to muddle their way through it. This remains a huge Puzzle to me how someone so intent on insisting that every word of the Bible should be considered inerrant and infallible, the Exact Word of God, brought down to us these many generations unaltered and perfect; how that person could so readily accept someone's complete subversion of those words in their translations thereof.

Anyone making even a casual reading of these Ten Commandments found in Exodus chapter 20 and Deuteronomy Chapter 5, pretty much identical content, will immediately be struck by this fact, that the Second Commandment, concerning the making and worshipping of "Graven Images" has been completely removed from all modern day enumerations of those basic ten, and how the Tenth has been split in two for no reason whatsoever, except to bring the count back up to the preconceived value of Ten.

Well, I am confidant that this writing will elicit a very intense debate and I welcome your input, so feel free to add comments to your Heart's desire.