Author Archives: Jon Rappoport

The Connecticut school shootings: Operation Chaos

by Jon Rappoport

December 14, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

Jacob Roberts, the Oregon mall shooter, and the shooter(s) (Adam Lanza) at the Connecticut elementary school, share a common trait: they committed irrational and inexplicable murders.

This may seem like an obvious fact, but it holds the key to understanding what is going on. You don’t look for an ordinary motive. Therefore, what are we dealing with?

It’s easy to say, “They were crazy,” or “Who cares why they did it,” but that gets you nowhere.

We have to shake off our own conditioning to these repetitive murders. We have to shake off the idea that “they just keep happening” and instead look below the surface.

First and foremost, we have to consider the possibility that SSRI antidepressants like Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft were in play. The drugs have been well studied. They do, in fact, push people far over the edge, scramble neurotransmitter systems, and result in patients committing suicides and murders.

My extensive school-shooting report, written a decade ago, lays out the facts about these drugs, and also about the amphetamine-type drugs prescribed for ADHD, like Ritalin:

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/02/11/the-school-shooting-white-paper/

The meds cause inexplicable violent behavior: suicide, homicide. The drugs were, in fact, linked with the 1999 Columbine school shooting. Eric Harris, one of the killers, was on Luvox, an SSRI antidepressant, which was taken off the market by its manufacturer several years later.

It’s long past the time when police should continue to fear defensive psychiatrists. In these latest tragedies, an investigation must be launched immediately to see whether the shooters were on these drugs, or whether they had just come off them. The withdrawal effects alone can be horrific.

You can be sure drug companies have people striving to find out, in Oregon and Connecticut, before anyone else does, whether the shooters were on the devastating drugs. It’s called damage control, which means, if necessary, covering up or downplaying the facts.

The same kind of damage control is no doubt being tried in the Aurora theater shootings, where it finally leaked out that James Holmes was under the care of a psychiatrist and was, most likely, on one or more of the drugs that induce out-of-control violence—inexplicable baffling violence.

Jacob Roberts, the Oregon mall shooter, was said to be happy-go-lucky, and then shortly before the killings, “went numb.” Investigate whether he was under the care of a doctor, and whether he was given psychiatric drugs.

Whether either or both of the shooters in Oregon and Connecticut were operating out of an even darker mind-controlled program, as was apparently the case, for example, with the dupe in the RFK assassination, Sirhan Sirhan, we are still looking at Operation Chaos:

Generations of children and adults have now fallen under the influence of psychiatrists, who have given them these brain-scrambling chemicals, and the overall outcome is certain. People will continue to launch inexplicable motiveless murders, on a random basis.

The destabilizing effects on the society, the debilitating effects on the population are enormous. People are confused, they become more passive, they move a little further each time into dependence on the authorities.

The government screws in tighter controls on freedom. New programs are mounted to take away guns from citizens.

All this is the aim of the massive covert operation that is behind the “mental-health establishment.” Distort the brains and neurological systems of millions of people, and let the chips fall where they may.

Mass murders are the consequences.

Whether or not Jacob Roberts and the Connecticut school shooter(s) were on these psychiatric drugs, Operation Chaos will proceed. The very fact that we may never find out whether the latest mass murderers were drugged in this way speaks volumes: powerful people don’t want the truth to be known.

This is a common feature of all mass murders: the police and the prosecutors refuse to investigate the psychiatric medicines, unless they are absolutely forced to. They are under tacit orders to ignore that obvious and glaring route of inquiry.

The most important reason why? The hugely powerful drug companies, who are only a step away from incrimination, when a shooter is driven to kill by the storm created in his brain by the drugs.

Billions of dollars are at stake.

The pharmaceutical companies have it all figured out. No matter how much is written and discovered about the violence-inducing effects of psychiatric chemicals, they can ride things out and keep selling those poisons. The FDA will maintain a hands-off attitude. The money will keep rolling in unless:

One of these killers is shown to have killed because he was on Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Ritalin, or Adderall.

Terrible things happened in Oregon and Connecticut. Terrible things will keep happening unless a relentless pursuit of the truth is undertaken. Anything less is obscene dereliction of duty.

To law-enforcement officials: blood is already on your hands. Find the truth and tell it.

Sources:

http://www.breggin.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=295

http://www.naturalnews.com/034960_Prozac_teens_murder.html

http://www.infowars.com/prozac-zoloft-paxil-did-one-of-these-drugs-drive-the-empire-state-shooter/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-breggin/panel-to-examine-murder-a_b_838147.html

http://ssristories.com/

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Don’t let your child see a psychiatrist. Ever.

DON’T LET YOUR CHILD SEE A PSYCHIATRIST. EVER.

By Jon Rappoport

December 13, 2012

If you have a child, don’t let him/her see a psychiatrist. Ever.

 

Read Mike Adams’ new article about psychiatry. It’s one of the best I’ve ever read, and I’ve been researching this pseudoscience for 20 years.

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/038322_DSM-5_psychiatry_false_diagnosis.html

 

Then read this one, too. It’s also excellent. I wrote it.

 

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/02/27/the-liars-liar/

 

Yes, I know, I’m bragging, which is a sign of a mental disorder: Self-Inflation at the Expense of Sacred Psychiatry Disorder. The preferred treatment is electroshock therapy and MKULTRA re-programming. I’m opting for a walk in the park coupled with two doses of outrage at these fake doctors who poison brains and believe they’re healers.

 

Here is a clue. The government gives psychiatry its fake legitimacy. That’s how the game works. The government blesses the medical licensing boards that award psychiatrists permission to drug your children, alter their brains, poison them, and of course make all the fake diagnoses in the first place.

 

Without the government, these fakes would sink into the waves and be gone forever. Nobody in his right mind or wrong mind would ever step into a psychiatrist’s office. It would be like volunteering to stumble out on to a mine field seeded with explosives.

 

Media, naturally, go along with the psychiatric hoax. Thousands of articles keep coming out of the hopper to support the authoritative pronouncements of these deranged monsters with medical degrees and “training” in diagnosing mental illnesses.

 

There are no mental illnesses or disorders. There never have been.

 

There are people with problems, there are people who suffer, there are people who are in desperate circumstances, there are people who have severe nutritional deficiencies, there are people who have been poisoned by various chemicals, there are people who have been abused and ignored, there are people who have been told there is something wrong with them, there are people who are different and can’t deal with the conforming androids in their midst, but there are no mental disorders.

 

None.

 

It’s fiction. It’s a billion-dollar fiction. It’s a gigantic steaming pile of bullshit. Always has been.

 

There is not a single diagnostic test for any so-called mental disorder. Never has been. No blood test, no urine test, no saliva test, no brain scan, no genetic test. No science.

 

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/09/05/more-evidence-psychiatry-is-a-fake-science/

 

So why hasn’t psychiatry been destroyed and outlawed? Because there is money in it. Big money. Pharmaceutical money. And because the public is in a trance. Mothers and fathers are quite willing to take their children to these brain poisoners…lambs to the slaughter.

 

The silence of the lambs.

 

People are entranced by so-called professionals with fancy degrees who speak technical babble. It all seems real. Because if it weren’t real, then…what? People would be forced to admit they are living in a fantasy. And people don’t want to admit that. They would rather die than admit that.

 

But that’s what psychiatry is. An elaborate fantasy. If every psychiatrist in the world vanished tomorrow, the world would immediately become a far healthier place.

 

If every celebrity who outrageously whores for psychiatry would stop on a dime, the world would be a far healthier place right away.

 

You think Dr. Phil is a fake? He’s nothing compared to psychiatrists with their prescription pads. He’s a saint by comparison. The drugs are brain poisons. If you really want to know the truth about the drugs, go to breggin.com and read everything Dr. Peter Breggin has ever written about the drugs. He covers the whole slimy waterfront.

 

There is some horrendous handwriting on wall. Believe me. You can see it all around you if you look. The shrinks are treating younger and younger children with the brain poisons, every day. They’re diagnosing children who are practically toddlers and they’re drugging them. They’re ripping their brains. It’s happening. You may not want to know about it, but it’s there. It’s a crime on the order of murder.

The Matrix Revealed

And the bastards at the FDA and the bastards who train doctors in medical schools are going along with it. They’re accomplices to the ongoing crime. They have blood on their hands.

 

Here is a story Dr. Breggin told in his classic book, Toxic Psychiatry. It says it all:

 

“Roberta was a college student, getting good grades, mostly A’s, when she first became depressed and sought psychiatric help at the recommendation of her university health service. She was eighteen at the time, bright and well motivated, and a very good candidate for psychotherapy. She was going through a sophomore-year identity crisis about dating men, succeeding in school, and planning a future. She could have thrived with a sensitive therapist who had an awareness of women’s issues.

 

“Instead of moral support and insight, her doctor gave her Haldol. Over the next four years, six different physicians watched her deteriorate neurologically without warning her or her family about tardive dyskinesia [motor brain damage] and without making the [tardive dyskinesia] diagnosis, even when she was overtly twitching in her arms and legs. Instead they switched her from one neuroleptic to another, including Navane, Stelazine, and Thorazine. Eventually a rehabilitation therapist became concerned enough to send her to a general physician, who made the diagnosis [of medical drug damage]. By then she was permanently physically disabled, with a loss of 30 percent of her IQ.

 

“…my medical evaluation described her condition: Roberta is a grossly disfigured and severely disabled human being who can no longer control her body. She suffers from extreme writhing movements and spasms involving the face, head, neck, shoulders, limbs, extremities, torso, and back-nearly the entire body. She had difficulty standing, sitting, or lying down, and the difficulties worsen as she attempts to carry out voluntary actions. At one point she could not prevent her head from banging against nearby furniture. She could hold a cup to her lip only with great difficulty. Even her respiratory movements are seriously afflicted so that her speech comes out in grunts and gasps amid spasms of her respiratory muscles…Roberta may improve somewhat after several months off the neuroleptic drugs, but she will never again have anything remotely resembling a normal life.”

If the smug scum who run the NY Times put THAT story on the front page right under a huge headline, we might see something good happen in this country.

 

Chronic whiners want to claim the government has to protect everybody all the time, as if that were possible, as if that were really the government’s aim. These whiners are busy-bodies, meddlers, and self-made victims. They sometimes pose as scientists. They love psychiatry. They equate psychiatry with government. You know, “share and care.”

 

They assert that government knows best. At bottom, they’re vicious little idiots.

 

But they’re very useful idiots, because the government welcomes their help in keeping the populace in line.

 

And psychiatry is a cardinal strategy in that regard.

 

Chemical straitjackets for the lambs.

 

The silence of the lambs.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Why Bob Costas should stick to adoring Mickey Mantle

Why Bob Costas should stick to adoring Mickey Mantle

by Jon Rappoport

December 11, 2012

Critics of gun ownership like to play with comparisons between crimes prevented and crimes caused by people with guns. But this is specious reasoning. The people with weapons who prevent a crime upon themselves are doing something good. The people who commit a crime using a gun are committing a crime. Those are two different worlds, as anyone with a few working brain cells will recognize.

And of course, the people who use a gun to commit a crime would be able to obtain a weapon even if guns were outlawed. I thought we had firmly established this by now. I guess not.

Anyway, Bob Costas hears about murder and he wants to blame…not somebody, but something. This could be called an object fetish.

Let’s try guns. Yes, guns. They jump up all the time and kill people, even when they’re locked in a safe. Isn’t that right?

Guns are firing at random. You’re carrying a gun in your glove compartment and it leaps out and opens the window and pops a pedestrian. Yes. Happens all the time.

So take away the guns. No one has the right to shoot an intruder in his home. He should instead signal the thief or rapist for a time out and call 911 and wait. Yes.

We need a test that predicts who is likely to shoot his girlfriend. Then we stop him from getting a gun. We put him under 24/7 surveillance to make sure he doesn’t get a gun. This would be a way to create new jobs in a down-economy.

Or how about this? Spy on everyone all the time. Track their phone calls, emails, texts, purchases, travel. Fill the sky with drones and the homes with smart appliances that watch people day and night. Whenever a gun appears, or the possibility of getting a gun rears its ugly head, we vaporize that person.

No, Bob. I suggest staying with what you know. Something like this, which I just scripted for you:

“I remember the summer of 1961 when the Mick and Roger Maris were going at it every day, trying to break the home run record. I was nine. I was at Yankee Stadium on a hot day in August, and Mickey walked by our seats during batting practice. He winked at me. I felt my heart flutter and I nearly fainted. Recovering, I said, ‘Mickey, some day I’m going to interview you on national television.’ He stopped walking and turned and looked at me. He grinned and said, ‘Son, I’ll be waiting.’

“Well, sports fans, here I am today. And you know what? Mickey didn’t have a gun. Never did. Neither did Hank Aaron. Neither did Willie Mays. Mickey was a heavy drinker, but he didn’t have a gun. There’s a lesson for all you kids out there. If you drink, don’t shoot. Get vaccinated. Stay in school. Don’t have sex without a condom. Recycle all plastic. If you have to shoot somebody who just broke into your house, use a water pistol. Better yet, reason with him. Tell him he’s from a broken home and that’s why he’s doing what he’s doing. You’d be surprised at how often that works…”

The Matrix Revealed

Bob also makes a strong case for keeping guns out of the hands of young hormonally-driven athletes. The guns sense they are owned by such men and respond by firing a few rounds. Exactly how this happens is being studied by the US National Institutes of Health.

Researchers believe studies may lead to breakthroughs about how other objects behave on their own, without prompting by human agents. For example, a syringe loaded with vaccine could be modified to follow a person when he gets out of his car and inject him with life-saving substances.

“Some day,” said Dr. Richard Hoglipper, “we might even be able to train guns so they wouldn’t fire on their own. They wouldn’t jump out of a holster by themselves and kill someone…”

While I’m at it, kudos to another “sports journalist,” the inimitable Jason Whitlock, who claims that “the NRA is the new KKK.” Al Sharpton wishes he’d thought of that one.

Apparently, Whitlock believes the NRA, which supports gun ownership, is actually plotting to put those guns into the hands of black people, so they can kill each other.

This would explain why so few white people come to gun shows and buy weapons.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Yes on Prop 37’s biggest supporter was…Monsanto

 

YES ON 37’S BIGGEST SUPPORTER WAS…
MONSANTO: How Political Elites Win In The Matrix

by Jon Rappoport

December 10, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

We’ve all heard about hidden agendas, divide and conquer, controlling the narrative, and problem-reaction-solution. These are certainly time-honored and effective strategies for political elites.

 

To get simpler, we could just say lie-cheat-steal-kill.

 

But let’s approach all this from a somewhat different angle.

 

A powerful elite group first forms a goal, an objective. It clarifies that goal. For example: domination of the global food supply.

 

With that goal in mind, and with the technology to genetically modify food crops, huge corporations like Monsanto, along with their politicians firmly in their pockets, decide to patent every kind of food seed possible.

 

Soon, they own food. They license/sell food seeds. They expand the number of GMO food crops.

 

But they also realize they have to deal with opposition.

 

There are many people who oppose GMO food. These people expose this food as nutrient-deficient and dangerous to human health. They expose the fact that much more toxic pesticide is sprayed on this new Roundup Ready food. They expose the fact that actual ownership of the food supply is passing into the hands of these elite corporations. They expose the fact that the inserted genes drift from crop to crop, field to field, and contaminate non-GMO crops.

 

What to do?

 

Monsanto and its allies have a time table. They believe they can accomplish, in a relatively short time, a fait accompli. There will be so many licensed GMO food crops and so many drifting genes, the very idea of ridding the world of GMO crops will be seen as impossible.

 

In the meantime, they need to stall. They need to divert attention away from the one action that could torpedo all their efforts: BANNING GMO CROPS.

 

This is the one thing that must not happen.

 

So…Monsanto covertly develops a plan: channel its opposition into lesser goals.

 

For example: labeling of GMO crops.

 

This is acceptable.

 

Monsanto “develops” two levels of labeling. There is voluntary labeling (preferred) and mandatory labeling (less preferred).

 

It plants agents into large organizations who are directed to debate the labeling issue. Debate it for a long time.

 

One such organization is the notorious Codex Alimentarius. Created by the UN in 1961, with the mandate of guarding the health of consumers, Codex eventually became a go-to group for the World Trade Organization, whenever disputes between trading nations arose that impacted health issues. Codex is also friendly with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

 

So for the past 20 years, the issue of labeling GMO foods has been debated at Codex. This in itself has been a remarkable victory for Monsanto.

 

Finally, in the summer of 2011, Codex decided that labeling was acceptable if it was voluntary. This grossly diluted standard was, of course, hailed as a victory by some anti-GMO activists.

 

With serious reservations, a huge non-profit called Consumers International, whose goal, like Codex, is “protection of consumer rights” weighed in: yes, this Codex victory was important, but not enough.

 

The labeling debate was going according to Monsanto’s plan:

 

Endless talking, exceedingly minor achievements. And NO MAJOR BANS on GMO crops.

 

Both sides in the debate were operating as Monsanto wanted them to operate. Labeling was the diversion. It was the distraction sucking up huge amounts of time, energy, effort, and money…all along the wrong path.

 

The press was framing the whole GMO question in terms of labeling, reporting on the Codex debates, reporting on statements from Consumers International, reporting on activists and scientists who wanted labeling or claimed that labeling wasn’t necessary.

 

Then came a major effort to make GMO labeling mandatory in California. It was called Prop 37. Should all GMO food sold in California be labeled or not?

 

The world was focused on this battle. Activists were focused on it.

 

Monsanto, quite satisfied, stood off to the side and poured major dollars to their PR people, who in turn campaigned against labeling.

 

But the victory was already in hand for Monsanto, before a single vote was cast. One way or another, labeling was going to continue to be the only real issue under debate.

 

If Monsanto lost the Prop 37 election, they would acknowledge the defeat “graciously,” as they did in England, and support labeling. Meanwhile, they would continue to spend millions of dollars, or even billions, convincing Californians that buying (labeled) GMO food was an easy decision: buy it; it’s healthy; there are no problems; who cares.

 

Another aspect of Monsanto’s master plan needs to be understood. Monsanto encouraged the labeling debate at Codex and almost certainly threw covert support behind Consumers International because those organizations are ostensibly about CONSUMERS.

 

Monsanto wanted to make the whole GMO issue about people who buy products. It wanted to frame the issue around that.

 

Why? Because that trivializes the whole situation. It isn’t about destruction of the natural food supply, it isn’t about the tonnage of poisonous pesticide sprayed on Roundup Ready GMO crops. It isn’t about nutrient-deficient GMO food. It isn’t about owning patents on the world’s food crops. It isn’t about the health dangers of eating GMO food. It isn’t about destroying the small farmer. It isn’t about all that. It’s really, you see, about the consumer’s right to know what’s in his food.

 

It’s about the buyer, the person who spends money at the check-out counter. It’s about consumers, and aren’t we all consumers? Aren’t we just people into whom are funneled all sorts of products? Isn’t that who we are? Aren’t we just the little creatures who buy stuff?

 

Prop 37 played right into that plan, because the leaders of YES ON 37 decided that the “right to know what’s in your food” was the prime message they would sell. That would be the essence of the whole campaign. A consumerist message.

 

Label GMO food? Don’t label it? That’s Monsanto territory. That’s the territory they can live in. They like that territory. It doesn’t raise the specter of a BAN on GMO crops.

The Matrix Revealed

In circles of political power, in Washington DC, for example, there are people who are known as consultants, “go-to guys” who can tell you “how the real game is played.” They are brought in to educate amateurs who want to win victories.

 

These consultants are mostly bent from the beginning. They have their their own agendas and allegiances. They are bent and crooked and smart, and they sell their advice.

 

They could, for instance, show the YES ON 37 people that there was only one way to win a ballot initiative in California. That way would be: talk non-stop about “the consumer’s right to know” what’s in his food. Marginalize every other kind of talk.

 

Of course, this fits perfectly with Monsanto’s plan.

 

The more talk there is about the right to know, the less talk there is about banning GMO crops…until the day comes when an outright ban seems so far away it’s viewed as rather ludicrous.

 

This remoteness and ludicrousness is, you must understand, an artifact created by decades of talk about labeling. Labeling was front and center for so long that it became the only visible opposition to Monsanto.

 

Which, again, is precisely what Monsanto wanted.

 

Monsanto is a criminal, but it isn’t stupid. Those people are smart. They know how to invent a debate on their terms and hide the real debate. They know how to suck in people who otherwise would be pushing hard for an outright ban on GMO crops.

 

They know how to use proxies to advise anti-GMO forces, so those forces stay in the framework of labeling.

 

There are similarities here to the old FBI COINTELPRO program, in which the FBI planted agents inside anti-government groups, in the 1960s. In that case, the FBI’s objective was to stir up those groups to commit violent acts, thereby discrediting their political positions. It was an Operation Chaos.

 

In the case of GMO food, the objective has been to move in the opposite direction: dilute the message. Make it weaker. Make it more “sensible” and “pragmatic.”

 

“Listen, kid. Let me tell you how the real game is played. You’re in the big leagues now. You can’t go off half-cocked and insist on a goal that nobody will support. Forget attacking Monsanto. You can do a little of that, just to keep your adrenaline flowing. But you have to frame this whole thing around what Americans ARE. Do you know what that is? Americans are, first and foremost, consumers. That’s how you reach them. You tell them they have a right to know what’s in their food. Then you have a chance of winning. You pound on ‘right-to-know’ day and night. That’s where I can help you. That’s where you can find allies. That’s how you raise money.”

 

And so it was, and so it is.

 

In the big-picture, YES ON 37’s most powerful ally has been…Monsanto.

 

And now here is where we are: we don’t really know where some of the most important anti-GMO activists are, in their thinking and action. We thought we did. But now we aren’t sure.

 

So we need them to step up to the plate and tell us, right now, whether they really want a ban on GMO crops or just labeling.

 

I’m talking about people who have done a great deal to educate us and show us the way: for example, Joe Mercola, who was the biggest funder of Prop 37, who has written extensively abut GMOs; Jeffrey Smith, who has written a major book about GMOs; and Vendana Shiva, who has done heroic work to keep small farmers alive and expose the Monsanto agenda.

 

Reiterate your positions now. Tell us where you stand.

 

Let’s put everything on the table.

 

Let’s pause and reassess. Let’s consider how labeling is viewed by Monsanto in their master plan.

 

Let’s open up the vault on YES ON 37 and hear from their leaders, too.

 

Who is calling the shots over there? Joe Sandler, Andy Kimbrell, Gary Hirshberg, David Bronner, Grant Lundberg?

 

Give us your best thinking. Tell us what you’re doing and why.

 

There’s no reason this has to be a guessing game.

 

That’s old politics. Let’s open all the windows and let in the light.

 

Or do those of us who have inquiring minds form too small a demographic to interest you?

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

If you shop through Amazon, then consider supporting Jon’s work by accepting Jon’s Amazon cookie by clicking on Jon’s Amazon referral link.

Breaking…Food Democracy Now calls Prop 37 election vote fraud!

 

BREAKING…FOOD DEMOCRACY NOW IS FINDING EVIDENCE OF VOTE FRAUD IN PROP 37!

by Jon Rappoport

December 9, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

The cat is jumping out of the bag.

 

Food Democracy Now is weighing in on Prop 37 vote fraud, having discovered that the California Secretary of State, in charge of all elections in CA, has stopped posting updates on the ongoing vote count.

 

From November 6 all the way to up to December 4, these updates were posted daily on the Secretary of State’s website. Then…blackout. No more updates.

 

Maybe it has something to do with this: On December 4, YES ON 37 votes climbed over the six-million mark: 6,004,628. Food Democracy Now reported it. Suddenly, the YES ON 37 votes reversed!

 

That’s right. They went back to the previously reported number: 5,986,652.

 

This is apparently a new wrinkle in vote counting. You can not only add votes, you can go backwards. You can lose 18,000 votes with the flick of a wrist or the blink of a digital operation.

 

Here’s a screen shot:

 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/fooddemocracynow/images/sos_prop_37_6million_deleted.jpg

 

Now you see 18,000 Yes votes, now you don’t.

 

Here’s the latest Food Democracy Now article on vote fraud:

 

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/prop_37_demand_transparency/

 

Note that mention is made of a team of independent statisticians, who have found “statistical anomalies” in the largest voting precincts of nine CA counties, including LA, San Francisco, San Diego, Alameda, and Orange.

The Matrix Revealed

So far, I haven’t found out who this team is. We’ll see what they come up with. They’re still working.

 

To anyone who has followed this debacle of an election, it’s clear that Prop 37 suffered a stunning setback in the early vote reports, on election night. No on 37 jumped out to a huge lead, shortly after the polls closed. Then, Yes on 37 began making up ground.

 

So it’s likely fraud occurred in that early period.

 

Also worth noting: I previously wrote about the Secretary of State’s “top-to-bottom” review (2007) of all electronic voting systems then in use in CA. This review discovered fatal flaws in all four systems…and then three of those systems were re-approved for use, after being disqualified.

 

In the review, it was mentioned that Alameda County (one of the counties the team of statisticians is now studying for fraud) had purchased voting machines that turned out to be counterfeits. They had been advertised as legitimate, but they weren’t.

 

I’m told the Yes on 37 campaign is alert to Food Democracy Now’s charges of fraud, and they are considering a petition for a recount. We’ll see.

 

Of course, no recount will expose electronic fraud unless very talented experts can examine the full range of electronic systems now in use in CA.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

If you shop through Amazon, then consider supporting Jon’s work by shopping through Jon’s Amazon referral link.

8 quotes from a cancer surgeon that will set your hair on fire

Eight quotes from a cancer surgeon that will set your hair on fire

by Jon Rappoport

December 6, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

His name is Marty Makary. He’s a cancer surgeon and researcher at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and the School of Public Health.

Propublica’s Marshall Allen interviewed him about patient harm, in conjunction with an ongoing propublica investigation.

http://www.propublica.org/article/qa-marty-makary-m.d.-author-of-unaccountable

Keep in mind that these quotes are coming from a mainstream doctor who is inside the system and who believes in the system. That makes Makary’s statements all the more shocking.

“…1 in 4 hospital patients are harmed by a mistake.”

“A cardiologist in Wisconsin was fired for pointing out that EKGs were misread more than 25% of the time.”

“We [doctors] are also evaluated by the number of ‘value units’ at the end of each fiscal quarter. Our management will sit down with us and say your work units are down or up and in order for you to receive a large bonus you need to increase the number of operations you do…”

“There is New England Journal of Medicine-level data that suggests that almost half of [health] care is not compliant with evidence.” [In other words, almost 50% of all health care in America isn’t even based on published mainstream studies…and, I should add, there is conclusive evidence that half of these studies are untrustworthy in the first place. Therefore, to say that conventional doctors are winging it is a vast understatement. JR]

“…up to 30% of health care in unnecessary…”

“I saw cases where a patient was not told about a minimally invasive way of doing a particular surgery because of physician preference or training, and the doctor would just hope the that he [the patient] wouldn’t find out.”

“Medical mistakes are fifth-or-sixth-most common cause of death in the United States, depending on the measure.”

“…The desire and reflex of docs to offer something to patients, even when there’s not much more else they can offer. There’s a strong financial incentive. Doctor groups pay for new equipment that they purchase on borrowed money.” [In other words, ‘we have this expensive equipment, we have to use it to pay for it.’ JR]

Since Dr. Makary works at Johns Hopkins, he is no doubt familiar with a landmark review done by the late Dr. Barbara Starfield, who also worked at Hopkins for many years.

On July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published Starfield’s review, “Is US health really the best in the world?” Starfield revealed the following facts:

In the US, the annual death rate, as a direct result of medical treatment, is 225,000 people. Of those, 106,000 are killed by FDA-approved pharmaceutical drugs. The other 119,000 are killed by medical mistreatment in hospitals. This makes medically caused death the third leading cause of mortality in America.

The Matrix Revealed

In 2009, I interviewed Dr. Starfield.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2009/12/09/an-exclusive-interview-with-dr-barbara-starfield-medically-caused-death-in-america/

She assured me that, since the publication of her review in 2000, no federal agency had contacted her to ask for help in fixing this unconscionable horror, and no agency had undertaken a significant program to reverse the third leading cause of death in the US.

Aside from the medically caused death rate, there is medical maiming. In 2001, the LA Times published a shocking article by Linda Marsa.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/08/health/he-9609

The article revealed that, in addition to the deaths, 2.1 million more people were admitted to US hospitals every year, as a result of severe reactions to pharmaceutical drugs. And, every year, there were 36 million adverse drug reactions in America.

Those people who support the onset of Obamacare might reflect on all these things. With millions of new people brought into the medical system, the horrific pain-and-death numbers cited in this article are going to escalate. And those numbers equal real human beings.

But don’t worry. You’re humane to want Obamacare. You’ll get a gold star on the blackboard for your sentiments.

Keep sending me your emails expressing those sentiments. I print them and tape them to my wall, right next to the death-and-maiming numbers. It’s a nice collection.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Yes on Prop 37 was classic “controlled opposition”

Bottom line: Prop 37 was classic “controlled opposition” led by comfortable businessmen

by Jon Rappoport

December 6, 2012

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

“Agricultural co-existence?” Huh? What does that mean? It’s an elite strategy. It means we accept different ways of growing food in America. It’s the big ag-corp message these days.

Co-existence is an idea that’s being sold. “Let’s be tolerant…” “Let’s have the free market decide what food is sold and isn’t sold.” On another level, it’s a yuppy fetish.

“We have organic food over here, and then we have GMO food there, and then over here we have conventionally grown food with pesticides but no GMOs.”

And that is exactly and precisely what Prop 37 said. We can co-exist as long as we know what kind of food we’re buying. As long as it’s labeled GMO if it’s GMO.

Okay? Keep all this in mind, because the punchline will be big.

Researching the whole Prop 37 debacle has proved to me, one more time, that Web journalists are miles ahead of the mainstream press.

In particular, I call your attention to an explosive piece written by Nick Brannigan. It just arrived by email. The title: “Is ‘Just Label It’ Controlled Opposition?” Read it here.

Brannigan reveals the approach of Gary Hirshberg, the renowned CEO of Stoneyfield. Hirshberg, like several major players in the YES ON 37 campaign, opts for co-existence.

In other words, it’s assumed that GMO food is here to stay, and we need to inform consumers they have a choice, and then the free market will decide our future. GMO? Organic? Conventional with pesticides but no GMOs? The consumer will pick the winning horse in the race.

The labeling campaigns, like YES ON 37, aim at just that. “You have a right to know what’s in your food, and when you do, you can make a choice.”

I revealed, in past articles, that this was the whole message to voters in California during the run-up to Election Day. YES ON 37 wasn’t about spelling out the health dangers of GMOs. It wasn’t about showing how Monsanto, through patents, is going after control of the world’s food supply. It wasn’t about demonstrably false Monsanto science or government collusion to allow GMO crops into the US food supply.

Brannigan presents some very vital information, in his article, about an organization called AGree. Gary Hirshberg of Stoneyfield is a co-chair. Partners in this organization include, Brannigan states, the omnipresent Bill and Melinda Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Ford Foundation.

You should visit the AGree site and read through their literature.

http://foodandagpolicy.org/

To me, it resembles a man talking with his mouth full of marbles. The language is dense, but you’ll find proposals for multi-faceted types of agriculture to fit different areas and needs—including GMOs.

In other words, AGee is talking about co-existence. They’re spreading that message, and their co-chair, Gary Hirshberg, who also supported YES ON 37, is fine with the message.

And if co-existence can be sold, then Monsanto wins. They absolutely win. They spread their genes through the food supply, from one end to the other.

Well, you say, how can we have anything but co-existence? How is that possible? How can we get GMO crops out of America? They’re everywhere.

Well, not quite everywhere.

http://www.examiner.com/article/what-countries-have-banned-gmo-crops

South Australia has banned them. So has Switzerland. Ditto for Japan, New Zealand, Ireland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Medeira.

Germany has banned the growing or sale of GMO maize. Three counties in California have banned GMO crops: Mendocino, Trinity, and Marin.

And this is the whole point. Monsanto and its allies want to stop the ban from happening in the US. That’s their bottom-line. Above all, there must not be a ban on GMO crops in America.

A ballot proposition that mandates labeling of foods? Not the best thing, Monsanto says, but it’s tolerable. If the Prop loses, then that sets back the anti-GMO forces, and they have to re-group and try again elsewhere.

That gives Monsanto more time to spread more GMO crops across America. If Prop 37 wins, Monsanto can live with that. They’ll come up with a Plan B to deal with the loss.

Monsanto already did that in the UK, after the European Union ruled that labeling of GMO foods was mandatory, in 1997. Monsanto supported labeling. They could do that now in American states that pass ballot measures.

“Well, we were against labeling, sure. We thought it was unnecessary. But now that it’s passed, the people have spoken. We will do everything we can to support this decision, and we’re confident that our food meets the highest standards…” Blah-blah.

But Monsanto doesn’t want a ban on GMO crops. No. And they certainly don’t want a strong movement in America to insist on a ban.

Solution? Promote the idea of agricultural coexistence, just as AGree is doing. Divert anti-GMO forces into campaigns for labeling. Let those folks spend all their time, money, and energy trying to get labeling. Make sure the movement doesn’t turn into a powerful force demanding a ban.

Look at it this way. “Agricultural coexistence” is a soft stance. It covertly claims that choice is always a good thing, as if we’re debating which lamp to buy or which flashlight.

What’s left out of that equation? One of the flashlights happens to emit a powerful and invisible toxic cloud every time you turn it on.

But let’s not discuss that. No. Let’s just “let the market decide.”

Get it? It’s all based on the notion that GMO foods are here to stay in America, and therefore we shouldn’t worry our pretty little heads about it. We should just insist that we have the right to know whether there are GMOs in the food we buy. That’s all.

It’s a smokescreen. And it’s promoted to keep us from flat-out saying, “Hey, wait a minute. GMO food is toxic. Monsanto has committed multiple crimes and they should be prosecuted. We should BAN GMO food.”

I know what the proponents of Prop 37 are going to say, and I want to take up their argument. They’re going to say, “No. If we gain the right to know what’s in our food, millions of people in California are going to stop buying GMO food, and this refusal is going to spread, and then we’ll win. We’ll starve Monsanto. The free market will win. From state to state, new ballot measures will win for labeling, and the resistance to GMO food will grow…”

However, that argument depends on consumers caring. Will consumers really give a damn that they’re buying GMO food?

Monsanto will continue to introduce new GMO crops into the American landscape, like apples and salmon. Monsanto will put more and more GMOs into food products. They’ll fight a war of attrition, and in the end, they stand a very good chance of winning…because most consumers won’t care, any more than they care when they enter a public building and see some ridiculous sign on the wall about carcinogenic compounds being present in the building.

Monsanto will bet that, after a time, GMO labels on food products won’t bother most people. Monsanto will spend untold millions of dollars claiming that GMO food is identical to non-GMO.

And again, the most important thing for Monsanto is: there won’t be a ban on GMO crops in America.

Monsanto won’t be prosecuted for crimes by the US Dept. of Justice.

the matrix revealed

And even if, say, in the state of Washington, where the next Prop 37-type ballot measure is about to be mounted, the campaign involves educating people about GMOs, will that really make a difference? Will there be an all-out attack on GMOs and Monsanto? Or will it be a soft attack?

I ask this because I believe the leaders of Prop 37 don’t want to make serious waves. They are dedicated to “the right to know what’s in your food” proposition, above all. They are satisfied with that. They have no intention of really going after the people who make that flashlight that exudes clouds of poison when it’s turned on. And those leaders of Prop 37 are pulling along, behind them, many, many people who might otherwise back a real campaign to have GMO crops banned in America.

A civilization does not survive when elites can commit grave and ongoing crimes with impunity. And that’s exactly the situation we have. Monsanto is the chief criminal.

Am I saying the YES ON 37 campaign was entirely useless? No, it educated some people. But in the long run (and Monsanto is in this for the long run), it functioned as a diversion away from the main event: BANNING GMO CROPS.

There is no powerful movement in America to ban GMO crops and prosecute Monsanto for heavy crimes.

Instead, we have groups led by businessmen who want the free market to decide, and who want labeling. In the long run, that’s a loser.

Monsanto knows this.

Look at the legal adviser for the California Right to Know Campaign, Joe Sandler. Sandler has been very active, over the years, working at high levels for the Democratic Party. He’s a beltway attorney. He takes a hand in steering the GMO-labeling ship. There is no way he is going to step out front and say, “Let’s ban the whole mess. Let’s turn this into a war against Monsanto and ban all GMO crops in America.” You could wait for several hells to freeze over before that happens.

Look at Gary Hirshberg or Grant Lundberg or another lawyer in the YES ON 37 mix, Andy Kimbrell. No way they’re going to go all the way. They’re going to demand labeling and that’s it.

And Monsanto can live with that. Obama can live with that.

Monsanto can sit back and say, “It’s a very good thing there is no powerful movement in America to ban GMO crops. We like that. We like that a lot.”

Which is exactly what they’re doing and saying right now.

Did Monsanto fight against YES ON 37? Did they employ dirty tricks? Of course they did. But that was on the minor stage. That wasn’t the big time.

On the big stage, they’re already winning.

They’re winning, in part, because a handful of natural-food entrepreneurs and their lawyers are in charge of the anti-GMO movement in America, and are selling the idea that mandatory labeling is going to grow into a tsunami against GMOs. That’s their mindset and that’s their bet.

They’re “realists.” They don’t take a clue from those countries that have, in fact, banned GMOs. They work from the premise that, in America, we need to co-exist. We need to bow to the free market and let the chips fall where they may.

Yeah, well, many of those chips are going to be GMO.

Most of the growing land in America is going to be GMO.

And the Monsanto genes are going to drift and drift into the whole food supply, and the huge tonnage of toxic pesticide sprayed on GMO crops is going to drift and settle into the soil…as we coexist.

So let’s not bullshit each other, okay?

Let’s not wave a few flags and claim we’re winning against Monsanto, when the fact is we don’t have a powerful movement in America to ban GMO crops.

Don’t label the bastards. Ban them.

My advice to the ground troops who are fighting to get mandatory GMO labeling in various states around the country? Talk to your leaders. Tell them that, instead, you want an all-out fight against Monsanto and GMOs. You want a ban. And if they refuse, get rid of those leaders. Start your own organization.

Stay in it for the long haul. Don’t go for the partial solution. Yes, it makes the battle harder, but it’s the only battle that counts.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Why it’s not too late to win Prop 37

 

WHY IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO WIN PROP 37

by Jon Rappoport

December 3, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

An email written and sent to me by Natalia Lee Gardener has offered a basic strategy for winning Prop 37, even at this late date. (chakra.yoga.bridge@gmail.com)

 

Of course, it will take some persistence and a few smarts. I’m sure the lawyers who worked for the YES ON 37 campaign have thought of it.

 

Basically, it goes this way: the NO ON 37 campaign committed fraud in their ads. They also committed fraud in statements they made in the California Voter’s Guide, which is a felony.

 

Another felony? Misappropriating the FDA seal and using it in their ads below a statement they falsely claimed was made by the FDA.

 

NO ON 37 was lying front to back. Read all about it here:

 

http://www.carighttoknow.org/documented_deceptions

 

Therefore, the election should be overturned. Voters were defrauded by false information. Votes were made against 37 based on lies spread by the NO ON 37 campaign.

 

A new special election should be held.

 

I know what you’re going to say. “If every election filled with lying statements were overturned, we’d be re-voting for every job from president to dog-catcher from now until the sun burns out.”

 

Perhaps. But let’s focus on the Prop 37 election.

 

The strategy of YES ON 37 is: let’s move on to other states and other ballots; we educated a whole lot of people in California; let’s take our fight elsewhere now.

 

Who says you can’t do two things at once? Go ahead to Washington state and mount a new GMO labeling campaign. But your lawyers? They can launch a legal campaign here in CA.

 

As Gardener pointed out to me in her email, chiropractors engaged in a long hard battle to gain proper recognition. They went all the way to the Supreme Court. They fought against very heavy odds. They played hardball. They won.

 

So why can’t the GMO-labeling forces do that?

 

And if they lose in court? They make a lot of noise and they appeal. They stir the pot. If the appeal loses, they appeal higher. They make a big deal out of this because it is a big deal. They kick ass. They act tough because they are tough. If they are.

 

I can’t tell you how many times important health-freedom issues have been lost because the people leading the good guys folded up their tents and walked away.

 

That’s always a losing strategy.

 

Why play nice with criminals? Why?

 

Being an idealist doesn’t rule out going into battle.

 

The issue is clear. The NO ON 37 forces committed fraud and felonies in their campaign. Therefore, many people voted against 37 because they bought the fraud and didn’t recognize the crimes. Therefore, we need a new Prop 37 election.

 

It’s like this. A guy sells you a bottle of medicine. He says the FDA approved the medicine. He says even the police favor the medicine. He says Stanford University and other esteemed scientific groups have praised the medicine.

 

These are all lies. But because you believe this guy, you buy the medicine. Then later, you find out he was lying wall to wall. So you take him to court.

 

Let me defuse another argument. It goes this way: “We’re succeeding. We’ve educated millions of people in CA about GMO labeling. Let’s build on that momentum and take the fight to other states and other ballot measures. If we suddenly challenge the Prop 37 election in a CA court and make a big stink about it, if we act nasty, we’ll drive away people in other states who would be on our side…”

 

Yeah, well, this makes no sense at all. Did millions of angry people in the streets during the Vietnam war have anything at all to do with ending that war? Should they have stayed home and eaten organic candy bars?

The Matrix Revealed

If the YES ON 37 lawyers show people everywhere they won’t back down from a fight, that they’ll take this all the way, they’ll gain allies. They’ll wake people up. They’ll add a new dimension to this war. A good dimension.

 

Forget all the pseudo-mystical nonsense about being nice and the universe being nice right back to you, or whatever it is that keeps people in a state of internally imposed slavery. A) The universe doesn’t work that way and B) it’s just an excuse to stay passive. In other words, it’s pure bullshit.

 

Forget the legal niceties and hair splitting over what the CA election law says about what constitutes fraud. Forget some carefully reasoned argument about why YES ON 37 stands no chance in court challenging the election.

 

That’s not the point. Don’t be a moron.

 

The point is what’s right and what’s true and what justice is.

 

Fight on that basis, and publicize the fight from one end of the planet to the other. Hold live streaming press conferences on the Web every week. Bring in Jeffrey Smith and other experts who will spell out all the dangers of GMO food, who will spell out all the lies Monsanto and the government have told about GMO food.

 

Get it?

 

GET IT?

 

Double down on the Prop 37 election.

 

USE the fraud to score victories.

 

If I’m reading the tea leaves correctly, the lawyers connected to YES ON 37 don’t want this fight. They absolutely don’t want it. (Joe Sandler, Andrew Kimbrell) But I believe some other lawyer can step up on behalf of the voters of CA and gain standing and go to court. How about you, Gerry Spence? Or do we need Bill Kunstler to rise out of his grave and start raising hell?

 

In 1982, I interviewed Bill Perry, who was the chief PR man for Lawrence Livermore Labs, where they design nuclear weapons. Bill told me the nuclear freeze campaign, which was getting off the ground, wasn’t an issue for him…until one day he saw that the protestors at the Lab fence came from all walks of life.

 

They were hippies, guys in suits, housewives, lawyers, doctors, office workers, long hairs, short hairs, no hairs. Then, he said, he knew he was on the wrong side.

 

That’s what the GMO issue can be. People from everywhere, all kinds of different people, standing together on this issue. When that is reflected on television and computer screens, then others will realize it’s a universal situation.

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

If you shop through Amazon, then consider supporting Jon’s work by doing your shopping through Jon’s Amazon referral link.

Is Michelle Obama’s “natural food” campaign designed to hide the White House attack on organic food?

 

IS MICHELLE OBAMA’S “NATURAL FOOD CAMPAIGN” DESIGNED TO HIDE A COORDINATED WHITE HOUSE ATTACK ON ORGANIC FOOD?

 

By Jon Rappoport

December 2, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

This article follows up on Mike Adams’ devastating pieces exposing Dr. Oz and a coordinated high-level assault on organic food.

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/038172_Dr_Oz_organics_propaganda_campaign.html

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/038157_Dr_Oz_organic_food_sellout.html

 

How high does this assault on organic food go?

 

Soon after her husband’s 2008 inauguration, Michelle Obama announced her “First Lady do-good project” to the press and public.

 

Every First Lady picks one.

 

It’s mandatory. Better education, some charity, a worthy cause. It’s designed PR, aimed at creating good will for the husband sitting in the Oval Office.

 

That’s the First Lady’s job. She’s a PR agent.

 

Michelle chose an organic vegetable garden and the health of children. More than her work with military families or her personal fashion/style interests, the organic garden and the bee hives she installed on the South Lawn of the White House became her signature.

 

The White House vegetable garden was the first planted on the grounds since the days of Eleanor Roosevelt.

 

As the press trumpeted, Michelle instructed the White House kitchen to order organic food for meals.

 

We were told produce and honey from the South Lawn garden were served up for the First Family and even at State dinners.

 

The title of Michelle Obama’s 2012 book is American Grown: The Story of the White House Kitchen Garden and Gardens Across America.

 

She has tied the issue of childhood obesity to deteriorating eating habits and unhealthy food.

 

All in all, her presentation has been quite effective and convincing. She’s done a first-rate job.

 

The all-important impression is unmistakable: the White house stands for “healthy eating.”

The Matrix Revealed

But meanwhile…

 

Her husband is the most powerful enabler of Monsanto in America.

 

Despite his hints that he would support labeling of GMO food, Barack Obama has done herculean work to destroy true natural food.

 

The details are undeniable. They include his mind-boggling political appointments of Monsanto operatives to key government posts, and a parade of new GMO crops into the food supply, during his first presidential term.

 

Monsanto and their allies couldn’t have wished for a better partner. The president has given them everything they’ve asked for.

 

The new president filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

 

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

 

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

 

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

 

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

 

As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

 

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had previously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

 

We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

 

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

 

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He wasn’t just experiencing a failure of short-term memory. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.

 

And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s see what GMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.

 

Monsanto GMO alfalfa.

 

Monsanto GMO sugar beets.

 

Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.

 

Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.

 

Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.

 

Syngenta GMO stacked corn.

 

Pioneer GMO soybean.

 

Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.

 

Bayer GMO cotton.

 

ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.

 

A GMO papaya strain.

 

And perhaps, soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

 

This is an extraordinary parade. It, in fact, makes Barack Obama the most GMO-dedicated politician in America.

 

You don’t attain that position through errors or oversights. Obama was, all along, a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the future of agriculture.

 

From this perspective, Michelle Obama’s campaign for gardens and clean, organic, nutritious food is nothing more than a diversion, a cover story floated to obscure what her husband has actually been doing.

 

Nor is it coincidental that two of the Obama’s biggest supporters, Bill Gates and George Soros, purchased 900,000 and 500,000 shares of Monsanto, respectively, in 2010.

 

Now in 2012, we are seeing, as Mike Adams reveals, a new attack on organic food: organic is an elitist fetish, a nonsensical preoccupation of the 1%, as against the 99%. We are told that conventionally grown, pesticide-laden, genetically engineered food is just as good, is no problem, and patriotic Americans should be loyal to it.

 

In other words, we should be loyal to the corporate giants who are taking over the food supply, are exercising patent rights on food ownership, are doing whatever they can to squeeze small farmers out of business, are giving us nutritionally deficient food, are lying through their teeth about the heavy health risks of eating this GMO food.

 

We should be loyal to the police who are ordering homeowners to rip out their vegetable gardens on their lawns.

 

Yes, this is a coordinated attack on clean nutritious unpoisoned food, and it reaches all the way up into the White House, does a quick detour around Michelle Obama’s smokescreen operation, and arrives in the Oval Office, at the desk of Barack Obama.

 

Why isn’t Barack out there on the White House lawn picking a few delicious organic vegetables from the garden?

 

Why isn’t he posing in front of a hundred media cameras taking a bite out of an organic non-GMO tomato?

 

Why isn’t he leading the way on a campaign to have people in inner cities plant more community organic gardens, to fend off hunger, ill-health, and poverty?

 

Why isn’t he?

 

Because he’s working for Monsanto.

 

Monsanto, the same company, by the way, who took the advice of Mitt Romney, many years ago, to stop overtly promoting chemical pesticides and, instead, get into genetics.

 

Sources:

 

http://redgreenandblue.org/2012/02/02/monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government-part-2/

 

http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/02/09/monsanto-employees-in-the-halls-of-government/

 

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/10/fda-labeling-gmo-genetically-modified-foods

 

http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2011/feb/15/update-obama-goes-rogue-gmos-tell-him-say-no-monsa/

 

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/genetically-engineered-foods/

 

http://news.yahoo.com/not-altruistic-truth-behind-obamas-global-food-security-174700462.html

 

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

If you shop through Amazon, then consider supporting Jon’s work by doing your shopping through Jon’s Amazon referral link.

James Holmes: three ways to get set up for murder

by Jon Rappoport

November 30, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

A prison inmate claims Holmes confessed he was a mind-controlled assassin. Paul Watson, writing at Infowars, covers the story:

http://www.infowars.com/inmate-james-holmes-told-me-he-was-programmed-to-kill-by-evil-therapist/

There are three roads that can lead to the hugely inconvenient truth about Holmes.

One: he was set up and subjected to mind control, after which he committed the murders at the Aurora theater. He was programmed to kill.

Two: he was a patsy. He didn’t kill anybody. He was drugged and dumped in his car at the theater, set up to be arrested there, not at the door of the theater. The drug would have induced short-term amnesia. Holmes was clueless.

Three: he was a victim of standard psychiatric drugging, at the hands of any of three psychiatrists at the U of Colorado, where he had been a student. For example, ordinary “therapeutic” dosing with antidepressants like Prozac, Zoloft, or Paxil could very well have induced a homicidal rage. In that case, the U of Colorado would be bracing for a billion-dollar lawsuit.

This is one reason for the very tight information-control on the case.

It should be understood that standard psychiatric drugging and the drugging that would have taken place, in mind-control programming, are two very different protocols.

You don’t feed somebody Prozac and feel certain he will kill as directed. The SSRI antidepressants are unpredictable. Under intentional mind-control programming to kill, the drugs would have assisted accompanying hypnosis. The drugs would have induced temporary passivity and increased suggestibility.

The exception? If Holmes had been subjected to long-term mind control, all sorts of disorienting drugs could have been used to soften him up; for example, LSD at high doses, or similar designer hallucinogenics.

Nothing public has been released about the results of Holmes’ tox-screen blood tests while in jail.

It would, of course, be quite revealing to learn what drugs Holmes was given by his psychiatrist(s). If any of them, e.g, Dr. Lynne Fenton, was actually involved in programming him, they would have avoided standard meds, because such unpredictable chemicals could have disrupted Holmes’ orders to kill.

In 1995, a presidential committee set up to hear testimony on illegal radiation experiments suddenly bloomed into testimony about mind control. Two patients of New Orleans therapist, Valerie Wolf, Claudia Mullin and Cris De Nicola, took the stand and recounted how radiation had been used on them, as part of a much wider-ranging program.

They spoke about their long-term nightmare, starting as children, during which hallucinogenic drugs, spinning tables, blinking lights, hypnosis, and programming were employed to make them into agents under the CIA’s secret MKULTRA aegis. In those cases, the drugs were used to scramble their brains.

In Holmes’ case, more sophisticated means could have been deployed. For instance, electronic transmissions that would have disrupted normal functioning of his brain, and even induced thought-replacement, if he had been already placed under sufficient duress.

One of the crude forerunners of these techniques was invented by the world-famous Canadian psychiatrist, Ewen Cameron, who carried out experiments on unwitting patients during the 1950s. Partially funded by a CIA front, Cameron’s torture method was called psychic driving.

After horrendous electric shocks, drugs were given to place patients in days of prolonged sleep. Cameron then subjected them to audio tapes he made, in which he repeated phrases thousands of times, in order to produce new personalities for them.

A 2012 lawsuit filed by veterans’ groups, against the CIA and the DOD, refers to Cameron’s methods. The suit also states that two researchers, Dr. Louis West and Dr. Jose Delgado, working together under the early MKULTRA subproject 95, utilized two protocols: brain implants (“stimoceivers”) and RHIC-EDOM to program the minds of victims.

RHIC-EDOM stands for Radio Hypnotic Intracerebral Control-Electronic Dissolution of Memory. Translation: bury memory, and insert commands.

The stimoceiver was an implant developed by Delgado, who was a famous Yale researcher. He set out to prove he could control physical actions.

Delgado’s most dramatic experiment involved stepping into a ring with a bull, who had been outfitted with the stimoceiver implant. The bull charged Delgado, who pressed a button on a handheld device…and the bull stopped dead in his tracks.

In ensuing years, RHIC-EDOM and Delgado’s stimoceiver were researched using a variety of newer methods. The main objective was production of artificial emotion, thought, and action.

On the other hand, if James Holmes wasn’t an MKULTRA-type assassin, but instead a simple psychiatric patient, there is ample evidence in the medical literature to indicate murder is an outcome of various drugs.

In other words, Holmes’ personal problems weren’t enough to push him into the theater where he killed people at random. That was an ordinary effect of the drugs, which scrambled his neurotransmitter systems and literally drove him crazy.

See the work of Dr. Peter Breggin, who has been aptly called “the conscience of psychiatry.” In his first landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, and in later books and articles, Breggin makes a clear case for psychiatric meds as the cause of suicides and homicides. (www.breggin.com)

In interviews with me, Breggin stated that, in the 1999 Columbine school-shooting case, one of the shooters, Eric Harris, was on Luvox, an SSRI antidepressant. “This type of drug,” Breggin said, “can cause the patient to kill, but also to make grandiose plans for destruction.”

Holmes as a simple patsy is the third road of investigation. There are clues to suggest this path. The “other gas mask” found at the back of the theater, after the murders, is still unexplained. It could have been cast aside by a shooter, not Holmes, during an escape.

At least two witnesses have testified there were two shooters in the theater. This, of course, suggests, a planned operation. The idea of Holmes collaborating with another killer is odd, to say the least, given the background we’ve been fed about his unstable mental condition and his loner status.

Initial reports claimed Homes surrendered himself to police, at a theater exit, after the shootings. This is contradicted by witness assertions that he was arrested in his car.

To sort out what really happened at the Aurora theater, one must follow all three tracks of inquiry.

Possible overlaps exist. Holmes could have been drugged merely to set him up as the patsy, in which case, he committed no crime at all. He could have been drugged and programmed prior to him visiting a psychiatrist at the U of Colorado. In that scenario, the basic op was enforced by psychiatric “boosters” involving, perhaps, hypnosis. Or Holmes was indeed programmed to kill and become the patsy, allowing other shooters to escape—but Holmes didn’t, finally, carry out the murders.

This last scenario resembles what happened in the 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy. Sirhan Sirhan, the patsy, did in fact have a gun at the Ambassador Hotel. But he was standing in front of RFK in the kitchen, and the shots that killed RFK came from behind. Sirhan had kept notebooks in which, prior to the assassination, he revealed an obsessed and apparently dissociated state of mind.

See this account of the RFK murder, which casts overwhelming doubt on the official story:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Robert_Kennedy_Assassination

Holmes, like Sirhan, kept a notebook, which he mailed to his psychiatrist at the U of Colorado. What was in it?

If we ever find out, we may see even closer parallels to the RFK assassination, in which all signs pointed to Sirhan, including his programming…but those clues were laid down to divert the investigation from the real shooter, who stood behind Kennedy in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Perhaps the most tantalizing clues of all come from a kind of social/media analysis. Here is a section from an earlier article of mine, “Were the Batman Murders a Covert Op?” (note: click here for the full article):

It is noteworthy that a young neuroscience student, Holmes, who was at one point studying “the biological basis of mental disorders,” winds up as an accused mass murderer who is “obviously deranged” and “suffering from a chemical imbalance in the brain.”

At this point, we go down the rabbit hole, and the pieces of the puzzle are strange.

A video has emerged of Holmes, at age 18, six years ago, lecturing to fellow attendees at a science summer camp at Miramar College in San Diego.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lotOPjLlbDU

Holmes explains he has been studying temporal illusions and subjective experience. A temporal illusion, he states, is the idea that you can change the past.

At the Cannonfire blog (http://cannonfire.blogspot.com) there are comic-book panels posted from what Joseph Cannon calls “the most famous passage in the most famous of all Joker stories, Alan Moore’s ‘The Killing Joke.’”

The Joker is asked: “I mean, what is it with you? What made you the way you are? Girlfriend killed by the mob? Maybe brother carved up by some mugger…?”

The Joker replies: “Something like that happened to me, you know…I’m not exactly sure what it was. Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another…if I’m going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice! Ha ha ha!”

James Holmes, at 18 years of age, said he was studying temporal illusion, “the idea that you can change the past,” a feat the fictional Joker had obviously accomplished.

In the last ten years, the film that explored this subject—and Holmes’ other interest, the subjectivity of experience—most deeply, through its treatment of dreams and the insertion of synthetic experience in the mind, was Inception, directed by Christopher Nolan, who of course also directed the recent Batman trilogy, including The Dark Knight Rises.

In yet another version of changing the past, in 2000 Nolan directed Memento, which unraveled its story backwards, as a victim of anterograde amnesia, who can’t store memories, tries to revenge his wife’s murder by leaving clues for himself that will lead him to the identity of her killer.

Are we simply talking about a neuroscience student’s (Holmes’) interest in comics and films, or did he participate in experiments that attempted to alter his subjective view of the world and his own past?

For example, there is wealth of information about the criminal experiments conducted by Canadian psychiatrist, Dr. Ewan Cameron, who operated with funding from the CIA during the 1950s. Cameron ran MKULTRA Subproject 68, during which he used massive electroshocks, sensory isolation, drug-induced periods of sleep (7-10 days), and audiotapes of “re-patterning” commands to attempt to wipe out patients’ pasts, their memories, their former subjective mindsets, their very personalities—in favor of recreating these patients as “new and improved people.”

As a teen, Holmes interned at the Salk Institute in San Diego. Salk carries out studies using functional MRI, a technique of brain mapping that involves correlating read-outs with various mental activities. It’s only speculation at this point, but somewhere along the line, did Holmes participate in such experiments, and were the results used to map regions of his brain for later inputs, so someone could achieve behavioral/thought control over him?

To even suggest Holmes may be a mind-control subject brings immediate criticism, to which I would offer this counter: why accept the scenario of the crime put forward by the Aurora police? Why do they deserve the benefit of the doubt? Why limit and narrow the investigation to their story?

Was law enforcement correct about the JFK and JFK and MLK assassinations? Was law enforcement correct about the Columbine massacre, in which 101 witnesses state they saw other shooters? Was law enforcement correct about the lone duo of plotters in the Oklahoma bombing? Was law enforcement correct about 9/11?

In all cases—no.

I’ll tell you this. If the authorities really wanted to know what makes James Holmes tick (a prospect I strongly doubt), their best chance would be to send someone into his cell who could talk to him about Christopher Nolan, Inception, Memento, functional MRI, and the TV series, Lost, which contained time-travel themes and was a show he and his friend, Ritchie Duong, used to watch together every week when they attended UC Riverside. Talk to Holmes about what he wants to talk about. Who knows what would eventually unravel?

It would be far more than the police wish to uncover.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.