Category Archives: Corporate Fraud

Was the YES ON 37 campaign undermined by its allies?

 

Was the YES ON 37 campaign undermined by its allies?

By Jon Rappoport

November 19, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Before you decide I’m just making this stuff up, answer this question: do you really think food sellers like Whole Foods wanted to see hundreds, maybe thousands of their store products suddenly say “GENETICALLY ENGINEERED” on them?

 

Are you kidding?

 

Well, that’s exactly what would have happened if YES ON 37 had won.

 

With that prologue, let’s begin.

 

I’m not talking about the workers for the YES ON 37 campaign. There is no doubt the ground game was fought by honest people. But at the top level, a few “suits” relied on advice from professionals who told them there was only one way to win the vote:

 

Focus on the consumers’ right to know what was in their food.

 

That’s it. That was the biggest message.

 

Why?

 

Because the other message would have exposed the natural foods industry. And that other message was:

 

GMOs are horrible. GMO food is destructive to health, to the soil, to farmers…and, by the way:

 

The natural foods industry, which is big business in California, sells tons and tons of GMO food.

 

It’s labeled “natural.” But in a huge number of cases, “natural” contains GMOs.

 

Get it?

 

Without all that “natural” food ringing cash registers, big health-food sellers would go belly up.

 

If YES ON 37 had gone all in on a campaign to educate the people of California about the dangers of GMOs, this would have inevitably revealed that the “natural” food that people were already buying and eating was contaminated to the hilt with GMOs.

 

And that would have been bad for business.

 

There were many people at lower levels of the YES ON 37 campaign who wanted to educate the people of California about the dangers of GMO food. But they were rebuffed.

 

Face it, some big natural food sellers in America have accepted the presence of Monsanto and other GMO crocodiles as permanent fixtures in the landscape. These food sellers reason this way:

 

“We sell organic food, which is free from all but small traces of GMOs. That’s what we offer to those who don’t want GMOs. All our “natural” products? That’s GMO territory, and there is nothing we can do about it.”

 

In any election campaign, you go after the undecided vote. Everybody else has already made up their minds. In California, the undecided people were on the fence because they didn’t know why labeling GMO food was necessary. They needed to be taught.

 

But that wasn’t the major thrust of the YES ON 37 campaign.

 

People needed to know they should want labeling because eating GMO food is dangerous.

 

The people of CA didn’t get that message loud and clear. It wasn’t delivered with great energy and power.

 

And that helped the natural food industry. It helped them a lot.

 

They can continue to sell thousands of food products with “natural” labels on them, and consumers won’t know they’re eating GMOs, and consumers won’t know why that’s a very bad thing.

 

People who already understand the GMO issue and what Monsanto is doing to the planet assume millions of other people know, too. They see the YES ON 37 campaign as the first big wedge into other states and other campaigns.

 

They don’t realize how many Americans don’t have a clue about GMOs and Monsanto.

 

The big-shot suits from the YES ON 37 campaign better take a long hard look at the pollsters and advisers they’re using. When those pollsters tell them, again, in other states, to focus only on “the right to know what’s in your food,” they should stop and ask themselves:

 

Whose side are these pollsters really on?

 

And the non-organic “natural food” sellers? Whose side are they on?

 

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

Who are the “experts” promoting the loss of Prop 37?

 

WHO ARE THE “EXPERTS” PROMOTING THE LOSS OF PROP 37?

by Jon Rappoport

November 15, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

You want to go inside the Prop 37 campaign? I can take you there for a peek.

The foot soldiers on the ground are flat broke. They’re exhausted, played out, they’ve spent their own money and in many case they haven’t been reimbursed. Some of them are now without homes. They’ve given everything to the cause, and they’re tapped out—psychologically, physically, emotionally, and in every other way.

They went for it in a way few people can understand. Now they see the vote projections and numbers, and they throw up their hands. If they can even think straight, after a battle like this, it’s a miracle.

Well, this is what happens in a long campaign. It’s not pretty at the end.

Thanks should go out to these people, these grassroots people who ran straight at the wall because they believed in their cause, and then finally hit the wall.

They gave their all.

But far above them, within the ranks of Prop 37, there are others who controlled the action. They’re not sweating things too badly right now. They bankrolled the campaign, in some cases. They called the shots. Most importantly, they hired the pollsters many months ago who decided how the campaign would be run.

Now we’re getting to the heart of things. These big shots hired pollsters who told them, “There is one and only one way to win Prop 37. Focus on people’s right to know what’s in their food. That’s it. Don’t focus on anything else.”

That might sound right, on the surface, but there was one very serious problem. The foot soldiers, the people who made up most of the 37 campaign, had a different view. They wanted more.

They wanted to show people how genetically modified food could injure people’s health. They wanted to educate the people of California about the whole deal. They were right to want that.

Lots and lots of people don’t know why they need to know about GMOs.

So the YES ON 37 ground troops were alienated.

They waited out in the rain while the big shots decided how the 37 campaign would be done. And those big shots are now saying—because they’ve consulted with their pollsters and other pros—that the election is lost. The numbers are impossible to reverse. “Nothing to see here, move along.”

I’ve proven how wrong that is.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/11/14/prop-37-the-top-7-reasons-not-to-believe-the-vote-count/

Right now, we’re dealing with a smokescreen that is being launched to make people believe Prop 37 is over, it’s lost, and there is no chance of it winning, as California counts the outstanding votes this month.

This smokescreen is filled with projections and numbers and percentages. “If YES ON 37 gets 62% of the remaining votes, but is trailing by 600,000 votes right now, there is no chance…”

Blah-blah.

My previous article, “Prop 37: The top 7 reasons not to believe the vote-count,” explains how this election could easily have been stolen, electronically, and why there was every reason to do it.

The “smokescreen articles” all share a common feature.

They take the votes that remain to be counted (2.3 million at my last count) and project what percentage of those votes would have to go to YES ON 37, in order to secure a victory.

Then they conclude: 66%, or 70%, or 75% of the uncounted votes would have to go YES, and they confidently say this will never happen.

They entirely miss the point. These people are entirely ignorant about electronic vote fraud.

I’ll say this for the hundredth time: the fraud isn’t simply about the votes that remain to be counted.

This is about the votes that have already been counted.

May I repeat that? Fraud is about the votes that have already been counted.

It’s about the votes that have already been counted, that are now being counted, that will be counted.

The fraud would be electronic. It’s computer fraud. It invents vote-counts. From the get-go, it invents votes and changes vote totals.

It’s virtual invented reality for the masses.

As I explained in my previous article, this kind of fraud was already an obvious possibility and, in fact, a reality in California elections. That’s why the secretary of state of CA, in 2007, ordered a “top-to-bottom” review of all electronic voting systems currently in use in the state.

And that’s why the review was done, and that’s why the review showed that four different electronic voting systems had fatal flaws.

So all this nonsense about “how many votes remain to be counted” in the Prop 37 election, and “what percentage of those votes would have to say YES ON 37”…all that is misguided and foolish and wrong-headed and irrelevant.

Of course, the people who are writing these “expert” articles and making these “expert” projections are quite sure they understand the voting game. They believe they are right on top of things.

They want to accept the premise that vote-counts and elections are on the up-and-up and honest. They are dedicated to that premise.

There are some very talented hackers out there who are laughing so hard they’re falling off their chairs.

The YES ON 37 leaders’ fatal flaw? They believed in the sanctity of the voting system. The experts who were advising them and are still advising them are guiding them in exactly the wrong direction.

When you walk into the mouth of the dragon holding a flashlight and a pint of water, to put out the fire in his mouth, there is something wrong with your premise.

The dragon is all the people and all the force that wants GMO food to reign supreme on planet Earth. Labeling food so people can know whether it’s genetically engineered could deal a powerful body blow to those forces.

Any sane person knows these forces would do anything to stop the tide of anti-GMO conviction spreading across the world. An election? Electronically rigging a vote? Of course. Just another day at the office.

Electronic vote fraud has absolutely nothing to do with conventional projections of how votes will turn out or percentages or predictions. All that is based on an honest system.

Face it, from the time the first crooked high priest lied to his sheep about his divine mandate; to the machine pol in New York buying votes and sending out goons to beat up opposition voters; all the way to the present computer takeover of the election process, the watchword has been: corruption.

If you can’t understand and accept that, you need a very serious reality check.

Let me say it plainly: the people who think of themselves as experts and are assuring you that the numbers rule out a victory for Prop 37…those people are dead wrong.

Remember Orwell’s 1984? At the end, we learn the whole objective of the leaders is to make rebels love the State. Not just accept it. Love it.

I detect this now. Love the election system. Don’t just assume it’s above board. Love it.

People have a hard time giving up something they think they love.

But they need to. They need to do it now.

“But…but you see, with two million votes still uncounted, if we get 60% of the vote, we still lose. Even 65%…we still don’t make it. We lose. We have to heal and move on. We have to live to fight another day…even with 70%, let me check those numbers again…yes, we still lose…it’s…we have no chance…just let it go…”

Go ahead, drink the Kool-Aid if you want to.

But instead I invite you to wake up. If you can.

The YES ON 37 leaders are listening to their pros, their pollsters, their experts. Again, that’s their fatal error.

And they’re in danger of making the same mistake as they move on to the state of Washington, to mount a new campaign to label GMO food. Don’t think the election there can be electronically manipulated? You’re dreaming.

The kind of pre-election “vote-fraud” analysis you’ve been doing, to head off fraud at the pass? Useless. You’re using people who aren’t talented enough. You need to bring in the heavyweights, the people who can hack into anything.

Publicly, with FBI and other law-enforcement types present, and with the press there, you have to show that the election system can be hacked. Demonstrate it.

Come into the 21st century.

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

Prop 37: The top 7 reasons not to believe the vote-count

PROP 37: THE TOP 7 REASONS NOT TO BELIEVE THE VOTE COUNT

by Jon Rappoport

November 14, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

The verdict is in. You would be a fool to accept the vote-count in the California Prop 37 election. I’ll show you why.

Apparently, the CA secretary of state’s office has been getting hit by a lot of calls. People are asking them about the ongoing Prop 37 vote-count. As of last night (11/13/2012), there were still 2,304,250 votes uncounted.

Update: As of 11/14/2012, 5:00pm PT, the number of uncounted ballots stands at 1,891,719.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/unprocessed-ballots-status/

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2012-elections/nov-general/pdf/unprocessed-ballots-report.pdf

I received a call from Shannan Velayas, who works in media relations at the California Secretary of State’s office. She left a message, emphasizing several points.

Among them: The vote-count is open and transparent, and anyone from the public can observe it.

This fact has been used by reporters and “experts” to assure the public that an election can’t be stolen.

They’re absolutely wrong.

So the first reason you shouldn’t believe the Prop 37 vote? The means do, in fact, exist to steal an election.

Here is my challenge. Can I see how the touch-screen voting machines operate? Can I go inside them and check them for tampering, anywhere in the state of California?

Can I see exactly how information flows from each voting machine to successive computers? Can I check to make sure the flow of information is not being intercepted and changed?

Can I see how the tabulating machines absorb and tally vote-count information? Can I examine closely the software and the codes that allow these tabulating machines to do their work?

Can I get inside any of the main-frame computers that collect vote-numbers and examine their software, source-code, and working parts?

Of course, the answer to all these questions is no.

Therefore, I could hire an army of observers, and they would not be able to tell me that the vote-count was done correctly. The secretary of state couldn’t swear to it either.

Some brain-deficient people think these objections are over the top. They think I’m nitpicking.

If I remind them that a team of computer scientists from Michigan went to Washington DC and demonstrated that they could hack into the voting system and reverse the result of mayoral race there, these brain-deficient people would dismiss that as irrelevant, too.

I suggest watching the documentary Hacking Democracy, directed by Simon Ardizzone and Russell Michaels, starring Bev Harris. Then tell me elections can’t be hacked and reversed.

Remember Jonathan James, who at the age of 16 put a back-door into DOD’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s server, and stole software from NASA computers that set temperature and humidity at the International Space Station?

Recall Adrian Lamo, who hacked into security systems at B of A, Citigroup, and Cingular?

Keven Poulsen, who hacked into federal computers that record wiretaps?

Tsuromu Shimura, who used a simple cell phone to to hack into phone calls all over Capitol Hill?

The 18-year-old Greek boy, “n-splitter,” who was arrested for hacking into systems at Interpol, the Pentagon, the FBI, and the NSA?

I won’t even bother mentioning hackers who are hired by the NSA and other agencies.

But no, the 2012 California Prop 37 election couldn’t have been hacked. Of course not. Those computer systems are absolutely impregnable. They’re programmed by advanced ETs from the Rainbow Galaxy.

The media and secretaries of state throw out rhetoric aimed at assuring the public that elections are fair and square. That’s their job.

Pollsters and those hilarious clowns like Chuck Todd (NBC), John King (CNN), Michael Barone (The Examiner), Karl Rove, and Dick Morris are making a living from doing analysis and predictions of elections. They would defend, to the death, the honesty of elections. Of course they would, because if the opposite were shown to be true, they would be out of work.

The Associated Press feeds projections, although they deny it, to media outlets all over America on election night. They, too, would look ridiculous if it turned out that vote-counts had been hijacked.

Then we have professionals who work for candidates and ballot measures and offer their projections to their clients. They, of course, assume all elections are fair and square, because if that weren’t so, they would look like fools.

Worse than fools. Right now, professionals are telling the YES ON 37 people their cause is lost. If they’re wrong, if the election has been electronically stolen, they are giving their clients monumentally bad and destructive advice.

Oh but that’s right, elections can’t be stolen. It doesn’t happen.

Even though every single ballot, whether touch-screen or paper, is eventually turned into a digital record, nothing can go wrong.

I’m saving the best for last.

In 2007, the secretary of state of CA ordered a “Top-to-Bottom Review” of all electronic voting systems currently in use in California elections.

In other words, up to that time, these systems had been considered a very fine way to run the vote count. The systems obviously had been tested and re-tested and checked and approved. They were already being used in the state of California.

However, astoundingly, all the following systems were found to contain fatal flaws: Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold); Hart InterCivic; Sequoia Voting Systems; Election Systems and Software.

The first three systems were disqualified from further use…and then conditionally re-approved, presumably after fixes were done. The fourth system was rejected altogether on Aug. 3, 2007.

What, indeed, does that say about those elections in which these flawed systems had been used?

To suppose that, after this top-to-bottom review in 2007, everything was fixed and perfected is a leap only the foolish and unwary would take—particularly when we are talking about extremely talented hackers who could be employed to change election votes.

You can read the top-to-bottom review here.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/voting-systems/oversight/ttbr/individuals/individuals.pdf

Be sure to go through the comments section at the end. It contains some explosive remarks. For example, there is a discussion of vendors pretending to sell certain voting machines to the state of California…but actually selling other machines…machines that were not certified for use.

Another comment indicates that California lacked a method to ensure the source code for voting-machine software actually belonged to software certified by the state.

So: reason number one to doubt the vote-count on Prop 37? An election can be hacked. It most certainly can be hacked.

Reason Two: The networks made an early, premature, and highly suspect call of defeat for Prop 37 on election night. Roughly six million votes were outstanding at the time, and Prop 37 was coming back from a huge deficit, which had been created by the early vote-count. (Where exactly did those early votes come from?)

Reason Three: The enemy in the Prop 37 campaign was Monsanto and its allies. If Monsanto is ready, willing, and able to patent all foods on the planet and own the food supply, choke populations with its pesticides, and enable the sale of nutrient-deficient GMO food to billions of people, only a moron would refuse to believe it would corrupt an election.

Reason Four: The NO on 37 forces lied consistently in their ads running up to the election. They lied in the California Voter’s Guide, which is a felony. They used the seal of the FDA in those ads, which is another felony. Given the opportunity, what else would they have done?

http://www.appetiteforprofit.com/2012/11/07/lies-dirty-tricks-and-45-million-kill-gmo-labeling-in-california/

Reason Five: A few days before the election, YES ON 37 held a press conference, during which they were mercilessly attacked by mainstream reporters on an entirely irrelevant issue: did the FBI actually open an investigation of NO ON 37, or was it an inquiry or a mild expression of interest? YES ON 37, in the press conference, was exposing the particulars of NO ON 37’s lies and crimes, but the reporters didn’t care at all. In the next few days, their stories instead turned the tables on YES ON 37 for “erroneously” suggesting that DOJ was “investigating” NO ON 37. This had all the signs of a coordinated media torpedo. It made YES ON 37 look like a bunch of “sour grapes” losers.

Reason Six: NO ON 37 stealing the FDA seal in its ads? Surrendering its own responsibility, DOJ referred the matter of the stolen FDA seal to the FDA for adjudication. This is cause for investigating the DOJ itself. The FDA has nothing to do with deciding what action should be taken against NO ON 37. The FDA deals with food and drugs, not misappropriated federal-agency seals. The DOJ effectively shelved any action until after the election. The DOJ prevented a public outcry against NO ON 37.

Reason Seven: The DOJ operates under the authority of the president of the United States. Barack Obama is the most powerful supporter of Monsanto in America.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/09/24/meet-monsantos-number-one-lobbyist-barack-obama/

For these reasons, the most careful scrutiny possible must be applied to the past, present, and future vote-count on Prop 37, including the now 2,304,250 outstanding votes.

Demands must be made to undertake a complete review—an independent review—of all electronic voting procedures in the state of California.

And then, in full view of the public and the press, the most talented hackers on the planet must be offered a chance to hack into the California vote and steal an election.

“We lost” is not a credible comeback to that.

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

THE FORCES OF EVIL PREPARE TO STRIKE DOWN PROP 37

 

THE FORCES OF EVIL PREPARE TO STRIKE DOWN PROP 37

by Jon Rappoport

November 5, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

You can go into a market and pick out organic vegetables and fruit. This isn’t something you do through magic or secret divination with a special wand. There are labels that tell you the food is organic.

 

“Experts” claim organic food is no better or safer than food drenched with pesticides. But still, you can choose organic.

 

You have a right to know. And then, knowing, you have a right to make your choice.

 

You can go into a market, pick out a food product, and read a list of its ingredients as long as your arm. But you’ll find no mention of whether someone shot insect genes into it.

 

For some reason, you have no right to know about that.

 

It’s no accident. The powers-that-be want it that way.

 

On Tuesday, the voters of California will cast the die on Prop 37. Yes on 37 means GMO food will henceforth be labeled.

 

The idea behind 37 is simple. If you’re eating food, you have a right to know what’s in it and what’s been done to it. Government scientists and corporate scientists can claim GMO food is “the same in all aspects” as non-GMO, but you still have a right to know.

 

Monsanto and it allies claim that you knowing is unfair, because you might be swayed, by your own prejudice, to leave that GMO food on the market shelf, when in fact there is no reason to leave it there.

 

They are telling you the companies who are selling you food are more important than your own judgment about what to put in your body.

 

You would be impeding commerce if you believe GMO food is bad for you, and in order to protect GMO companies and the economy, you must go into a market blind, to keep things “honest.”

 

That’s what they think of you: you’re an idiot. You can’t make reasonable judgments. Therefore, you need to be blind.

 

Let me draw an exact parallel. Let’s suppose you were part of a group that was rallying for a particular political cause, and the government had planted an FBI agent in your midst.

 

Now, if exposed and questioned, this FBI plant would say, “I wasn’t there to disrupt or influence the group in any way. I was merely trying to protect good Americans. I was there to observe, nothing more.”

 

Would you nevertheless have the right to know he was there? Would you have the right to decide whether you wanted him there? Or are you too stupid to know that he should be there because America is in danger and we need people like him to spy on us without our knowing, to keep us safe?

 

It’s the same situation. They tell you the genes planted in your food are neutral in every sense. They affect nothing. They’re good genes and they do good work. But because you might not think so, because you’re too stupid to know the truth, you have to be blind about what’s in your food when you choose it and buy it and eat it.

 

That’s the argument.

 

YES ON 37=you have a right to know.

 

NO ON 37=you need to be protected against your own stupidity.

 

According to this logic, the NO ON 37 people have a right, even a moral duty, to lie to you, to say whatever they need to, in order to move you in the direction of giving up your right to know. They should lie, they have to lie, since their “truth” wasn’t doing the job.

 

And they have lied.

 

http://www.carighttoknow.org/documented_deceptions

 

In other words, they’re looking at you as if you were a leading suspect in a criminal case. The cops can put you in a room, they can falsely say they have a witness who saw you at the scene of the murder, who saw you dump the gun in a garbage can. They can falsely say they have you on video committing the murder. They can lie about all this non-existent evidence.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled this is legal in criminal cases. The cops can do this to get a confession from a suspect.

 

In the same way, the NO ON 37 people can tell you anything, can lie to you about anything, because it’s assumed their cause is just.

 

Your inherent right to know is a threat to the established order. It must be taken away.

 

The government is trying to make the same argument about vaccines. They want to close down all possible exemptions that would allow you to refuse a vaccine for yourself or your child. Why? Because, they say, only a moron would refuse a vaccine. Therefore, the CDC can make all sorts of false statements about dire disease threats and pandemics that aren’t pandemics, in order to scare you into taking a vaccine. It doesn’t matter what they say, as long as it results in you getting the vaccine.

 

And since you’re too stupid to realize the country is under constant threat from terrorists and, therefore, the government has to spy on you 24/7, they spy on you without a warrant. Secretly. Otherwise, you might object.

 

All these examples of preempting your right to know the truth are connected. They are the strategy of the corporate-government complex that runs America.

 

They claim to have a monopoly on truth. To impose the truth, they need to lie.

 

The massive push to defeat Prop 37 in California tomorrow is the latest illustration.

 

Cops need to lie, the FBI needs to lie, the CDC needs to lie, Homeland Security needs to lie, so NO ON 37 needs to lie.

 

Does it make you feel warm and safe?

 

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

DEPT. OF JUSTICE LYING TO DEFEAT PROP 37

 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LYING TO DEFEAT PROP 37

By Jon Rappoport

November 4, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

The vote is two days away. In California, Prop 37 is on the ballot. It states that all GMO food should be labeled as such, so the consumer can decide whether to buy it and eat it.

 

The NO ON 37 forces have been caught in a deception. They used the official seal of the FDA in a mailer, and above that seal they attributed a quote to the FDA which was never made by that agency.

 

The quote was: “The US Food and Drug Administration says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be ‘inherently misleading.’”

 

The FDA told KPBS they “never made such statements with respect to Prop 37.”

 

Here’s the capper. After receiving a complaint about all this, the US Attorney in Sacramento, who works for the US Dept. of Justice, said he would refer the whole matter to the FDA.

 

What?

 

The question of whether NO ON 37 committed a crime is not up to the FDA. It’s up to the Dept. of Justice. Its their investigation.

 

The FDA isn’t going to arrest anyone at NO ON 37 for stealing its seal or making a false statement over that seal.

 

If you issued a pronouncement on Dept. of Commerce letterhead under the seal of that agency, would employees of Commerce arrest you? Of course not. The FBI (as an agency under the DOJ) would arrest you.

 

The US Attorney in Sacramento is essentially lying when he implies the FDA should handle the matter of its own seal being used without federal authority. There is no reason for the DOJ to refer this matter to the FDA. The DOJ should investigate NO ON 37. It’s their job.

 

Two days ago, the YES ON 37 people held what turned out to be an infamous press conference. As I’ve previously reported (see this and this), the whole thing degenerated into a hair-splitting argument, when reporters for major outlets like the LA Times and the NY Times demanded to know whether the DOJ had really launched an investigation into possible crimes committed by the NO ON 37 forces.

 

This distraction torpedoed the press conference.

 

These brain-addled reporters should have been asking why the DOJ didn’t launch a full-blown investigation and instead referred the matter to the FDA.

 

The headline on their subsequent stories should have read: DOJ REFUSES TO INVESTIGATE NO ON 37; REFERS INVESTIGATION TO WRONG AGENCY.

 

But truth isn’t the mission of these quacking ducks.

 

At the end of All the President’s Men, Ben Bradlee, the editor of the Washington Post, tells his two cub reporters, Woodward and Bernstein: “We’re under a lot of pressure, you know…Nothing’s riding on this except the, uh, first amendment to the Constitution, freedom of the press and maybe the future of the country…”

 

In this case, nothing is riding on the vote on Prop 37 except the future health of the country, the hidden destructive effects of GMO food, the capture of the food supply by Monsanto and its government allies, and the killing of small family farms.

 

So let’s stall and cover the wrong story, let’s ignore the underlying issues, let’s let the Dept. of Justice off the hook, let’s allow big pesticide and GMO companies, with their deep pockets, to swing Tuesday’s vote in their favor, let’s subvert the role of a free and vigorous press, let’s fiddle and faddle and take a hands-off attitude and do nothing.

 

And they call these people reporters.

 

They’re pernicious scum who bring a boomer indifference and smirking sense of entitlement to their work, which is no work at all. They’re not good enough to sharpen pencils or clean computer screens in the office of a real newspaper…if one existed.

 

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

DYING NY TIMES NOW TWEETING THE “NEWS” ON PROP 37

 

DYING NY TIMES NOW TWEETING THE ‘NEWS’ ON PROP 37

by Jon Rappoport

November 3, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

The latest reporter to dismiss the crimes of the NO ON 37 forces is Stephanie Strom of the NY Times. She’s tweeting. That’s right. The Times has hit rock bottom. Why don’t they just close their doors and fumigate the building?

 

Strom’s tweets are posted at her Muck Rack page:

 

http://muckrack.com/ssstrom

 

In yesterday’s YES ON 37 press conference, the right of California citizens to know whether their food is genetically engineered was undermined by reporters who kept whining and complaining about whether the DOJ was really investigating the NO ON 37 forces for fraud.

 

Was it an investigation or only a modest concern? Was it an inquiry? Was it just a returned phone call? Can six million angels dance on the head of a pin or only 5,999,999?

 

At the press conference, the YES ON 37 people raised legitimate concerns about fraud and felonies in the NO ON 37 ads. Among the concerns: NO ON 37 was illegally using the FDA seal to impart a false legitimacy to false statements.

 

But the reporters at the press conference didn’t care about that complaint. It wasn’t interesting to them. They only cared about whether the DOJ had opened an official investigation of NO ON 37.

 

So here is NY Times reporter Stephanie Strom tweeting the word of God yesterday.

 

Tweet One: “Yes on Prop 37 folks say they’ve heard the DOJ is pursuing a ‘criminal investigation’ of complaints.”

 

Tweet Two: “Oops—Yes on 37 say DOJ in [sic] investigating use of FDA seal by No on 37. It’s been a long week.”

 

Tweet Three: “So it’s not an ‘investigation’ at all. Beware of hyperbole.”

 

Well, that takes care of that. No official investigation, so who cares? No story there at all.

 

Doesn’t matter that NO ON 37 people are lying in their ads, are using the FDA seal illegally, which is a felony. Doesn’t matter that NO ON 37 people lied to voters in the California Voter’s Guide by making intentionally false statements, another felony. Doesn’t matter that NO ON 37 people attributed statements to organizations which those organizations say they never made. Who cares?

 

That’s not a story. The only story is whether the DOJ has opened a criminal investigation into NO ON 37.

 

That’s on the order of: “Look, the Justice Department denies Nixon was covering up anything, so there’s no story.”

 

“Eric Holder, the Attorney General, says the DOJ didn’t do anything wrong in Operation Fast&Furious, so forget about the story.”

 

“Janet Reno, the Attorney General, says every possible caution was taken at the Waco compound, so that’s that. End of story.”

 

Here’s what happened. Joe Sandler, lawyer for YES ON 37, got a phone call from an FBI agent, Jason Jones, a few days ago. Jones was following up on a complaint that had been lodged with the DOJ. The complaint laid out, chapter and verse, the lies the NO ON 37 forces had engaged in.

 

Sandler took this as a sign that the DOJ was investigating. But technically speaking, he was a bit off the mark. Who cares? Sandler basically had it right.

 

However, for eminent reporters, like Stephanie Strom, this was the end of it. No story. Move along, nothing to see. “Beware of hyperbole,” she writes.

 

I’m afraid not. “Beware of the NY Times. Beware of reporters for the Times who can’t see past their Twitter accounts.”

 

You can read my piece on the whole YES ON 37 press-conference fiasco here. It’s a bit more substantive than a tweet.

 

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/11/03/breaking-elite-media-try-to-destroy-yes-on-37-press-conference/

 

But I can tweet, too. How about this? “DOJ should open full-blown criminal probe into NO ON 37 but refuses to.”

 

Or “DOJ fails again. NO ON 37 criminals free as birds.”

 

Or “NO ON 37 forces steal FDA seal to lie in their ads. It’s a felony.”

 

I didn’t attend journalism school and I don’t write for the NY Times. Therefore, I know my tweets signal a much bigger story than “YES ON 37 said DOJ started an investigation but that was sort of wrong.”

 

Here is a link re the complaint against NO ON 37 filed with the DOJ:

 

http://www.carighttoknow.org/documented_deceptions

 

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

BREAKING! ELITE MEDIA TRY TO DESTROY “YES ON 37” PRESS CONFERENCE

BREAKING: MAJOR MEDIA TRY TO DESTROY “YES ON 37” PRESS CONFERENCE

by Jon Rappoport

November 3, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

No, this wasn’t a group of street thugs breaking into a liquor store. This was a string of reporters trying to destroy the truth about a subject that threatens the health and future of the planet’s population: GMO food.

They did it in serial fashion over the phone, on a press-conference call organized by supporters of YES ON 37. The California ballot measure that would force sellers to label their GMO food “genetically engineered,” to allow consumers the right to know and choose.

I was on the call, and I was stunned by the parade of morons from the press who were obscuring the main issue and complaining and whining about the definition of word “investigation.”

It was miles and miles through the looking-glass.

To begin with, Joe Sandler and Andy Kimbrell, lawyers supporting Proposition 37, laid out a convincing case for fraud on the part of the NO ON 37 group, who are funded by pesticide and biotech interests.

The charges: NO ON 37 had used, in their ads, the official seal of the FDA, a felony. They attributed statements to the FDA, Stanford University, the World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics which those organizations had never made; statements that would convince voters to turn down Prop 37.

Sandler, Kimbrell, and others from the YES ON 37 camp further stated that these organizations had gone on the record denying they had ever made those statements.

Finally, the YES ON 37 representatives clearly asserted that the NO ON 37 forces had made false assertions in the California Voter Guide, which is sent to voters to help them understand arguments for and against ballot propositions. This would be another felony.

You can read the specific NO ON 37 deceptions here:

http://www.carighttoknow.org/documented_deceptions

Then came the time for questions. Suddenly, the mood changed. It changed because the press-conference organizers had publicized the event by claiming the FBI had opened an investigation into the NO ON 37 forces.

Reporters wanted to know whether there was really an FBI investigation. Joe Sandler and Andy Kimbrell explained there was. Sandler remarked that he had received a call from an FBI agent, Jason Jones, after a complaint had been sent to the Dept. of Justice.

The complaint detailed the false assertions in ads and in the Voter Guide. The FBI agent gave the impression that the FDA would be consulted, to see if they knew their official seal had been used by the NO ON 37 organizers.

But, whined a reporter, is that really really an investigation? One by one, reporters from the LA Times, the NY Times, and other papers wanted to get into a Talmudic hair-splitting conversation about the use of the word “investigation.” LA and NY Times reporters stated they had contacted the Dept. of Justice and learned no investigation had been launched.

Sandler said: look, a complaint was filed; an FBI agent followed up on it; the agent said the matter would be looked into.

The reporters were not assuaged. They kept chewing on the word “investigation.”

What shall we call it? An investigation, an inquiry, a preliminary fact-gathering expedition, an active concern, a mission to Mars, a ham sandwich, a kick in the ass? Who cares?

The YES ON 37 people had just exposed grievous and explosive lies and crimes by the forces who don’t want consumers to know whether the food they’re eating is engineered or GM-free.

That’s not a good enough story for the LA Times or the NY Times? That’s not a page-one ripper?

No, it’s not. It’s not because the reporters would actually have to THINK, and God forbid, COMPARE, in order to carry the ball themselves. They’d have to compare the statements made by NO ON 37 people against the truth, and they’d have to write more than: “FBI opens investigation.”

This is how these dancing monkeys operate. With the least possible amount of work.

They had a hook for their story in mind before they went on the press-conference call. It was, again: “FBI opens investigation.” If that hook wouldn’t technically hold up, they had no story. They had no more ideas. They had no more interest. They had no more active brain cells. They had no more balls. They had no more concern about GMO food or human health or the real issues involved.

And this is just on Level One. On Level Two, we would look into the preconceived media bias in favor of GMO food and no labeling.

But here, I’m just giving you the details of the press conference and the idiots who make up the press, the press that is dying, day by day, as the pages of their papers shrink and their ad revenues dry up and their jobs go away and their fate opens up an abyss before their eyes.

The reporter for the NY Times went so far as to suggest that the YES ON 37 PEOPLE really had no right to call the NO ON 37 people deceptive because there was a deception about, yes, THE FBI INVESTIGATION. It wasn’t actually an official investigation.

This is on the order of: “I drove all the way here to get your pastrami sandwich on a roll and I find out your menu actually says it comes on rye bread.”

To which the proper reply should be: “Your brain is made out of hamburger, so what difference does it make what I say to you? You’re a public nuisance. Get lost.”

This is exactly why the public loses faith in major media. This is why major media has no leg to stand on.

Here is another obvious fact the addled reporters didn’t think about: the NO ON 37 people, with their deep pockets, don’t care that they’re lying. The election is next Tuesday, and if they face some fines after that, it’s chump change to them. They want to sink Prop 37. That’s what they’re focused on.

The press, the fabled Fourth Estate, which is there to protect the public interest, put on quite a display at this press conference. They whined, they wheedled, they accused, they split hairs, they complained, they obfuscated, they distracted, they diverted, they came across like entitled high-school sophomores who’d just been given their first assignment for the school paper.

Meanwhile, Prop 37 is on the line. The right to know whether you’re eating food that has been injected with insect genes is on the line. A whole lot is on the line. But the press doesn’t care. They’re too busy failing in their mission and mandate.

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

CNN: DON’T MESS WITH OUR CANDY

 

CNN CHIEF ORDERS ALL ITS REPORTERS NOT TO CRITICIZE CANDY CROWLEY

by Jon Rappoport

October 19, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Crowley, the presidential debate moderator on Tuesday night, has just been given a coat of Teflon by her CNN boss.

 

In an extraordinary move, CNN managing editor Mark Whitaker sent an email to all his staff with an unequivocal message: don’t mess with our Candy.

 

Whitaker’s statement effectively squelched the possibility that any CNN reporter would take Crowley to task for siding with Obama on the Libya situation, during the second presidential debate.

 

“Let’s start with a big round of applause for Candy Crowley for her superb job under the most difficult circumstances imaginable,” Whitaker wrote.

 

End of controversy at CNN.

 

You can read Whitaker’s full email here:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219402/Candy-Crowley-CNN-chief-praises-moderator-superb-job-Obama-Romney.html

 

I contacted a well-known national news reporter at another network, who stated he’d never encountered such a blatant piece of in-house censorship in his years of work.

 

Whitaker has circled the wagons at CNN, and from this moment forward, it’s “Candy is the greatest” or shut up.

 

Obviously, Whitaker makes no distinction between Crowley’s job as a CNN reporter and her work as presidential debate moderator. The CNN corporation must be protected.

 

Perhaps Whitaker should have passed his reporters some cash with a curt “loose lips sink ships” and have done with it.

 

Back in 2008, when he was NBC’s Washington bureau chief, Whitaker exercised the same “objectivity” during an interview with Andrea Mitchell. He commented on the McCain campaign: “Obviously, it’s true that they don’t want to talk about the state of the economy…”

 

In a 2009 piece for the Washington Post, Whitaker engaged in a sophomoric examination of Obama’s first year in the White House, explaining the president’s problems as the result of a dislocated childhood. Obama’s decision to impose rigid order on his life was a defense against the chaos of his upbringing, but wasn’t effective as a strategy in the rough-and-tumble world of Washington politics. Really. Yawn. Sob.

 

It would make things a lot more interesting and easy if Whitaker just came out and said, “Vote for Obama.”

 

But people like Whitaker get their jobs in the news business in part because they know how to carve the news up delicately and serve it selectively. They’re adept at weaseling, in other words.

 

That’s why it’s surprising that Whitaker just emailed that heavy bomb to his staff. Nothing subtle there. In fact, in an example of prime buffoonery, Whitaker claimed that Crowley gave Obama more air time than Romney in the debate because Obama talks more slowly.

 

I see. So now we’re measuring out fair and balanced minutes on the basis of…the…candidates’….cadence. What happens in 2016 if one of the parties runs a candidate who utters six words a minute? Does he get a full 90 minutes to enunciate his positions? What happens if a candidate takes a question and just stares blankly at the audience for a minute or two while trying to come up with a suitable lie? Is that subtracted from or added to his allotted time?

 

CNN is a sinking ship because people are waking up to the fact that its veneer of objectivity is simply a cover for ugly liberalism; just as FOX’s brass-band front is a cover for “all big corporations are good corporations.”

 

As they say about an athlete, “He’s juicing.” Both networks (all major networks) are on a steroid roll, claiming to handle news with meticulous concern for facts, while on a massive hustle to get over on the public with their covert political preferences.

 

Turns out, in this case, Candy Crowley and Whitaker are operatives for the Left. Their moves are those of rank amateurs. I know pool rooms and card rooms where their act would be laughed out of existence in about two minutes.

 

With these two bumblers, the word transparency takes on new meaning.

 

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

Meet Monsanto’s number one lobbyist: Barack Obama

by Jon Rappoport

September 24, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

During his 2008 campaign for president, Barack Obama transmitted signals that he understood the GMO issue. Several key anti-GMO activists were impressed. They thought Obama, once in the White House, would listen to their concerns and act on them.

These activists weren’t just reading tea leaves. On the campaign trail, Obama said:

“Let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they’re buying.”

Making the distinction between GMO and non-GMO was certainly an indication that Obama, unlike the FDA and USDA, saw there was an important line to draw in the sand.

Beyond that, Obama was promising a new era of transparency in government. He was adamant in promising that, if elected, his administration wouldn’t do business in “the old way.” He would be “responsive to people’s needs.”

Then came the reality.

After the election, and during Obama’s term as president, people who had been working to label GMO food and warn the public of its huge dangers were shocked to the core. They saw Obama had been pulling a bait and switch.

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 preciously 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.

The Matrix Revealed

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 home gardens and clean nutritious food suddenly looks like a diversion, a cover story floated to obscure what her husband has actually been doing.

Nor does it seem 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.

Because this is an election season, people will say, “But what about Romney? Is he any better?” I see no indication that he is. The point, however, is that we are talking about a sitting president here, a president who presented himself, and was believed by many to be, an extraordinary departure from politics as usual.

Not only was that a wrong assessment, Obama was lying all along. He was, and he still is, Monsanto’s man in Washington.

To those people who fight for GMO labeling, and against the decimation of the food supply and the destruction of human health, but still believe Obama is a beacon in bleak times:

Wake up.

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 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 OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Are black-budget Ops stealing their money from the stock market?

By Jon Rappoport

August 12, 2012

(To join our email list, click here.)

The Surveillance State has created an apparatus whose implications are staggering. It’s a different world now. And sometimes it takes a writer of fiction to flesh out the larger landscape.

Brad Thor’s new novel, Black List, posits the existence of a monster corporation, ATS, that stands along side the NSA in collecting information on every move we make. ATS’ intelligence-gathering capability is unmatched anywhere in the world.

At his site, www.BradThor.com, the author lists some of the open-source material he discovered that formed the basis for Black List. The material, as well as the novel, is worth reading.

On pages 117-118 of Black List, Thor makes a stunning inference that, on reflection, is as obvious as the fingers on your hand:

“For years ATS had been using its technological superiority to conduct massive insider trading. Since the early 1980s, the company had spied on anyone and everyone in the financial world. They listened in on phone calls, intercepted faxes, and evolved right along with the technology, hacking internal computer networks and e-mail accounts. They created mountains of ‘black dollars’ for themselves, which they washed through various programs they were running under secret contract, far from the prying eyes of financial regulators.

“Those black dollars were invested into hard assets around the world, as well as in the stock market, through sham, offshore corporations. They also funneled the money into reams of promising R&D projects, which eventually would be turned around and sold to the Pentagon or the CIA.

“In short, ATS had created its own license to print money and had assured itself a place beyond examination or reproach.”

In real life, whether the prime criminal source is one monster corporation or a consortium of companies, or elite banks, or the NSA itself, the outcome would be the same.

It would be as Thor describes it.

We think about total surveillance as being directed at private citizens, but the capability has unlimited payoffs when it targets financial markets and the people who have intimate knowledge of them.

“Total security awareness” programs of surveillance are ideal spying ops in the financial arena, designed to suck up millions of bits of inside information, then utilizing them to make investments and suck up billions (trillions?) of dollars.

It gives new meaning to “the rich get richer.”

Taking the overall scheme to another level, consider this: those same heavy hitters who have unfettered access to financial information can also choose, at opportune moments, to expose certain scandals and crimes (not their own, of course).

In this way, they can, at their whim, cripple governments, banks, and corporations. They can cripple investment houses, insurance companies, and hedge funds. Or, alternatively, they can merely blackmail these organizations.

We think we know how scandals are exposed by the press, but actually we don’t. Tips are given to people who give them to other people. Usually, the first clue that starts the ball rolling comes from a source who remains in the shadows.

What we are talking about here is the creation and managing of realities on all sides, including the choice of when and where and how to provide a glimpse of a crime or scandal.

It’s likely that the probe Ron Paul has been pushing—audit the Federal Reserve—has already been done by those who control unlimited global surveillance. They already know far more than any Congressional investigation will uncover. If they know the deepest truths, they can use them to blackmail, manipulate, and control the Fed itself.

The information matrix can be tapped into and plumbed, and it can also be used to dispense choice clusters of data that end up constituting the media reality of painted pictures which, every day, tell billions of people “what’s news.”

In this global-surveillance world, we need to ask new questions and think along different lines now.

For example, how long before the mortgage-derivative crisis hit did the Masters of Surveillance know, from spying on bank records, that insupportable debt was accumulating at a lethal pace? What did they do with that information?

When did they know that at least a trillion dollars was missing from Pentagon accounting books (as Donald Rumsfeld eventually admitted), and what did they do with that information?

Did they discover precisely where the trillion dollars went? Did they discover where billions of dollars, in cash, shipped to post-war Iraq, disappeared to?

When did they know the details of the Libor rate-fixing scandal? Press reports indicate that Barclays was trying to rig interest rates as early as January 2005.

Have they tracked, in detail, the men responsible for recruiting hired mercenaries and terrorists, who eventually wound up in Syria pretending to be an authentic rebel force?

Have they discovered the truth about how close or how far away Iran is from producing a nuclear weapon?

Have they collected detailed accounts of the most private plans of Bilderberg, CFR, and Trilateral Commission leaders?

For global surveillance kings, what we think of as the future is, in many respects the present and the past.

It’s a new world. These overseers of universal information-detection can enter and probe the most secret caches of data, collect, collate, cross reference, and assemble them into vital bottom-lines. By comparison, an operation like Wikileaks is an old Model-T Ford puttering down a country road, and Julian Assange, reviled as a terrorist, is a mere piker.

Previously, we thought we needed to look over the shoulders of the men who were committing major crimes out of public view. But now, if we want to be up to date, we also have to factor in the men who are spying on those criminals, who are gathering up those secrets and using them to commit their own brand of meta-crime.

And in the financial arena, that means we think of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan as perpetrators, yes, but we also think about the men who already know everything about GS and Morgan, and are using this knowledge to steal sums that might make GS and Morgan blush with envy.

Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, 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.