Cutting up news of the economy

Cutting up news of the economy exposes the essence

by Jon Rappoport

January 30, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Government and media periodically release reports about the state of the economy. It’s up, it’s sideways, it’s recovering, and so on.

Reading such reports is like reading background information on the weather. Lots of data, dubious value, and twisted truth.

For example, today the NY Times published a piece headlined, “Brisk 4th Quarter Lifts Hopes for Economy in 2014.”

I’ll give you an excerpt. Warning: reading it may put you to sleep, so pinch yourself, because the punch line comes later.

“‘What’s encouraging is that consumer spending and business investment improved, showing healthier underlying growth in the economy,’ said Michelle Meyer, senior United States economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. ‘The fundamental story for 2014 is still positive.’

“While the headline number was encouraging, the details of Thursday’s report neatly illustrate the crosscurrents that have been buffeting the economy, and have prevented it from achieving more sustained gains.

“For example, although consumer spending grew by 3.3 percent in October, November and December, up from a 2 percent increase in the third quarter, government expenditures plunged 12.6 percent because of the shutdown and automatic budget cuts imposed by Congress at the start of 2013.

“Over all, the government pullback lowered fourth-quarter growth by 0.9 percentage points, with the shutdown itself shaving off 0.3 percentage points. In addition, the residential housing sector was also a source of weakness, cutting overall growth by 0.3 percentage points.

“Some of that drop was weather-related, as construction activity halted, but it also represents a slowing of housing gains as mortgage interest rates rose and the sector’s postrecession rebound cooled. The fourth quarter of 2013 was the first time that housing was a drag on overall growth since 2010.

“As was the case in the third quarter, inventory additions by businesses lifted growth, adding 0.4 percentage points. Those stockpiles will most likely be drawn down in the first quarter of 2014, slowing the expansion a bit in the current quarter, economists said.”

Okay. Still here?

In 1958, in Paris, artist Brion Gysin developed Cut-Up; techniques for cutting and pasting and rearranging text. He and William Burroughs explored this approach together.

Now you can find, online, “cut-up machines” that will instantly and randomly transform text for you. I entered the above Times excerpt and got something that made a lot more sense to me.

Here are the (slightly edited) most interesting parts.

Of course, when I say “made more sense” and “interesting,” I mean that the basic insanity of these state-of-the-economy assessments is revealed. Instead of merely knowing they’re insane, the craziness hits you in the face.

If the Times published THIS stuff every day, I’d buy the paper:

“the growth overall encouraging the shutdown by growth is crosscurrents and 0 since that that automatic 3 2010 consumer have budget percentage”

“Some the business the by of case investment economy Congress that in improved and at drop the showing have the was third healthier prevented start weather-related quarter underlying it of as inventory growth from 2013 construction additions”

“Over activity by the more all halted businesses economy sustained the but lifted gains”

“United spending by of points States grew 0 housing Those economist by 9 gains stockpiles at 3 percentage as will Bank 3 points mortgage most of percent with interest likely America in the rates be Merrill October shutdown rose drawn Lynch”

“postrecession first for from 3 rebound quarter 2014 a percentage cooled of is 2 points The 2014 still percent In fourth slowing positive increase addition quarter”

“While in the of expansion the the residential 2013 a headline third housing was bit number quarter sector the in was government was first the encouraging expenditures also time current the plunged a that quarter details 12 source housing economists of 6 of was said Thursday’s percent weakness a report because cutting drag neatly of overall”

Isn’t that better?

I suggest economics professors at Harvard and MIT change their courses. Present THIS stuff and let the students finally enjoy themselves.

A few kids would go crazy, but that would be a positive outcome. In future years, they wouldn’t be around to write reports on the economy.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th 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 emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

“The Left hates big corporations”: enter Eric Holder

Jan29

The Left “hates big corporations”: enter Eric Holder

by Jon Rappoport

January 29, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Veteran reporter, Russell Mokhiber, who edits the Corporate Crime Reporter, lays it out in his article, “Holder the Hypocrite.”

“…[US Attorney General] Holder has perfected the government’s practice of offering deferred and non prosecution agreements to major corporations to settle major corporate crime cases.

“Under a deferred prosecution agreement, the corporation is charged with a crime, but if the company abides by the agreement for a period of years, then the government drops the criminal charges.

“Under a non prosecution agreement, the government just collects a fine. There is no criminal charge. There is no admission of wrongdoing.

“Since taking office in February 2009, Holder has dished out deferred and non prosecution agreements to more than 100 large publicly held corporations, including JPMorgan Chase (Madoff Ponzi scheme), Archer Daniels Midland (foreign bribery), Diebold (foreign bribery), UBS (interest rate manipulation), HSBC (money laundering), Pfizer (foreign bribery), Wachovia (money laundering), Tyson Foods (foreign bribery), Barclays Bank (Trading with the Enemies Act), Deutsche Bank (tax shelter fraud).”

That’s a tidy sample of Eric Holder’s work.

Of course, failing to prosecute Monsanto for fraud, criminal intimidation, poisoning the food supply, and other acts should rank high on the list as well.

But the Left hates big corporations, doesn’t it? Well, Virginia, ha-ha, that’s just a convenient myth. The Left loves and promotes big government, so it needs to accuse somebody of criminal behavior. Its favorite fairy-tale target? Corporations.

As you can see, that’s just a feel-good con. It attracts liberals and other Lefties, but only on the level of a slogan.

Politicians on both the Left and Right love big corporations.

“I’ll say love and you say hate, and we’ll argue and create the illusion of difference.”

Throw in pharmaceutical companies, military contractors, security corporations, banks, media giants…they’re all gladly served by the Left and the Right.

Unelected bureaucrats play a major role in carrying water for political administrations of both major Parties. The FDA, for example, enables Big Pharma and its array of killer drugs, no matter whether Democrats or Republicans are ruling the White House and the Congress.

Since 2000, it’s been known that medical drugs kill 106,000 Americans a year (a conservative estimate—see Dr. Barbara Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?”)

AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH Dr. Barbara Starfield: Medically Caused Death in America

Yet neither political party has forced a deep investigation of the FDA, which routinely certifies those drugs as safe and effective. And no Attorney General has lifted a finger to bring criminal charges against FDA employees or pharmaceutical companies.

Yet the myth lives on. Republicans hate big government and Democrats hate big corporations.

It’s a Disney production with politicians playing cartoon roles.

Jon Rappoport

Obama and the State of the Onion Address

Jan28

Obama and the State of the Onion Address

by Jon Rappoport

January 28, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Apparently, the President had ingested some kind of weird drug, because when he stepped to the podium he didn’t look at the teleprompter. He just started talking.

“…like every other recent President, when I take to this platform I’m expected to tell a certain number of lies dressed up as the truth. And believe me, folks, I had a few whoppers ready to go.

“But now I feel like doing something else. I’m not going to delve into the many scandals of my administration, because examining them and taking them apart and exposing the lies would keep us here all night and into tomorrow.

“Instead, I just want to explain my overarching agenda. It’s the same agenda every modern President has fronted for. I’m not really doing anything new. That’s a myth.

“You see, in order to become President in the first place, I had to sign on to the scheme to debase, throttle, and weaken this country. I have my methods. Every President has his own.

“Weakening America is part and parcel of Globalism. Ultimately, America will not the lead the way into what has been called the New World Order. International heavy hitters, bankers, and corporations will carry that ball. America will go along, with its population of sleeping masses.

“So-called Pax Americanus, or imperial American empire, has been shelved, in favor of a much larger operation.

“My basic job is allowing all this to happen, so we end up with a global management system, in which the individual is enmeshed.

“With some degree of accuracy, you could say that everything I’ve been doing is a smokescreen to obscure the march of Globalism.

“We politicians view humans at large as dangerous and badly programmed biological machines. Until new programming can be inserted universally, we keep things in check. We hold the fort.

“For the next two years, I’ll continue clamping down on rights and freedoms. I’ll support the Surveillance State. I’ll take away guns. I’ll step up psychiatric intervention. I’ll increase debt. I’ll keep unemployment high. I’ll probably launch a few more military interventions. Expect more mass shootings, which are covert actions, with appointed patsies to take the fall.

“I’ll allow the expanded militarization of local police forces. I’ll intercede, wherever possible, to stop individuals from living off the grid. I’ll try to mangle the spirit of self-sufficiency in whatever form it occurs.

“I’ll assist mega-corporations. I’ll keep as many doors open for Monsanto as I can.

“You get my drift. It’s business as usual. In my case, I’ll try to up the ante and intensify the collapse of America.

“Did someone put something in my cigarette or coffee? I’m telling the truth. It feels strange, very strange.

“Anyway, here’s to One World under one authority. It’s the only solution to our problems. Trust me, I wouldn’t mislead you. Give up, give in, take the ride. It’s not so bad. Resistance is a fool’s errand. The people who are running things are out to destroy independence. Let them. By the time they’re finished, you’ll see that ‘equality’ isn’t so bad.

“One final random thought. Agents of the US government killed Martin Luther King. In case you didn’t know that. Good night and good luck.”

Jon Rappoport

Sunday talk shows: Snowden is a Russian agent

Jan20

Sunday talk shows: Snowden is a Russian agent

by Jon Rappoport

January 20, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

This is how media propaganda is done. Outlets that are supposed to be coming to their own conclusions present the same story, as one united front.

“Everybody ready? Got your lines straight? We all agree? Both sides of the aisle? Okay, go!”

In this case, the occasion was the Sunday network news-talk shows, and the target was Edward Snowden.

The shows followed on the heels of Obama’s Friday speech, in which the President defended the NSA and its “necessary actions.”

To bolster that message, the Sundays shows hit Snowden hard.

The specter of Russia was rolled out. Both Democratic and Republican legislators had their ducks in a row. They did innuendo, suggestion, “expert” inference.

Republican Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, appeared on Face the Nation (CBS) and Meet the Press (NBC).

Rogers: “Let me just say this, I believe there’s a reason he ended up in the hands, the loving arms, of an FSB agent in Moscow. I don’t think that’s a coincidence…I think there are some interesting questions we have to answer that certainly would lend one to believe that the Russians had at least in some part something to do [with Snowden’s theft of NSA files].”

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, appearing on Meet the Press, remarked that Snowden “may well have had help” from Russia.

Republican Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, showed up on ABC’s This Week: “I personally believe that he [Snowden] was cultivated by a foreign power to do what he did. I don’t think …Mr. Snowden woke up one day and had the wherewithal to do this all by himself…I believe he was cultivated.”

The Snowden-Russia media push just happened to occur on all three major network Sunday shows, and it just happened to be suggested by two Republicans and one Democrat.

And it just happened to occur two days after Obama basically defended the work of the NSA and the Surveillance State.

You can also factor in two suicide bombings in Volgograd, a video that threatens terror attacks at the upcoming Olympics in Sochi, and a hunt on in Russia for a woman (terrorist) with a scar on her face.

Perfect timing to roll out a Snowden-Russia connection.

The motive is clear: protect the US Surveillance State, assure the public its work is necessary to national security, and deflect criticism of the NSA.

At the same time, the State must keep trying to convince the American people that the portrait of Snowden as a lone patriot is false.

Propaganda is a battle between competing images and messages.

“No, that image is false. This image is true.”

If tomorrow, for reasons of protecting special interests and official agendas, Snowden needed to be painted as a mentally ill Tea-Party gun freak, or a homophobic green dragon with vampire fangs, there would be a gaggle of politicians and think-tank pundits ready to step forward and make the accusations, with great assurance.

Jon Rappoport

Obama: one if by land, two if by sea, three if by metadata

Jan18

Obama: one if by land, two if by sea, three if by metadata

by Jon Rappoport

January 18, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

In his Friday speech, Obama ignored the essence of the FISA Court, the secret body that’s rubber-stamped warrants to do surveillance for the past 35 years.

Most of these requests for warrants come from NSA and the FBI, and only government attorneys may appear before the Court, none of whose decisions are made public. Therefore, the Court is a de facto piece of the Executive Branch, and as such its existence violates the separation of powers principle of the Constitution.

One of Snowden’s documents revealed that FISA had approved a blanket warrant requiring Verizon to make available, to NSA, records of all daily phone calls in its system.

No, President Obama said nothing about this. Instead, he led off his speech on the NSA and national security with these words:

“At the dawn of our Republic, a small, secret surveillance committee, born out of the Sons of Liberty, was established in Boston. And the group’s members included Paul Revere. At night, they would patrol the streets, reporting back any signs that the British were preparing raids against America’s early patriots.”

Paul Revere as a metaphor for NSA spying.

Yes, it’s not widely known that Paul was a Peeping Tom. He had a mental disorder. He was compulsively sneaking into houses of the colonists in Boston and watching them read by candlelight.

Paul also hung around local meat markets swatting flies and eavesdropping on conversations.

He loitered in saloons, stood outside churches on Sundays to pick up juicy bits of gossip, steamed open letters, and quizzed blacksmiths on what their customers were jabbering about. He stole recipes for Thanksgiving dinner from Indians.

If only he’d had 30,000 employees working for him, he could have blanketed the 13 colonies.

The NSA is spying on 300 million innocent Americans. There is that difference between it and the midnight ride of Paul Revere. Just a small point.

Who’s writing the President’s speeches? Is he trying to make the coronated leader of the free world look as ridiculous as possible? And is Obama even reading the words before he steps to the podium?

“Hey, Cody, this piece about Paul Revere? I know we don’t teach history anymore in this country, but you took it way too far. It doesn’t even make sense. Oh, what the hell, who’ll notice it?”

This weekend, you’ll see pundits on the news talk shows debating whether the President proposed significant enough changes in NSA spying methods. Did he go far enough? On the other side: can American still protect itself against terror attacks?

This is the puppet presentation, framing the conversation in the wrong terms and then taking off from there to see who’s more right.

It’s like mounting a discussion on whether $700 trillion or $800 trillion should be the debt ceiling of the US government.

Here’s a reasonable takeaway from Obama’s speech: politicians lie, and they don’t learn how the moment they’re elected to office for the first time, because that doesn’t give them a long enough lead-in to be good at it.

They ARE liars. They know how to do it, from way back. They’re practiced. Gaining political office is just another opportunity to ply their trade.

It’s a step up. Instead of merely lying as the owner of an oil company or a baseball team, or as a lawyer in an office, or as a community organizer on the street, they can now do it on a larger stage.

Many of them feel they’re born to politics. And that’s why. They lie, and they lie about lying, and what they lie about when, for example, they move into the Oval Office is much more important.

“I thought I was telling whoppers back in Chicago (Little Rock, Whittier, Crawford), but this is really something. Now I’m not just saying black is white, I’m saying it’s glowingly, blindingly white.”

The news talk show I’d like to see this weekend would pose the following question: how would you compare, say, a king claiming God has given him a divine right to rule vs. President Obama saying we have nothing to worry about in this, the Surveillance State?

It’s important to know the ultimate rationalization politicians give themselves when they’re lying about everything all the time. It is:

“The people, the public are animals, biological machines, and they roam the countryside, and they’re very, very dangerous, and they must be controlled. They’re operating on faulty programming, and the only solution is giving them new and better programming. Meanwhile, we have to lie to them, to keep them reasonably pacified.”

Welcome to Democracy. First, for about five minutes, as the ink was drying on the freshly signed Constitution, there was a Republic. Then, men began asking, “How can I twist this thing and lie all the time?” Democracy was the consequence.

In order to make Democracy stick, we have the Surveillance State, and presidents who give it cover.

Jon Rappoport

Obama speech: Miller Lite commercial: less filling, tastes great

Jan17

Obama speech: Miller Lite commercial: less filling, tastes great

by Jon Rappoport

January 17, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Obama just made a Miller Lite speech, to calm fears that NSA spying is a bother and a problem. Not so. All is well.

He’ll cut down the NSA practice of spying on people connected to people connected to people of interest. The three layers will become only two.

This is great, except that NSA is already spying on everybody. Three, two, 16? What difference does it make?

For the “tastes great” part, the President reminded us that NSA snoops are just regular folks. They’re our “friends and neighbors,” he said.

I know. That’s the point. There are cold-eyed androids among us.

For the “less filling,” Obama proposed that the all-encompassing metadata of NSA-captured phone calls shouldn’t be held by the government. That’s bad. Instead, the phone companies themselves should hold it, and then let the government look at it.

Whew. What a relief.

We all know NSA will do whatever it wants to, in order to keep spying on us. Trim their capability a little over here, they’ll go over there and do the same thing from another vector.

That’s what the Surveillance State is all about.

Obama also jammed in a sideswipe at Snowden, just to keep the traitor narrative alive. And to let us know stealing State secrets is a heinous crime.

You see, the State can steal our information, but we can’t steal its information. That’s the basic principle.

But to quote our leader from an earlier speech(es), “We’re all in this together.”

I guess it depends on what the meaning of “together” is.

NSA won’t bother parsing that. They’ll just keep on watching and compiling and collating. Being Peeping Tom Central is in their blood. “To keep us safe.”

As the pollsters go to the phones and gauge public reaction to Obama’s speech, I have a suggestion. Ask, “Do you believe the President was being forthright and honest?” And then ask, “Okay now, do you REALLY believe he was being forthright and honest?”

And if NSA wants to repair its public image, I have more suggestions. Since you boys are spying on everybody all the time, release the following information to the press:

Conversations involving politicians, at all levels, on the subject of hookers and underage sex targets;

Elite pedophile rings;

Communications (military, intelligence, DOJ, State Dept., White House) re what really happened in Benghazi, what really happened in the Fast&Furious Op;

Brokerage house/banker/billionaire manipulation of the stock market;

Behind the scenes lies among the high-echelon execs at Monsanto.

Just for starters.

Obviously, you have all this info. Release it now. Prove you’re on our side.

What? All those people aren’t your targets?

We are?

Oh.

Gotta go. My refrigerator just told me the toaster said I put hemp butter on my toast this morning. It’s an indicator I could have two tons of pot in my garage.

Jon Rappoport

NY State Senator says: psych eval for all little children

Jan17

NY state senator says: psych eval for all little children

by Jon Rappoport

January 17, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

It’s Senate Bill A8186-2013.

It’s been referred to the education committee twice, most recently a week ago. NY State Senator Margaret Markey (wikipedia) introduced it in 2013.

Previously, Markey won a few minutes of fame for introducing a bill that would stop all restaurants from using salt in their meals.

A8186 requires all public schoolchildren in NY to have two health examinations in elementary grades and two in secondary grades. These exams must include a psychological evaluation, which certifies “that the child is mentally fit to permit attendance at [public] school.”

No certificate, no school.

Aside from the fact that this psych exam is invasive and potentially disturbing to a child as young as five, and aside from the fact that it violates privacy considerations, it’s bogus down to its core, because psychology isn’t a science and never was.

Psychology is, to put it politely, a bunch of morons deciding what mental health is all about.

Using high-sounding terminology, these professionals label patients with conditions, none of which are based on defining physical tests. No blood, urine, or saliva tests. No genetic tests. No brain scans.

“Mental health” itself is a linguistic artifact, and bears no relation to life, energy, curiosity, creativity. It’s a phantasmagorical standard, designed to draw in patients.

Attaching psychologists to schools is about as useful as attaching barnacles and mold to a ship.

Historically, as the concept of sin weakened its hold on the population, “new scientists” stepped into the breach with categories of “mental disorders.”

“You’re not bad, you’re ill.”

Here’s the sticking point. Psychologists aren’t entirely stupid. They rely on mental-disorder labels that, to a certain extent, mirror human behavior. For example, a child who is sad and lonely is slapped with a diagnosis of “clinical depression.”

The fact is, the child is lonely and sad, and the possible reasons are many. But none of them implies a Condition called clinical depression. There is no Condition.

Researchers, allied with pharmaceutical interests, have trotted out a catch-all term to explain so-called mental disorders: “chemical imbalance” in the brain. The drug companies then supply the drugs that are said to correct the imbalance. Profits soar.

This is non-scientific lying compounded. Researchers have never proved there is a normal baseline for brain chemistry. How then could they have established what an imbalance is?

Can a child have problems? Can he be in trouble? Can he be trouble to other children? Of course. Any reasonably intelligent adult can spot these things. But again, this has nothing to do with a Condition.

And a psych eval conducted by a psychologist on a five-year old, to determine whether the child will be allowed to go to school? Absurd.

You would be much closer to the truth saying a psychologist who is part of that system is crazy, than saying a little boy or girl has a Condition.

So what’s going on with politicians who are trying to impose psychology and psychiatry on children (and adults)? Most politicians are merely ill-informed, and they’re putting their faith in this pseudoscience in the same way that people put their faith in a self-appointed priest class that claims it is the worshiper’s only connection to God.

Politicians, of course, always look for answers that make government larger and more intrusive, because it is government to which a politician is ultimately loyal.

But there are other political animals who are more aware. They understand that the real issue is control. They want to be able to hijack freedom and place populations under the gun.

They want the right to say a dissident, a rebel, an outsider, a critic, someone “who is different” is a threat. And they want to back that up with treatment. Which means re-education, indoctrination, and debilitating drugs.

A kinder, gentler face on the old Soviet psychiatric system.

“…in the disputes between the East and West concerning the Russian opponents of the Soviet regime… [m]any dissidents went to lunatic asylums and were treated as mentally sick. Western doctors and the press accused Soviet doctors of being blind instruments of the regime and of having broken the solemn oath of their calling. The Russian doctors thought the West had gone mad in reproaching their behavior. For them, anyone who opposed such an efficient police power must be mentally disturbed. In their view, only those who had what Seneca called Libido morienti (the death wish) would dare to provoke the State. The Russian doctors were convinced that they were undertaking a humanitarian mission by placing the opponents of the regime in asylums and thereby reducing their aggression–the only hope for their survival. To reduce the outstanding to mediocrity was always a medical and human duty in a state where mediocrity had the better chance of survival.” — “Man: The Fallen Ape” by Branko Bokun

Why wait until adulthood to impose that system? Why not start early, with a five-year old, whose mind can be tinkered with by professionals?

Understand, if it isn’t clear already, that the government, through licensing, enables and certifies a monopoly on the mind, by stating that psychology and psychiatry are officially approved methods.

What right does government have to make that claim? It has no right.

It has no rational reason to be in that business.

But a politician abandons rationality as soon as he gets a whiff of the power that government affords.

It’s how a nobody immediately becomes a somebody.

Jon Rappoport

A miracle in Wisconsin

Dec30

A Miracle in Wisconsin

by Jon Rappoport

December 30, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

I published this article in October of 2002. At the time, it was the most widely read piece I’d written and posted on my site. Its basics still hold up.

What I didn’t mention at the time was the corrosive role school-food distributors and their allies on boards of education play in the health of children.

These are the people who operate a corrupt system and mandate the feeding of toxic and nutritionally empty junk to students across the country.

One school took another path:

Natural Ovens and the ‘Healthy Lunch Program’ Revolution

A Miracle in Wisconsin

by Jon Rappoport

Monday, October 14, 2002

A revolution has occurred in Appleton, Wisconsin. It’s taken place in the Central Alternative High School. The kids now behave. The hallways aren’t frantic. Even the teachers are happy.

The school used to be out of control. Kids packed weapons. Discipline problems swamped the principal’s office.

But not since 1997.

What happened? Did they line every inch of space with cops? Did they spray Valium gas in the classrooms? Did they install metal detectors in the bathrooms? Did they build holding cells in the gym?

Afraid not. In 1997, a private group called Natural Ovens began installing a healthy lunch program.

Fast-food burgers, fries, and burritos gave way to fresh salads, meats “prepared with old-fashioned recipes,” and whole grain bread. Fresh fruits were added to the menu. Good drinking water arrived.

Vending machines were removed.

As reported in a newsletter called Pure Facts, “Grades are up, truancy is no longer a problem, arguments are rare, and teachers are able to spend their time teaching.”

Principal LuAnn Coenen, who files annual reports with the state of Wisconsin, has turned in some staggering figures since 1997. Drop-outs? Students expelled? Students discovered to be using drugs? Carrying weapons? Committing suicide? Every category has come up ZERO. Every year.

Mary Bruyette, a teacher, states, “I don’t have to deal with daily discipline issues. I don’t have disruptions in class or the difficulties with student behavior I experienced before we started the food program.”

One student asserted, “Now that I can concentrate I think it’s easier to get along with people.” What a concept—eating healthier food increases concentration.

Principal Coenen sums it up: “I can’t buy the argument that it’s too costly for schools to provide good nutrition for their students. I found that one cost will reduce another. I don’t have the vandalism. I don’t have the litter. I don’t have the need for high security.”

At a nearby middle school, the new food program is catching on. A teacher there, Dennis Abram, reports, “I’ve taught here almost 30 years. I see the kids this year as calmer, easier to talk to. They just seem more rational. I had thought about retiring this year and basically I’ve decided to teach another year—I’m having too much fun!”

Pure Facts, the newsletter that ran this story, is published by a non-profit organization called The Feingold Association, which has existed since 1976. Part of its mission is to “generate public awareness of the potential role of foods and synthetic additives in behavior, learning and health problems. The [Feingold] program is based on a diet eliminating synthetic colors, synthetic flavors, and the preservatives BHA, BHT, and TBHQ.”

Thirty years ago there was a Dr. Feingold. His breakthrough work proved the connection between these negative factors in food and the lives of children. Hailed as a revolutionary advance, Feingold’s findings were soon trashed by the medical cartel, since those findings threatened the drugs-for-everything, disease-model concept of modern healthcare.

But Feingold’s followers have kept his work alive.

If what happened in Appleton, Wisconsin, takes hold in many other communities across America, perhaps the ravenous corporations who invade school space with their vending machines and junk food will be tossed out on their behinds. It could happen.

And perhaps ADHD will become a dinosaur. A non-disease that was once attributed to errant brain chemistry. And perhaps Ritalin will be seen as just another toxic chemical that was added to the bodies of kids in a crazed attempt to put a lid on behavior that, in part, was the result of a subversion of the food supply.

For those readers who ask me about solutions to the problems we face—here is a real solution. Help these groups. Get involved. Step into the fray. Stand up and be counted.

The drug companies aren’t going to do it. They’re busy estimating the size of their potential markets. They’re building their chemical pipelines into the minds and bodies of the young.

Every great revolution starts with a foothold. Sounds like Natural Ovens and The Feingold Association have made strong cuts into the big rock of ignorance and greed.

First published 10-14-2002.

Jon Rappoport

Washington Post, its new owner, and the CIA: joined at the hip

Dec22

Washington Post, its new owner, and the CIA: joined at the hip

by Jon Rappoport

December 22, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Norman Solomon (twitter), writing at Counterpunch, nails it down: building a version of the online Cloud that will run inside the CIA, for the CIA, has been awarded, as a $600 million contract, to Amazon Web Services.

Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon, now owns the Washington Post.

$600 million creates a major conflict of interest, when it comes to reporting stories on the CIA. Of course, the Washington Post and other major media outlets are already compromised, when it comes to national security issues and the intelligence community. Stories are vetted by CIA, NSA, and other agencies, before they’re published.

But this one is a cherry on the cake. A big fat $600 million cherry.

Reporters at the Post will be extra-cautious about their pieces on the CIA. Ditto for editors.

Independent press? That’s a laugh.

WaPo is long known as an outlet that prints what amounts to CIA spin. So their new owner and his ties to the CIA are just part of “business as usual.”

According to a 2012 Seattle Times article, people who know Bezos describe him as a libertarian. The definition of that term must have undergone a sea-change. Taking $600 million to design online services for the CIA, a clandestine agency whose federal budget expenditures are a secret, an agency known for overthrowing governments abroad…this is an illustration of libertarian philosophy at work?

Maybe we should go back and read Plato’s Republic and Marx’s Das Kapital. They could turn out to be libertarian masterpieces.

Jon Rappoport

Is government aid a giant money-laundering scheme?

Dec11

Is government aid a giant money laundering scheme?

By Jon Rappoport

December 10, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Remember something called the War on Poverty? The Great Society?

President Lyndon Johnson declared it and announced it in 1965. Since then, the federal government and state governments have poured staggering amounts of dollars into the program.

How many dollars? Does anyone know?

In his 1992 book, Paved With Good Intentions, Jared Taylor puts the figure (1965-1992) at $2.5 trillion. So, for the sake of argument, let’s accept that.

Yet, by 1992 (and to an even greater degree since then), poverty had accelerated in America. Had gotten much, much worse.

So the logical question was and is: where did all that money go?

This question doesn’t call for a general answer; it cries out for a compete and detailed and scathing investigation.

Dollar by dollar, inner city by inner city, program by program, outcome by outcome, for every month and every year since 1965.

How much of that $2.5 trillion never arrived at its destination? How much was utterly wasted, and how? How much was diverted from its assigned objectives, and to whom? And what did these thieves do with it?

Where is the record of all the canceled checks and money transfers, from point of origin to recipient? Where is the record of what each and every recipient did with the money?

Any organization, earmarking $2.5 for trillion (!) a specific purpose, would track it and report on it, and assess its results, in real time. Right?

But of course, when it comes to government…wrong.

Government proves it “cares” by dispensing money. What happens after that is anybody’s guess.

Foreign aid the US federal government sends abroad is a complete nightmare, because tinpot dictators with their hands out are involved, as well as side-bribes, and padded contracts to multinational corporations to do work in those foreign nations.

But here at home, you would expect a close monitoring of aid. Where are the reports? Where are the overall assessments of results? Where are the accounting books with their blow-by-blow details?

If you spend $2.5 trillion to solve a problem, and it gets worse, monumentally worse, you know you failed. You know more than that. You know huge sums were stolen. You know individuals facilitated that theft. You know individuals covered up the theft.

To now say this should be a criminal investigation headed by the Department of Justice is $2.5 trillion late and 17,520 days short.

Federal officials are interested in only one thing: putting enough layers between themselves and crimes to achieve plausible deniability. After that, they walk away.

But we can take this even further. In order to facilitate the failure of $2.5 trillion to achieve its stated objectives, you aren’t just talking about random diversions and occasional opportunists. Too much money is at stake. No, you have to be talking about preplanned thefts of enormous sums. Organized and coordinated thefts.

This isn’t Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton money. This isn’t just a state coordinator’s money. This isn’t just a limousine liberal’s money. This is HUGE money.

And therefore, there has to be a plan to hide the stolen money, to put it somewhere, to deliver it to places without being discovered.

Which is exactly what laundering is all about. Ask any drug cartel chief.

When government officials, asked about poverty in America, simply say, “We have to do more,” they’re not only obfuscating and lying, they’re accessories after the fact. They know. They’re not that stupid. They know enormous sums have been, and are being, carted away into the night.

Every presidential administration since 1965 has been complicit.

Suppose your baby, back in 1965, was suffering from diminished sight. You took him to an opthamologist, who told you, “This is very serious, we’ll have to hospitalize your child for treatment. The government will pay.”

Flash forward to 2013. Your child is now 48 years old. He’s been in the hospital all this time. A doctor now tells you: “We’ve spent $2.5 trillion on your son. He’s completely blind. He’s developed a life-threatening blood disorder and six brain tumors. He can’t stand up. We feed him through a straw.”

Would you suspect something criminal? Or would you blithely accept that the doctors have been doing everything they can to cure his problem?

The unpleasant truth is, most Americans would just say, “Well, they tried, but mistakes were made.”

However, you and I know better.

The Great Society is a money-laundering operation.

Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Government Fraud

Cutting up news of the economy

“The Left hates big corporations”: enter Eric Holder

Obama and the State of the Onion Address

Sunday talk shows: Snowden is a Russian agent

Obama: one if by land, two if by sea, three if by metadata

Obama speech: Miller Lite commercial: less filling, tastes great

NY State Senator says: psych eval for all little children

A miracle in Wisconsin

Washington Post, its new owner, and the CIA: joined at the hip

Is government aid a giant money-laundering scheme?