When Johnny comes marching home again, hurrah, hurrah

by Jon Rappoport

August 6, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy (R) on the Benghazi cover-up: “[The administration is] changing names, creating aliases [of CIA agents]…Not letting us talk with people, dispersing them around the country and changing their names.”

Well, it wasn’t exactly the war we wanted, but it was a war, and Johnny was there. He was fighting for our side.

We’re not sure quite sure what he did, because it’s a secret. The place was Benghazi. It doesn’t roll off the tongue like Tripoli, but it’s nearby, isn’t it?

Was Johnny fighting for the CIA or the Pentagon? Undetermined. It was a war, and he was fighting for our side. Did he come to the aid of Americans in trouble, or was he facilitating the shipment of missiles to mercenaries and terrorists, who in turn would use them to overthrow the government of Syria?

It’s complicated. It’s better not to ask. It ruins the feeling. Johnny is our boy and he fought. He’s brave. He’s loyal to our side, the right side.

If he was held out of the last battle, it was by orders from above. If he didn’t come in to save his companions who were under fire, it wasn’t his fault. He would have given his life for them. That’s all that matters.

It wasn’t exactly the war we wanted, but it was a war. We won. The details aren’t important. We always win, in the long run.

And Johnny came home. He served his country and he came home.

Well, not exactly. He came back to a place he’d never lived in before. Not Washington or his home town, because that’s too risky, because he saw and knew things that happened in Benghazi. He knew secrets.

So they had to send him somewhere else. They had to change his name. Johnny isn’t allowed to tell what he knows. It would take down people in the government.

Johnny became a different person, and he’s living somewhere else, and we may never see him again.

But we know he’s on our side.

There are wicked rumors circulating. Rumors about an internal war between the Pentagon and the CIA, about how that long-term conflict surfaced in Benghazi. The details are muddy, but it’s said the people who were working for the CIA and the State Department weren’t at one with soldiers who work for the Pentagon. It’s confusing. It’s better not to ask.

The NSA, the agency that’s spying on everybody? They’re a branch of the Pentagon. And Edward Snowden, who exposed the NSA, used to work for the CIA. Could this episode also be part of the internal war between the CIA and the Pentagon? Don’t ask.

Concentrate on the fact that Johnny came marching home, even if he didn’t, even if he ended up far away from home with another name. With a new identity.

They had to send him away. Otherwise, people would have started asking him questions about what happened in Benghazi. Questions leading to answers, answers important officials don’t want to hear.

Somehow, it all works out. It always does. Because the people on our side who decide what wars to fight and how to fight them have America’s best interests at heart. They know the difference between right and wrong.

And to oppose a war we’re fighting is unpatriotic. That’s been made clear to us. It doesn’t matter why our boys are deployed or where, it’s always a just cause. And even if it isn’t we have to say it is; otherwise, the country would fracture.

This president, who is supposed to represent an incredible change, who is supposed to stand for so much that is important, must not be defamed. If he has done something horribly wrong in the Benghazi campaign, it doesn’t matter. He must be protected, at all costs.

We have to learn to look HERE and not THERE. It’s part of being American now, at this time in our history. It’s part of our loyalty.

So Johnny did come marching home. He did. Even if he didn’t. The specifics are unimportant. He’s a hero, no matter what he did. He always will be.

Our ideals and myths are far more important than our deeds.

Which ideals? Leave those distinctions to those who guide the ship of state.

All we’re required to do is sing; Johnny came marching home. He’s here, in our hearts, in our dreams.

He’s the boy who grew up knowing he loved this country and then enlisted to serve it. He’s still that boy. He’s still walking down a country road on a summer afternoon, with joy in his soul.

If it seems a betrayal of that joy occurred, a terrible betrayal, we have to look away. We have to think about something else.

If it seems this country has turned into its own enemy, we have to recognize this is a temporary delusion. We will recover.

Johnny came home. Welcome, son. You did us proud, and we love you.

The night may be long, but the dawn will come, and everything we wish for in our best thoughts will come to pass. Those who lead us will bring it about.

Be patient, and sing.

We’re all in this together.

If bile rises in your throat, swallow it. Bitter medicine will bring about a cure.

Summer afternoons will come again for everyone.

“And let each one perform some part, to fill with joy the warrior’s heart…when Johnny comes marching home.”

Drown out the dissent, and deny the attacks of the jackals within our gates.

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. 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

Do you mind if we store your DNA data and share it with everybody?

Aug5

Do you mind if we store your DNA data and share it with everybody?

By Jon Rappoport

August 5, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Helen Wallace, writing at Public Service Europe—“UK Building DNA database in the NHS ‘by stealth’”:

“In April, the Caldicott Committee, including British government chief scientist Sir Mark Walport proposed new rules for data-sharing electronic medical records. What they failed to make transparent is that genetic information including whole genomes will be integrated into medical records in the future – as part of a plan proposed by the Wellcome Trust, of which Walport used to be director.

“The plan, which is backed by United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron, involves sequencing the DNA of everyone in England and adding this information as an attachment to each person’s medical file. The data will then be shared with commercial companies including private healthcare companies, the pharmaceutical industry and web-based companies such as Google; without people’s knowledge or consent…Following statistical analysis of stored data, risk predictions made using computer algorithms will be fed back to individuals telling them the diseases they are expected to develop in the future.

“It raises serious concerns about government surveillance because it amounts to building a DNA database in the National Health Service by stealth. As well as commercial companies, the police, security services and government departments will be able to track every individual and their relatives. The data will be stored by the new Health and Social Care Information Centre and sold to private companies and government-run institutes worldwide – from the United States to China. Other personal records stored by the government, for example, from social care and education will be linked to people’s electronic medical records and also shared in [the] future. There is also a danger that risk predictions will lead to stigma and discrimination from insurers and employers.”

What’s that? The overwhelming majority of DNA data doesn’t prove useful in predicting, treating, or curing disease? Who cares?

Not a problem.

That’s because a) the more basic purpose of the project is surveillance and b) the medical cartel is an expert when it comes to faking cures.

“Mr. Jones, from your DNA records, we see you’re going to develop skin cancer in 10 years. We have medication for you. It’ll greatly improve your chances of staying healthy (as long as you never leave your house and keep the shades down).”

It isn’t enough to (mis)treat current illness. The medical boys and their pharmaceutical partners are eager to explore the market of not-yet disease.

Social scientists, software designers, welfare workers, patient advocates, and various other bogus experts will take on the challenge of handling people whose future illnesses are predicted.

For example, “what can we sell these frightened people?” will rank high on the list of priorities.

“Ms. Smith, if you decide to go ahead and marry your boy friend, knowing he will develop crippling arthritis at age 40, you’ll need extensive psychological counseling and training…we recommend a full four-year program leading to a degree in Victim Partnership.”

As for surveillance and tracking, it’s paradise for government snooping agencies and corporate contractors.

Let’s say a thief breaks into a high-end jewelery store after hours and steals diamonds. Immediately, all samples of retrievable DNA found in the store are analyzed. The thief wore gloves, a mask, and was covered in six layers of clothing, from head to toe? Doesn’t matter. DNA recovery is SOP.

A hundred different samples are collected in the store. They’re run through a standard program and matched to the national DNA database. The names of potential suspects are flagged in files. Police interviews are conducted. The suspects are put on a watch list and their DNA signatures are moved to a priority category—which means more intense future tracking…

It’s a party for the Surveillance State.

You apply for a job. In your interview, the human resources clerk tells you: “Sir, I see by your DNA file you were present at two crime scenes in the past three years. The bombing of a cruise ship and the theft of candy from a drug store. Any comment?”

“I didn’t commit a crime! I was just there!”

“Well, those felonies remain unsolved. And I’m wondering whether you have a tendency to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. We call this condition Associative Propensity. The latest studies indicate 12 percent of population is afflicted. It’s a negative classification that’s predictive for workplace errors…”

In all this grinding machinery, the notion that your DNA somehow belongs to you and is private has gone the way of the dinosaur.

If you think finding a map of your own DNA by way of a public search engine allows you to file suit, you’re sadly mistaken. It’s no more significant than finding your picnic photo posted on a Facebook page.

News headlines will undergo a revolution: “Movie star will become an alcoholic in ten years, doctors say.”

“Shocker: Secretary of Defense claims eating GMO corn changed his DNA profile, allowed him to avoid clinical depression.”

If you think my extrapolations are too far-out, consider the fact that a recent analysis of hundreds of thousands of samples from diagnosed flu patients revealed that 84% showed no sign of any flu virus. Not only didn’t these people have the flu, the idea that a flu vaccine could have prevented their illness is, a priori, completely absurd. But this doesn’t stop the government from hyping the vaccine.

We’re already in la-la land. And very few people care.

Jon Rappoport

Using fake names on Facebook, Surveillance State, androids

Jul24

Using fake names on Facebook, the Surveillance State, androids

By Jon Rappoport

July 23, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

File this one in the ever-burgeoning category of: how insane can legislators get?

Congress is now debating an update to the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Turns out it’s already a misdemeanor to “exceed authorized use” of a computer, but the DOJ wants to make it a felony.

Of course, what does “exceeds authorized use” mean? Well, it means, for instance, an employee sending emails to pals while he’s at the office—because his employer has a rule against that.

In other words, the feds want to back up employers’ rules and turn them into felonies. Splendid.

“Yeah, you remember Jack, don’t you? Used to work here? One day he made an online reservation at the Wynn in Vegas, and now he’s in jail. Life is tough, keep your eyes straight ahead and don’t mess with the boss.”

“And Betty? She ordered three lipsticks on a slow Thursday and she’s now upstate. I hear the shrinks got hold of her. Dosing her with an anti-psychotic. Hope she has three live brain cells to rub together when she gets out.”

Then there’s the Facebook issue. The company, originally bankrolled by a CIA front, has a rule against users setting up accounts with fake names. Does the DOJ want to go after Facebook users who break the rules?

The Surveillance State, aided by Facebook, wants to know who you are at all times. They want you to be your name and no other name.

It’s a technical issue, see? It’s a lot easier to spy on you if you’re Mary Jones all the time when you’re online. As opposed to Mary Jones and Dragon Lady and HiHat and Ben Franklin and The Beast From 40 Fathoms…

The joke is, most people lead lives that are fictional already. The NSA and its allied partners spy on those lives.

Here’s the same thing from another angle. John Smith, citizen, follows the straight and narrow. He, like every other John Smith, is a target of the Surveillance State. He hasn’t committed any crimes. He isn’t a threat. But that doesn’t matter. He’s there. He’s a unit. Therefore, he’s on the radar.

But John Smith is a fiction. He’s a convenient, solid, average, normal persona/role in the stage play called Society cooked up by the Real John Smith, who is hiding. Inside himself. You rarely see him. Once in a blue moon, he pokes his head out and says something off-key. Then he retreats behind his facade.

There are millions and John Smiths, and the NSA is spying on all of them. The fake ones. The fictions.

What if every John Smith invented six or seven new personae?

“Sir, are you pretending to be somebody else?”

“Yes, and the pretending is now more intense. It’s ongoing.”

“But you see, sir, that introduces confusion, when we spy on you.”

“I used to believe I was a John Smith android forever. Wow, was I kidding myself. I used to go to one church service on Sunday. Now I go to three different churches. And I’m also an atheist.”

“Excuse me?”

“I campaigned for Democrats only. Now I campaign for Democrats, Republican, Libertarians, Communists, and Anarchists. Of course I don’t vote for anyone. I’m exploring monarchy as well. I think the divine right of kings could make a comeback.”

“But who do you actually worship?”

“The NSA, of course. And the CIA and DIA, Interpol, MI-5, the old GRU, and the Chinese Secret Service.”

“Sir, we have you on the record talking to about eight different wives.”

“Only eight? I must have misplaced a couple.”

Some people will assume I mean they should actually marry a dozen women. Those people are the literalists. They always go for the lowest-common-denominator reading. They think if they have a little fun, do a little acting, a little pretending, it might infect their minds. It might take them over. They’re the John Smiths. They live inside walls of fear.

Reality is one fiction among a limitless number of possible realities.

The basic problem with Reality is that’s it’s only one.

Any baby can teach you that. Play with the kid in just one way, over and over, and he’ll develop an itch he can’t scratch. He’ll cry and go off on you. Play with him a hundred different ways and he’ll gurgle and laugh and wriggle and decide coming into this life was a good idea after all.

Every kid needs an uncle and an aunt and a few cousins and a brother or sister. Parents tend to repeat themselves. Their repertoire wears thin. The kid needs a boost, a change, a different face, a new joke, a shift of rhythm.

People who can make you laugh take you out. They take you out of the one, forever, exhausting IS. Reality is the fiction of one and only one IS.

There are two types of laughs. One blows up reality. The other, which is the android laugh, comes across like a tranquilized mule with a hernia.

The NSA is super-serious about the one persona that is supposed to be the super-serious you. That’s what they’re spying on.

The internet thrives on anonymity. This causes a lot of nonsense and crap to surface. That’s the price we pay. But the Surveillance State doesn’t want anonymity. It wants “just the facts.”

It wants to scare people into being their android-selves and nothing more, nothing else. It wants The One Reality. If they can make that happen, they win. Afterward, it really doesn’t matter what people do.

I remember watching the very first episode of the original CSI. At the murder scene, the techs were going over an apartment, collecting evidence, bagging it. Then we were back in the lab. More analysis.

I thought, are they kidding? They believe people want to watch this stuff?

Well, people did. They wanted to watch the lab, the fine-tuning of hair, blood, DNA. The categorization, the tracking, the accessing of the data banks.

The first cousin to Surveillance.

You want to talk about operant conditioning? The whole CSI franchise is one giant psyop. For more than a decade. Getting people used to ubiquitous looking and spying and tracking, on behalf of justice.

That’s what NSA wants to be. That’s how NSA wants the public to view it.

Super-serious-android-NSA spying on super-serious-android-us. In the one and only Reality. That’s the op.

So…step back and calculate our chances if we continue to live in the one and only Reality and try to fight them from that position.

Of course, entering and inventing other realities takes imagination. That’s the catch. It always was.

Ever since the first elite priest class on Earth cooked up some crazy spiritual Ponzi scheme to suck in the rubes, imagination has been the nemesis of the State.

Paraphrasing Grouch Marx: “In the 1930s, you could make a movie in which a woman fell down a flight of stairs, and people would laugh. But eventually it couldn’t be a movie. It had to be a real woman falling down a real flight of stairs.”

People are trained like dogs to appreciate and accept only one IS. The “real” IS. They convince themselves this is a good idea. These people are unconscious allies of the Surveillance State.

What’s that? People are into all sorts of multiple virtual realities? Yes, for a while, but they keep coming back to believing in The One and Only Just-the-Facts Reality. If they actually wanted new realities, they’d be cooking them up themselves, they wouldn’t be dreaming inside somebody else’s.

In light of all of the above, the universe of propaganda becomes more vivid. Its aim is reduction. Reduction of the way we see ourselves. We’re given bound images of human beings as citizens living in a walled fortress, where our every thought and action needs to be boiled down and made transparent, so our leaders can make threat assessments.

This is the fiction we’re being fed. Over and over.

“It’s not asking too much, is it? It’s too hard to seek out and find terrorists. We need to collect everything on everybody, and then with suitable algorithms established, we can select out the dangerous ones.

“In fact, it’s better if we consider everybody dangerous and track and limit their movements. That works.”

Yes, the NSA is looking at you. They’re looking at you as if you’re an android. Well, naturally. They’re androids. Wherever they look, they see androids.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMIcTiOG4UU&w=560&h=315]

Jon Rappoport

It’s all okay, Hillary feels families’ pain, we’re back on track

Jul17

It’s all okay, Hillary feels families’ pain, we’re back on track

by Jon Rappoport

June 17, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

“Ladies and gentlemen, I’m not here tonight because you happen to be a group with an agenda. I don’t even know what your agenda is, and I don’t care. I’m here because you’re Americans, and I’d like to talk a little about what that means—”

Oops. Wait Wrong speech. That one was for 15 people at a Libertarian Party rally in Palm Desert.

No, like any candidate, Hillary talked about the heartache and pain in the wake of the Zimmerman verdict, because she was campaigning for the US presidency in front of 14,000 black women of the Delta Sigma Theta sorority.

And pretending to feel others’ pain is a Clinton family trait.

Hillary also stressed that the Justice Department is looking into the Zimmerman case, and then artfully segued into a non-sequitur about the need for a national dialogue on race.

I’ve been looking for that national dialogue for quite a while, and I can’t find it. Is there a pasture somewhere, where 300 million Americans are having a picnic and exchanging ideas on this sensitive subject?

I know editorial writers for major papers hold the delusion they’re leading the dialogue, but we can write them off as psychotics living inside the Beltway bubble.

I’m trying to catch up. I missed the national dialogue on drugs, the one on erasing the stigma of mental illness, and the one on guns. I heard a rumor they scheduled a national dialogue on poverty in Beverly Hills, but they had to cancel it at the last minute, because it fell on the one day a year it rained in Los Angeles.

Hillary has had me baffled for a long time, ever since she wrote It Takes a Village. I looked for the village that raises a child, and I wound up in Mena, Arkansas, talking to three guys about CIA planes bringing in cocaine from Honduras.

But who cares? Hillary’s back, and she’s the next president. Bill will be at her side, living in the White House, pacing the corridors, making deals, causing trouble. Then, after a quick shot of Secret Service Thorazine, he’ll wake up one morning and suddenly find himself in London, the Ambassador to England.

On Hillary’s first day in office, Bill will tell the White House staff, “Anyone who utters the word Benghazi during the next four years will be castrated in the basement.”

Hillary and Bill are the worst of the opportunists. They’ve never met a group whose agenda they hadn’t already dedicated their lives to.

If the Delta Sigma Theta sorority actually thinks Hillary is torn up over the Zimmerman verdict, I have condos for sale in the Orion Belt.

Official member or not, Hillary’s so far inside the pocket of Bilderberg, CFR, Trilateral, and the WTO, she picks lint off herself at the end of every business day.

Her PR people are so incompetent and transparent, reporters write stories about her successive image makeovers. Now, she’s cast as a noble stateswoman who’s above partisan squabbling, an eminence whose work as Secretary of State has been “extraordinary.”

“Foreign heads of state admire and respect her.” This is a recommendation? That’s like putting on your resume, “I play well with a dozen different mafias.”

“I worked at the Rose law firm where we represented Monsanto, I’m the wife of Bill, I won a Senate seat in New York based on nothing, and I wrangled an appointment as Secretary of State in return for claiming to support Obama.”

“And oh yes. I won a ton of sympathy after Bill had sex with Monica. Best thing that ever happened to me. Launched my political career.”

The day Hillary should lead any “national dialogue” is the day the sun sets in the east.

If anyone in Washington cares about black murder victims beyond Trayvon Martin, they should consult the US Dept. of Justice report, “Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008.”

On page 13, we find: “From 1980 through 2008—93% of black victims were killed by blacks.”

This fact may be politically incorrect, but if our leaders are genuinely seeking to solve the problem, they should start there. What has the political establishment actually done about this horrific reality?

Here’s a piece of truth, if it interests you. The history of federal and state aid to inner cities is an uninvestigated series of major felonies.

Billions of dollars were supposed to fix education, alleviate poverty, reduce drug use, repair broken families, and create job opportunities. Yet since Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty and The Great Society, things have only gotten worse. Much worse.

Any government executive worth his salt who wants to reduce violent crime would demand very specific answers to questions about where all that money went, who stole it, who diverted it, who torpedoed those thousands of programs.

To the degree that you believe lack of education, poverty, drugs, unemployment, and broken families drive crime, you would naturally want these answers.

But successive presidents have sidestepped the whole issue as if it’s made of plutonium.

Why?

Because actually getting to the roots of the problem and solving it is not on their radar, no matter what pretty things they say. They say they care, but their actions don’t back that up.

Oh, that’s right. I forgot. In the modern political landscape, actions don’t count, when push comes to shove. Only rhetoric does.

Presidents Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama. They fit the rhetorical bill.

Hillary’s a natural in the same mold.

From her you can expect vapid generalities that hold all the rainwater in the universe and deliver nothing but drought.

Bonus: she’s a heavier psychiatric maven than any of her presidential predecessors. We can look forward to more fictitious diagnoses, more drugs, no help, plenty of induced brain damage. Happy, happy.

It Takes a Bilious. To be president.

Jon Rappoport

The George Zimmerman trial: life and death in the American psyop

Jul13

The George Zimmerman trial: life and death in the American psyop

by Jon Rappoport

July 13, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

There were at least six extraordinary moves before the suspect, George Zimmerman, was brought up on charges.

An out-of-date photo, showing Trayvon Martin as a young innocent boy, flashed across television screens all over the world.

News stories asserted that a white man named Zimmerman killed a black child.

NBC-edited 911 audio between Zimmerman and a police dispatcher made it seem as if Zimmerman was voluntarily profiling Martin as black, when this was not the case. Several NBC employees were fired over the editing incident.

In the same 911 audio, according to CNN and other media sources, Zimmerman said, “Fucking coons.” This was corrected to “fucking cold.” Finally, this became “fucking punks.”

President Obama said if he had a son, that son would have looked like Trayvon Martin.

NBC and CNN weren’t the only the major network outlets that presented false information to the public. ABC obtained footage of Zimmerman at the police station on the night of the Martin killing. The network claimed there was no visible evidence Zimmerman had sustained head wounds. But then a still from the video surfaced which showed cuts on the back of Zimmerman’s head, supporting his statement that he and Martin had been in a fight. At that point, ABC broadcast the video, stating they’d “re-digitized” it and the wounds were now apparent.

These actions, taken together, defined the case as a black-versus-white hate crime.

The door was pushed wide open, letting in millions of voices to assert their positions and feelings on the matter of race.

The whole race issue was dealt a blow when it turned out that Zimmerman wasn’t white. His father was white. His mother was Peruvian. Her grandfather was African-Peruvian.

But by then, it was too late. Media forces and politicians and hustlers and private citizens on both sides of the race issue had already shoved in their chips and rolled the dice. They couldn’t turn back.

They couldn’t say, “Oh, well, this is the murder of a black boy but a white man didn’t do it, so let’s re-frame it as another tragic killing…”

Al Sharpton couldn’t say, “We thought we had the quintessential white-on-black murder of a young boy, but we don’t. Let’s fold our tent and go home and wait for another day and a better reason…”

Likewise, it was hard to put the genie back in the bottle after the press reported that Zimmerman said, “Fucking coons.” Ensuing corrections to the translation of his words didn’t affect the black- versus-white scenario.

Nor did that scenario dissolve when it turned out NBC had perniciously edited a section of Zimmerman’s 911 call, to make it seem as if he had put Trayvon Martin’s race front and center. NBC’s admission it had cooked the books was looked upon as a grievous media slanting of the truth, but the basic black-vs.-white storyline was still intact.

This is all quite astonishing when you stop and think about it.

The wave was building, it had already been put into motion, and nothing was going to stop it, not even the simple glaring fact that Zimmerman wasn’t white.

Obama weighed in. He took the wave to another level. If I had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon Martin. (Looked like Martin in which photo? The first one, or later ones?)

The race of the accused is the whole issue, and yet everyone can see, right out in the open, that his race has been wrongly identified—and it doesn’t matter.

“We’re going to go forward as if Zimmerman is white.”

None of the above is proof that Zimmerman is innocent or guilty. Taken together, it is all about establishing black-vs.-white as the context.

That context is patently false, but it functions as enduring symbolism for the issue of race.

It’s as if Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, OJ Simpson’s purported victims in the 1994 murders, had turned out to be black, after America was already riveted by a “black-on-white” crime and refused to let go of it.

How many people have ever heard of the 2008 murder of James Shamp, a black man, by Richard Bordelon, Hispanic, in Los Angeles? Two factors prevented nationwide publicity. Bordelon was a gang member—and it was a Hispanic-vs.-black case.

Zimmerman-Martin is part-Hispanic vs. black, but it’s not playing that way.

Claims that Trayvon Martin was stalked and profiled would not be enough to turn the Zimmerman trial into a national event, unless Zimmerman were still held up, even if only in false memory, as a white man.

Many media outlets and politicians, including the president, have been instrumental in forwarding this psyop.

Inflaming racial hatreds and grabbing guns are two objectives of the op.

But Zimmerman-Martin is part of a much larger program: identifying so-called racial characteristics and cementing them in the mind. White=certain qualities. Black=certain qualities.

At bottom, this is one more way of insisting that the individual no longer matters. It’s a way of claiming that what matters is the group an individual belongs to. In this instance, skin color defines the group.

The primacy of the group over the individual is the true devastating operation in America.

Individuals have freedom. Individuals have independence. Individuals have potential power. These elements are anathema to fascists.

Groups only have agendas. They seek fulfillment of those agendas through government. That kind of partnership increases, in the long run, the dominance of government.

Underneath it all, this is what we’re talking about here: individuals must go, only groups should remain.

Black vs. white is the useful occasion and the smokescreen for the deeper aim.

Jon Rappoport

The CDC is lying to you again: Flu fiction vs Flu reality

Jun20

by Jon Rappoport

June 20, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

I now have the official CDC flu-death statistics for the year 2010.

They were provided to me by Martin Maloney, who, some years ago, contacted me to show how the CDC was lying all the way along the line about numbers of flu deaths. Many thanks, Martin, for your good work.

2010 is apparently the most recent year for which the CDC has issued a final report. It was released on May 13 of this year.

The report comes through a sub-agency of the CDC, the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS).

On page 89 of the report, “Deaths: Final Data for 2010,” in Table 10, we find the following:

Influenza and Pneumonia [deaths]: 50,097.

Influenza [deaths]: 500.

Pneumonia [deaths]: 49,597.

In 2010, the CDC reports 500 deaths from the flu.

But the CDC PR people have trumpeted, over and over, that 36,000 people die every year in the US from the flu.

They’ve hyped this number, to emphasize how dangerous the flu is. They use the 36,000 number as a way to promote the flu vaccine. They use it to work for their pimps in the pharmaceutical industy.

Yet, their own numbers show 500 deaths in 2010, not 36,000.

Actually, if you dig below the surface of their PR, the CDC states in their literature that annual deaths from the flu range from about 3000 to 49,000.

This is obviously nowhere near the low 500-death figure for 2010.

And it isn’t only 2010 that’s at issue. In a recent article, I laid out how the CDC routinely reports, in the fine print, far fewer than 3000 flu deaths in a given year.

It gets even worse. When you break down that low figure of flu deaths per year in the US, you find that only a small fraction of those have been confirmed as the flu.

By confirmed, I mean tested for, in order to find a flu virus in the body of a person who has subsequently died. That is essential.

So for example, for the year 2001, the CDC, in its small print, listed 257 flu deaths. But of those, only 18 were confirmed to be the flu.

As you can see above, the CDC has a mortality category called “Pneumonia plus Influenza.” They initially lump the numbers of deaths together. This gives the superficial impression of many deaths. Then, they break it down.

How do they justify that combination-category? They claim that many pneumonia deaths stem from the flu. They use a computer model to make the calculations.

But in conventional medical literature, there are at least 10 different types of pneumonia. Trying to model which ones stem from flu cases is a fool’s errand.

The CDC is lying about about flu-deaths. Again.

They’re trying, as usual, to inflate danger and promote it and sell vaccine. That’s their real job. Our job is to protect ourselves and others from the government.

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 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 NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

A new giant vaccine scandal exposes government lies and psyops

Jun17

A new giant vaccine scandal exposes government lies and psyops

by Jon Rappoport

June 15, 2013

NoMoreFakeNews.com

If you control the use of words and numbers, you can make trillions of dollars, and you can hide scandals that would otherwise take you down into infamy and prison.

You can pretty much operate a whole sector of society and remain untouched.

Nowhere is this more clear than in the criminal work of the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

The real name of that agency should be: Centers for Disease Information Control. That’s what they do. They manipulate words and numbers to present fictional images to the public.

They’re a tax-funded PR front for the medical cartel. A 24/7 psyop.

“Yes, of course I’m a criminal. I work for the CDC.”

Here is the latest blockbuster.

After writing about fake vaccine science since 1988, I thought I’d seen it all:

Wild falsehoods about vaccines creating immunity; suppressed information about toxic ingredients in the shots; the absence of proper controlled studies proving vaccines are safe and effective.

But now Peter Doshi, PhD, writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), reveals a new monstrosity. It’s all based on the revelation that most “flu” is not the flu.

Follow this closely. If you blink, you might miss it.

You see, as Doshi states, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.

This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies.

So they don’t have the flu.

Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those “flu cases” that aren’t flu cases. The vaccine couldn’t possibly work.

The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.

Actually, most flu cases are “bacteria cases,” “fungal cases,” or “pollution cases,” or “tainted food” cases, or “eating GMO cases,” or something else. But they aren’t the flu.

Here’s the exact quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, “Influenza: marketing vaccines by marketing disease” (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037):

“But perhaps the cleverest aspect of the influenza marketing strategy surrounds the claim that ‘flu’ and ‘influenza’ are the same. The distinction seems subtle, and purely semantic. But general lack of awareness of the difference might be the primary reason few people realize that even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive.

“…It’s no wonder so many people feel that ‘flu shots’ don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.”

Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.

So even if you’re a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you’re on the short end of the stick here. They’re conning your socks off.

Doshi points out the wordplay distinction between “flu” and “influenza.” But let’s go even simpler and say: most of the time, diagnosed flu isn’t flu. Period.

In an ethical world, medical researchers and bureaucrats would blow the whistle. They’d say, “Hey, we’re diagnosing huge numbers of people with the flu, but that turns out to be a meaningless term, because they don’t have an influenza virus. So they couldn’t have the flu. These fake ‘flu cases’ couldn’t have benefited from any flu vaccine under the sun BECAUSE THE PATIENTS DON’T HAVE THE FLU.”

But the whistle isn’t blown. Too much money and too many reputations are riding on ignoring the obvious truth.

A patient walks into a doctor’s office. He’s sick. He’s coughing. He has a fever. His muscles ache. The doctor says, “You have the flu. Did you get your flu shot this year?”

“No,” the patient says.

The doctor gives him a stern look. “Well, you should have. See? You’re sick now. The vaccine would have prevented that.”

Wrong.

Again, even by conventional standards, the odds are very high the vaccine would have made no difference at all. Because the odds are very high this patient doesn’t have an influenza virus.

Overwhelmingly, doctors diagnose the flu with a casual eyeball glance. The patient has a familiar cluster of symptoms? It’s flu season? Okay, it’s the flu. Period.

With an ongoing blizzard of psyop-marketing, people accept “flu” and react emotionally to the propaganda about it.

Another branch of that propaganda is delivered to frighten Americans into getting a flu shot: the CDC persistently claims that, every year in the US, 36,000 people die of the flu. We’ve all read and heard that figure, over and over.

It’s a “necessary” statistic for the CDC. They need to promote it. They need to convince the population that seasonal flu is dangerous.

The American people don’t understand that it’s a lie, a grossly manufactured delusion that bears no resemblance to reality.

In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published another shocking report by Peter Doshi, which spelled out the delusion, and created tremors throughout the halls of the CDC.

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report — “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?”:

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”

You see, the CDC has created one category that combines flu and pneumonia deaths. Why do they do this? Because they disingenuously assume that the pneumonia deaths are complications stemming from the flu.

This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes.

But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 revealed the presence of an influenza virus.

Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of influenza in 2001. Not 36,000 deaths. 18 deaths.

Doshi continues his assessment of published CDC flu-death statistics: “Between 1979 and 2001, [CDC] data show an average of 1348 [flu] deaths per year (range 257 to 3006).” These figures refer to flu separated out from pneumonia.

This death toll is obviously far lower than the parroted 36,000 figure. However, when you add the sensible condition that lab tests have to actually find the flu virus in patients, the numbers of flu deaths plummet even further.

In other words, it’s all promotion and hype.

“Well, uh, we say that 36,000 people die from the flu every year in the US. But actually, it’s closer to 20. However, we can’t admit that, because if we did, we’d be exposing our gigantic psyop. The whole campaign to scare people into getting a flu shot would have about the same effect as warning people to carry iron umbrellas, in case toasters fall out of upper-story windows…and, by the way, we’d be put in prison for fraud.”

In 2009, as the heralded Level 6 global pandemic, Swine Flu, was proving to be a bust and a trickle, Sharyl Attkisson (CBS News) discovered that the CDC had stopped counting the number of Swine Flu cases in America.

The CDC had stopped counting, because their tests on diagnosed flu patients showed so many who didn’t have the flu virus, who didn’t have the flu at all.

Atkisson’s reporting was explosive. It was threatening to expose the whole flu psyop. What would happen if it became common knowledge that most people diagnosed with the flu don’t have the flu? What would happened to the campaigns to get people to take flu vaccines?

What would happen if it became common knowledge that absurdly few people die from the flu?

Attkisson was muzzled. And the CDC doubled down and suddenly claimed there were undoubtedly TENS OF MILLIONS cases of Swine Flu in the US. This, after only several thousand cases had been reported.

This is on the order of saying a a dry creek-bed in the woods is actually the Mississippi River.

Twisting words and numbers and painting false pictures is the CDC’s job.

Finally, remember that the CDC is organized under the Department of Health and Human Services, which is a cabinet post in the executive branch.

So everything the CDC does, every pysop it launches and maintains, is ultimately at the pleasure of the president.

The president may plead ignorance, he may plead many things. But in the chain of command, he is responsible for the vast crimes the CDC commits.

In other words, if the whole flu psyop were broadly exposed, the scandal could travel all the up into the White House.

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 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 NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

NSA, the secret AT&T spy room, and 2 Israeli companies

Jun9

by Jon Rappoport

June 9, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

Boom. Explosive revelations. The NSA is using telecom giants to spy on anybody and everybody, in a program called PRISM.

But the information is not new.

Three books have been written about the super-secret NSA, and James Bamford has written them all.

In 2008, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now interviewed Bamford as his latest book, The Shadow Factory, was being released.

Bamford explained that, in the 1990s, everything changed for NSA. Previously, they’d been able to intercept electronic communications by using big dishes to capture what was coming down to Earth from telecom satellites.

But with the shift to fiber-optic cables, NSA was shut out. So they devised new methods.

For example, they set up a secret spy room at an AT&T office in San Francisco. NSA installed new equipment that enabled them to tap into the fiber-optic cables and suck up all traffic.

How Bamford describes this, in 2008, tells you exactly where the PRISM program came from:

“NSA began making these agreements with AT&T and other companies, and that in order to get access to the actual cables, they had to build these secret rooms in these buildings.

“So what would happen would be the communications on the cables would come into the building, and then the cable would go to this thing called a splitter box, which was a box that had something that was similar to a prism, a glass prism.

“And the prism was shaped like a prism, and the light signals would come in, and they’d be split by the prism. And one copy of the light signal would go off to where it was supposed to be going in the telecom system, and the other half, this new cloned copy of the cables, would actually go one floor below to NSA’s secret room.

“… And in the secret room was equipment by a private company called Narus, the very small company hardly anybody has ever heard of that created the hardware and the software to analyze these cables and then pick out the targets NSA is looking for and then forward the targeted communications onto NSA headquarters.”

In James Bamford’s 2008 interview, he mentions two Israeli companies, Narus and Verint, that almost nobody knew about. They played a key role in developing and selling the technology that allowed NSA to deploy its PRISM spying program:

Bamford: “Yeah. There’s two major — or not major, they’re small companies, but they service the two major telecom companies. This company, Narus, which was founded in Israel and has large Israel connections, does the — basically the tapping of the communications on AT&T. And Verizon chose another company, ironically also founded in Israel and largely controlled by and developed by people in Israel called Verint.

“So these two companies specialize in what’s known as mass surveillance. Their literature — I read this literature from Verint, for example — is supposed to only go to intelligence agencies and so forth, and it says, ‘We specialize in mass surveillance,’ and that’s what they do.

“They put [this] mass surveillance equipment in these facilities. So you have AT&T, for example, that, you know, considers it’s their job to get messages from one person to another, not tapping into messages, and you get the NSA that says, we want, you know, copies of all this. So that’s where these [two Israeli] companies come in. These companies act as the intermediary basically between the telecom companies and the NSA.”

AMY GOODMAN: “Now, Jim Bamford, take this a step further, because you say the founder and former CEO of one of these companies [Verint] is now a fugitive from the United States somewhere in Africa?”

JAMES BAMFORD: “…the company that Verizon uses, Verint, the founder of the company, the former head of the company, is now a fugitive in — hiding out in Africa in the country of Namibia, because he’s wanted on a number of felony warrants for fraud and other charges. And then, two other top executives of the company, the general counsel and another top official of the parent company, have also pled guilty to these charges.

“So, you know, you’ve got companies — these [two] companies have foreign connections with potential ties to foreign intelligence agencies, and you have problems of credibility, problems of honesty and all that. And these companies — through these two companies pass probably 80 percent or more of all US communications at one point or another.

“And it’s even — gets even worse in the fact that these companies also supply their equipment all around the world to other countries, to countries that don’t have a lot of respect for individual rights —- Vietnam, China, Libya, other countries like that. And so, these countries use this equipment to filter out dissident communications and people trying to protest the government. It gives them the ability to eavesdrop on communications and monitor dissident email communications. And as a result of that, people are put in jail, and so forth…”

AMY GOODMAN: “And despite all of this…these telecom companies still have access to the most private communications of people all over America and actually, it ends up, around the world. And at the beginning of the summer [2008], the Democrats and Republicans joined together in granting retroactive immunity to these companies for spying on American citizens.”

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

The fugitive CEO of Verint, whom Bamford mentions, is Jacob “Kobi” Alexander. In 2006, the US Dept. of Justice charged him with conspiring to commit securities and wire and mail fraud. The SEC weighed in and filed similar civil charges.

Alexander fled to Namibia, where he finally settled with the SEC for $46 million. The DOJ criminal complaint, as far as I can tell, still stands. Alexander continues to fight against extradition to the US.

He is no longer the CEO of Verint.

It’s obvious that these two Israeli companies, Narus and Verint, working for NSA, have been able to divert duplicate mega-tons of data to Israeli intelligence.

The recent media stories on this NSA PRISM spying system indicate that NSA is tapping into the servers of huge tech companies; Google, AOL, Microsoft, Skype, Apple, Yahoo. The methods of data theft may have expanded, but the result and intent remain the same.

The government-corporate juggernaut moves ahead. Their rationale—catching terrorists—is, in great part, a cover story to obscure the fact that the State wants control over the lives of all citizens, as it ratchets up the very conditions that provoke rebellion.

It’s a classic pincer movement.

As far as the current NSA PRISM spying is concerned, look for limited hangouts. These are partial admissions and excuses, offered to conceal greater crimes and stop investigations.

The giant tech companies already have their limited hangout in place: “We didn’t know it was happening, we would never have allowed it to happen, and we’ll be much more careful in the future.”

Obama is saying: Yes, let’s have dialogue on this matter…there’s a fine line between national security needs and overweening intrusion into citizens’ privacy.

The NSA is saying: We do spy, but we don’t read content of emails and phone calls. We just keep ‘records’ of the communications.

The lies lying liars tell. The NSA has multiple and redundant methods of spying. If they have to cut back, for a while, on directly accessing the servers of the giant tech firms, they can do it without losing a step.

After all, as James Bamford revealed five years ago, NSA cuts directly into fiber-optic cables and splits the data into two copies, one of which it keeps for itself. They can access Google and Yahoo in other ways.

Most easily, they can say to these willing tech partners, “Give us all your data.” And it will be done.

Firms like Google are already spying on their customers, putting together extensive profiles to craft better targeted ads. Google knows spying. Doing it for commercial purposes, or for “national security” purposes? They don’t make those distinctions.

Jon Rappoport

James Holmes’ lawyers enter insanity plea; here come the insane psychiatrists

Jun7

James Holmes’ lawyers enter insanity plea; here come the insane psychiatrists

by Jon Rappoport

June 7, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

“What do you do for a living?”

“I slap fictitious disease labels on people and poison their brains.”

“Sounds good. We want you to examine a defendant and determine whether he was morally competent on a specific night a year ago.”

“Piece of cake.”

That’s what we’re dealing with now in the Batman murder case.

The psychiatrists have taken over.

James Holmes’ lawyers have entered an insanity plea in the Aurora- theater massacre case, and the judge, Carlos Samour, has just accepted it.

From Lawyers.com: “When the insanity defense is raised, it’s an admission that the defendant performed all of the acts alleged by the prosecution. For this reason, if the jury rejects the insanity defense, the defendant will almost certainly be convicted.”

In other words, Holmes’ lawyers have said Holmes committed the murders, but he was insane at the time. He didn’t know right from wrong, he was driven to murder by an irresistible impulse caused by a mental disorder.

So now Holmes will be sent to a Colorado hospital for at least several months, where psychiatrists will make up their minds about whether he is/was insane on the night of July 20, 2012, at the Aurora theater.

Eventually, unless Holmes changes his plea to a simple “guilty,” a trial will take place. In the trial, the jury will decide whether he was sane or insane when he committed murder. The psychiatrists who examined Holmes will, of course, factor into that decision.

At minimum, the jury’s verdict will put Holmes in prison or a psych ward for the rest of his life. If the jury decides Holmes was sane last July, the likely sentence will be death.

In other articles, I have discussed whether Holmes was in the theater last July, whether he killed anyone, whether he was set up as the patsy. Here, I’ll look at what happens now. Because the legal consequences of the insanity plea are as crazy as a bunch of cockroaches when the lights suddenly go on late at night in a garbage dump.

At a Colorado hospital, psychiatrists will check Holmes out from every angle, to determine whether, last July, he could distinguish right from wrong when he supposedly entered the Aurora theater and killed people.

The doctors will give him drugs. These drugs are highly toxic. They can and do cause brain damage. Their effects can be so horrendous the patient will admit to anything, just to stop further dosing.

Holmes must cooperate with the psychiatrists as they adjudicate his state of mind last July 20^th. If he doesn’t, it increases the likelihood that he’ll be sentenced to death—as opposed to life in prison. Why? Because at his sentencing hearing, his lawyers will be barred from calling “psychiatric experts” to testify on his behalf.

Where did this preposterous rule come from?

“Cooperate now with the shrinks or die later.”

If Holmes is now insane (whatever that means), then the psychiatrists will be working with a crazy man to find out whether he was sane or crazy when he supposedly committed murder a year ago.

“We know and accept, Mr. Holmes, that you’re crazy now, but we want you to try to remember whether you knew the difference between right and wrong when you committed multiple murders last July.”

What could possibly go wrong?

So do the psychiatrists start out by trying to make Holmes sane (whatever that means) now, and then quiz him about the events at the Aurora theater last summer?

If so, how do they make him sane? With anti-psychotic drugs that have been documented to cause motor brain damage? These brain-hammer drugs also can reduce a person to a state of utter incoherence.

On the other hand, if Holmes is “sane” now, then when psychiatrists ask him whether he could distinguish right from wrong when he killed people in the Aurora theater, he will certainly say no. He’ll say he was crazy then. Who wouldn’t? In other words, Holmes’ statements will be meaningless as evidence.

Enter the “narcoanalytic review,” which was authorized by the court several months ago. Under this plan, Holmes can be given “truth drugs,” to allow him to recall accurately his actions and state of mind on the evening of July 20, at the theater.

There is only one problem with that. There are no reliable truth drugs. They don’t exist. Many drugs have been tried. They all fail to perform consistently.

Apparently, the court overlooked this small glitch.

And then there is the serious matter of forced self-incrimination, which is against the law. If the drugs do happen to open a window of accurate memory for Holmes, and he reports that he was a killer who knew right from wrong last July, he is sealing his fate. The jury will almost certainly give him a death sentence. But his admission will only have occurred because he was involuntarily drugged.

Holmes’ lawyers have already warned him that, if he comes back to court in several months, claiming he is now sane, claiming he is guilty, claiming he did the killings and knew right from wrong, he’s sunk. He’ll probably be executed.

So why should Holmes take that route? The simple answer is: a deal. The prosecution might agree to recommend life in prison instead of death, if Holmes says: “I’m sane now. I did the murders. I confess. I know the difference between right and wrong. I change my plea to guilty.”

The court most assuredly wants a nice clean boy-scout confession of guilt. The court doesn’t want an unseemly trial with a dozen shrinks from both sides arguing about Holmes’ state of mind and which mental disorders he suffers from.

The shrinks don’t want that, either. It would expose the fact that they aren’t doing science of any kind. They’re playing with words and making it up as they go along. They can’t agree among themselves about which lies make more sense.

The craziness surrounding what happens to Holmes from now forward can be laid at the feet of psychiatry. Specifically, the right of psychiatrists to decide whether a defendant is sane or insane.

These terms aren’t just relative. They aren’t merely fictions. They’re deployed to open the door to forced dosing with toxic and destructive drugs. The assumption that these drugs allow the emergence of truth about prior events and crimes is insupportable.

On top of that, you can drug a person and thereby get him to admit anything, because he doesn’t want more of the drugs.

A rational layperson sitting in front of a criminal defendant could find out everything the court needs to know, if psychiatrists and other coercive law-enforcement types were kept out of the picture.

You ask the defendant, “Are you willing to answer my questions?” If he won’t reply or seems unable to, or can only offer gross non-sequiturs, everything stops there. The defendant is left alone in his cell, where nothing is done to him. No treatment, no drugs.

He stays there until he can and will answer questions.

Meanwhile, the prosecution, the defense, and an empaneled citizen grand jury (free of the influence of lawyers), would endeavor to investigate the crime and discover the truth. That burden would principally fall to the grand jury.

On the other hand, if the defendant is willing to answers questions posed by a rational non-partisan person, a brief interview takes place. The defendant states he is guilty or innocent. A trial is then scheduled.

If the defendant states he committed the crime but didn’t know what he was doing at the time, there is no trial. There is a sentencing hearing. The defendant’s position about his state of mind becomes part of the testimony at the hearing. The defendant testifies, submits himself to cross-examination. The jury decides whether the defendant knew what he was doing when he committed the crime.

If the defendant refuses to testify and invokes his Fifth Amendment right to avoid incriminating himself, the jury takes that into consideration in doling out the sentence.

Is this system perfect and air-tight? By no means. But it’s far better than what happens when psychiatrists get into the act.

Psychiatrists employ destructive drugs, intimidation, covert threats, and their decisions on sanity versus insanity are utter garbage, because they’re based on opinion filtered through a maze of pseudoscience unsupported by diagnostic tests.

The psychiatrists who will now examine Holmes are supremely unqualified to determine whether Holmes knew or knows right from wrong. They have no special skills. They are all about diagnosing people with fictional mental disorders and drugging them to the gills with toxic chemicals.

In a world where even a shred of reason exists, these charlatans wouldn’t be allowed within a hundred miles of a defendant.

But alas, this is not the world we live in.

Every time I write an article refuting the scientific basis of psychiatry (and I have written several), some apologist tries to argue that psychiatry employs a “different kind” of science.

That argument carries zero weight. For every one of the 300 officially certified mental disorders, there are NO diagnostic tests. No blood test, no saliva test, no urine test, no genetic test, no brain scan.

To verify this, all you need to do is open the tome, published by the American Psychiatric Association, called the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Look for the definitive tests. They aren’t there. They aren’t anywhere.

There’s a reason for that. They don’t exist.

These state-licensed con artists and poisoners are committing RICO crimes every day of their professional lives.

To say they can tell us anything useful about James Holmes is like saying Al Capone can do surgery on a car-crash victim and stop the internal bleeding.

Europe rejects GMO crops; kinder gentler America seeks labeling

Jun3

Europe rejects GMO crops; kinder gentler America seeks labeling

by Jon Rappoport

June 3, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

It’s a scandal.

Monsanto has just announced it’s giving up on most of Europe: people there don’t want GMO food. In America, the struggle is for labeling GMOs.

This is some kind of “fairness doctrine.” Let the US consumer decide what kind of food to buy. Choice. It’s the American way, right?

No, actually it isn’t. The evidence gathered over the last 10 years is staggering. GMO food and the herbicides sprayed on them constitute a major health hazard, to say the least.

And this doesn’t begin to cover the lying business practices of Monsanto, who promised farmers that Roundup would kill weeds in the fields. Instead, the weeds have proliferated to the point where the farmers have to kill everything growing with stronger, more dangerous herbicides, like Paraquat.

In the US, laws exist to prosecute crimes involving endangerment of health and crimes related to false marketing practices. These laws are on the books. When it comes to Monsanto, they’re gathering dust on the shelves.

Choice and fairness apply to competitive products that are safe. The consumer picks one type of tomato over another. The consumer buys walnuts rather than pecans. The consumer chooses black olives over green olives.

Choosing non-GMO corn instead of GMO corn still leaves dangerous GMO corn in produce bins.

Should a bottle of cyanide sit on a store shelf next to a bottle of salt, just to be fair to the consumer? To give him a choice?

Three or four federal law-enforcement agencies would arrest and prosecute the store owners who sell cyanide, as well as the distributors, and the packagers.

But in the case of GMO food, the FDA and USDA, the relevant agencies, do nothing. Neither does the Dept. of Justice.

Aside from several counties in America that have banned the growing of GMO crops, the big push is for labeling of GMO food in stores. That’s it.

The theory is, when consumers have a choice, they’ll overwhelmingly reject GMOs and put a serious crimp in Monsanto’s business. That may or may not happen (if labeling is widespread), but the theory doesn’t directly address Monsanto’s crimes.

The “kinder, gentler” approach is based on two assumptions. One, American consumers need soft activism. They won’t demand legal rejection of GMO food. They will, however, choose the right food.

And two, Monsanto has made such a powerful inroad on food-crop farming, it’s too late to take it back. It’s too late to declare all the GMO crops illegal.

“You see, so many people are taking Vioxx, we can’t go to court over it. It’s a done deal, even though patients are dropping like flies.”

It wasn’t a done deal.

Neither are GMOs.

In a previous article, “Meet Monsanto’s number-one lobbyist: Barack Obama,” I detailed Obama’s horrendous record when it comes to allowing new GMO crops to enter the food chain, and his outrageous appointments of ex-Monsanto stalwarts to important and key positions in his administration.

But Obama is “a good man.” He must be doing the right thing. He’s popular, so it wouldn’t be wise to attack him on the issue. Better to lay back, paste a smile on our faces, and try to secure labeling for GMOs.

Of course, that’s exactly the wrong strategy. But as in all campaigns, the longer people wait and do nothing and remain timid, the less likely it is they can succeed, if and when they decide to move.

That’s why Monsanto now has so many acres of GMO food growing in the United States. That’s why Monsanto has been able to push its unconscionable propaganda down the throat of the American consumer.

That’s why Whole Foods and other major health-food companies decided to surrender the real battles and opt for co-existence with Monsanto.

When there is continuing crime in a community, the people, the citizens have to go after and expose the public officials who are doing nothing about it, who are indeed profiting from it. In the case of Monsanto, the officials are, among others, President Barack Obama, Tom Vilsack, head of the USDA, and Michael Taylor, food czar at the FDA.

But health-food companies, who should be leading the battle, are either friendly or neutral toward these bad actors. They’re hedging their bets. They’re saying, “We’ll inform consumers so they can make good choices, we’ll do labeling, but don’t expect us to be more aggressive than that. Don’t expect us to get mad.”

Neutrality is apparently the American way. First and foremost, the business of America is business. And the idea of consumers staging a full-bore boycott against Whole Foods? Out of the question. No, consumers are too busy loading up bags with groceries.

Monsanto relies on that. Monsanto knows Americans are tuned up to buy, buy, and consume, and then buy more. Americans consider it their right not to be distracted from that obsession.

Obama, like Bush and Clinton before him, are silent on the GMO issue. They all pretend it doesn’t exist. They sell out the people at the drop of a hat, and they don’t lose any sleep over it. Conscience? Never heard of it.

Ditto for major mainstream news outlets. “We don’t cover the Monsanto story in depth because it’s a he-said he-said thing. The scientific issues are complex. People on both sides make interesting points. But there’s no traction…”

That’s a bunch of crap. Make me the managing editor of the Washington Post for a year and I’ll send sales of the paper through the roof. I’ll let the hounds loose on Monsanto 24/7 and pound on the story day after day. The bottom line of the Post will look healthier than it has since Watergate, a minor topic compared to GMOs.

But the Post doesn’t really care about their bottom line. They would go bankrupt before they’d venture into these waters. They’re sold out from the top down. They’re part of the cover-up.

I’ve written about this before, but here it is again. In the early 1990s, when the US health freedom movement was at a fever pitch, when people were going after the FDA for raiding natural practitioners’ offices and trying to limit access to nutritional supplements in stores, I sat in on several significant meetings of activists.

People who controlled those meetings, who were connected to supplement companies, wanted a bill in Congress to protect the consumer. To give the consumer choice and access to supplements. That’s all they wanted.

I told them, in no uncertain terms, that this wouldn’t work over the long term. We had to go after the FDA. We had to attack.

I had a dossier on the FDA. I, like others, knew a lot about their crimes going back a long way.

I was told this was the wrong strategy. “First,” they said, “let’s get a good bill passed in Congress. Then we can attack the FDA.”

They had no such intention, and I told them so. They were never going to support going after the FDA and exposing it down to the ground as a criminal agency.

They had no stomach for it, and they were sold out themselves. They had a confined agenda, which had to do with helping to guard supplement companies’ profits.

They were slick operators. They knew how to present themselves as neutral and rational. They could spout New Age garble at appropriate moments. “Anger can be self-defeating.” “You achieve your aims when you come from a place of doing service.”

The same thing is happening now. “Give people the right to know, the right to choose what’s in their food.” It plays well, because it caters to the wholly absorbed self-interest of the health-food consumer with discretionary income.

It doesn’t work in the long run. It papers over the fact that corporate criminals, in partnership with the highest government officials, are committing RICO crimes against the health of the American people.

The appropriate emotion is outrage.

In case you hadn’t noticed, for the past 40 years there has been a major psyop in progress against righteous outrage and on behalf of Nice. Be nice. Be friendly. Be happy. Be self-contained. Don’t make waves. Anger is a sign of a mental disorder. Outrage isn’t Spiritual. You’ll injure your Karma.

Karma was invented to prop up a caste system. It was used to promote passivity.

Silence is not golden. Profits are.

Labeling food that isn’t poisonous, while permitting the sale of poison, is let’s-pretend virtual reality.

I’ve met so-called health entrepreneurs who’ve adopted squeaky clean New Age cover-personalities to obscure their sleazebag cynical motives. They’re very slippery characters. They do their real work in conference rooms where they look at spread sheets.

The chance of them going after GMO criminals is zero.

Once in a while, if you wait for it, or if you push them a little, you’ll see something come into their eyes. A dead cold nothing. It’s a sign of the personal Arctic region where they really live.

They don’t till, they don’t plant, they don’t harvest. They sell. They’re very much like the Sunday television preachers who are there to hustle dollars.

Only they take a kinder, gentler approach. They’re all about “consciousness” and saving the planet.

If the planet were alive in the way they claim it is, the planet would have long ago consigned them to a desert island under a blazing sun.

Jon Rappoport

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Government Fraud

When Johnny comes marching home again, hurrah, hurrah

Do you mind if we store your DNA data and share it with everybody?

Using fake names on Facebook, Surveillance State, androids

It’s all okay, Hillary feels families’ pain, we’re back on track

The George Zimmerman trial: life and death in the American psyop

The CDC is lying to you again: Flu fiction vs Flu reality

A new giant vaccine scandal exposes government lies and psyops

NSA, the secret AT&T spy room, and 2 Israeli companies

James Holmes’ lawyers enter insanity plea; here come the insane psychiatrists

Europe rejects GMO crops; kinder gentler America seeks labeling