Category Archives: Government Fraud

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

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 20th. 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.

The Matrix Revealed

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.

Exit From the Matrix

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.

Further reading:

Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St, Martin’s Press, 1991.

Mad In America, Robert Whitaker, Perseus Publishing, 2002

Rappoport, “The secret at the bottom of psychiatry’s rabbit hole,” “The lying liars who lie about psychiatry,” “The CIA, James Holmes, MKULTRA, and truth-serum torture”

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2013/02/24/the-secret-at-the-bottom-of-psychiatrys-rabbit-hole/

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2013/05/07/the-lying-liars-who-lie-about-psychiatry/

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2013/03/18/the-cia-james-holmes-mkultra-and-truth-serum-torture/

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

Europe rejects GMO crops; kinder gentler America seeks labeling

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.

The Matrix Revealed

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.

Exit From the Matrix

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

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

Explosive: president of CBS News and WH Benghazi fiction-writer are blood brothers

President of CBS News and WH Benghazi fiction-writer are blood brothers

by Jon Rappoport

May 23, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Just a coincidence. Nothing to see. Move along.

Remember the Benghazi attacks? Remember how the White House rewrote their talking points to scrub out mention of a terrorist attack?

Well, here are some new talking points.

Point one: Star CBS investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, has been discussing leaving CBS since April. She can’t get some of her Benghazi stories on the air. Attkisson was hot on the trail of figuring out who, at the White House, rewrote the Benghazi talking points.

Point two: One sure candidate at the White House? Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser and “mind-melding” speechwriter.

Point three: Who is Ben Rhodes’ brother? He is David Rhodes, who happens to be Sharyl Attkisson’s boss, the president of CBS News.

Point four: Read point three again.

Point five: Those White House Benghazi rewrites scrubbed prior mention of “terror attacks.”

Point six: Again, reporter Attkisson was hot on the trail of the White House fiction writers—which could have led to her boss’s brother.

Point seven: Again, Attkisson got into hot water at CBS for her Benghazi coverage.

Point eight: Again, the president of CBS News, her boss, is the brother of the man who helped organize the White House fiction writing on Benghazi.

The Daily Caller broke this story.

Point nine: Somebody has been fiddling with reporter Attkisson’s computers. Attkisson has been assembling evidence on the what and the who for several months.

You’re welcome, CBS. I just wanted to arrange all this information so you could release it in coherent form.

My question is: who at your network will do the rewrites on my talking points? I’d like to be in the room.

The Matrix Revealed

The September 2012 Benghazi attacks killed US Ambassador Christopher Stevens, embassy information officer Sean Smith, and embassy security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

The White House, in their talking-points rewrites, wanted to avoid calling this a planned terrorist attack. Why? Because investigating the terrorists opens the door to the matter of their funding and support.

That investigation, unimpeded, could lead to the fact that the US government has been recruiting, arming, and using thugs/terrorists/mercenaries from Libya to destabilize parts of Africa and the Middle East.

And then we would come to the possibility that some of those US recruits attacked the Benghazi embassy in 2012.

These talking points, of course, aren’t in the CBS or White House portfolio. They’re buried deep under the White House, under CIA buildings in Langley, and under CBS News headquarters at Black Rock in New York.

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

CBS News star hacked: the big chill

by Jon Rappoport

May 22, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

Sharyl Attkisson (twitter) is the one thing CBS News has going for it. She’s the real article. As real as you can be in the current news climate, while still working for a major media outlet.

She crashed the credibility of the CDC, as it was lying through its teeth about numbers of Swine Flu cases and overplaying the fake “epidemic.”

She’s taken on the horrific effects of vaccines, to the point where her Wikipedia page, through a series of unethical maneuvers, continues to characterize her as irrationally “anti-vaccine.”

She broke key elements of Fast&Furious. She’s a hound on Benghazi, and the Obama administration’s funding of “green programs.”

Now, she states that her computer was compromised in 2011, as she was covering Fast&Furious. She’s still working to find out what happened.

From Politico:

“Sharyl Attkisson, the Emmy-award winning CBS News investigative reporter, says that her personal and work computers have been compromised and are under investigation.

“‘I can confirm that an intrusion of my computers has been under some investigation on my end for some months but I’m not prepared to make an allegation against a specific entity today as I’ve been patient and methodical about this matter,’ Attkisson told POLITICO on Tuesday. ‘I need to check with my attorney and CBS to get their recommendations on info we make public.’

“Attkisson told WPHT that irregular activity on her computer was first identified in Feb. 2011, when she was reporting on the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal and on the Obama administration’s green energy spending, which she said ‘the administration was very sensitive about.’”

end Politico excerpt

Two computers compromised. Star reporter. Somebody gained physical access or remote access to those machines. Strong likelihood it started as a government response to Attkisson’s coverage of Fast&Furious. (Although, unfortunately, Attkisson should also look to someone at CBS as the possible hacker.)

All those nasty stories Attkisson’s worked on, over the years? If she ever wants to use sources from those pieces again, she’s going to have to convince them they won’t pay a steep price for talking to her.

Then, for future stories, she’s going to have to convince new sources they can talk to her without getting into serious trouble.

It’s the big chill. This is the government and its allies sending a message to reporters’ sources and potential sources, confidential or not: watch out; we’re listening in; we can make you sorry.

Since Attkisson has been working for “some months” trying to figure out and confirm where the hack of her computers came from, we can assume it was no amateur job.

The government doesn’t have to put reporters on trial for leaking classified information. It doesn’t have to mount a DOJ investigation against them. It can make reporters’ sources more timid and fearful. That works.

What well-known mainstream reporters (who are honest) don’t realize is this: if a mere dozen of them left their networks and newspapers and started reporting online and independently, they could provoke a firestorm.

The hypnotic public trust in corporate media depends on a united front maintained by networks and big newspapers: “we’re the real source of the news.”

This is a lie, of course, but it’s all about perception. If Attkisson and a few others broke ranks, a piece of the trance would crack and shatter.

I’m not talking about joining Politico or other such “reputable” online sites. I’m talking about reporters like Attkisson setting up shop on their own sites and leaving all their chains behind them.

There is an illusion that mainstream reporters need the kinds of sources for stories they can only obtain if they work for CBS or CNN or the Washington Post. That’s not true. Most of those sources are useless, when it comes to real investigative work.

The unwillingness to leave major networks is really about money, prestige, and job security. The big three. The truly vital journalistic investigations, which go unreported by the mainstream, are done and achieved without the need for the big three.

The fact that Attkisson has to spend time trying to figure out who hacked her computers shows that the mainstream is no haven for any kind of investigative reporter.

Stories are derailed, spiked, postponed indefinitely, and twisted in the world of conventional journalism. They are also hacked.

The Matrix Revealed

Government has been spying on reporters for decades. The CIA has formed close relationships with reporters for decades. What’s happened lately is nothing new. In fact, when the dust finally settles on this recent scandal, government will come out as the winner. Why? Because reporters’ sources will feel less confident about talking to reporters.

And that will satisfy the big mainstream news outlets as well—because they don’t really want to employ reporters who dig far below the surface and threaten to expose elite power players.

Back in 1982, when I was starting out as a reporter, I had a brief experience in this regard. On assignment from LA Weekly to expose behind-the-scenes players in Central America, where left-wing revolutions were spreading, I went to New York to do research.

I was homing in on one group that looked like it was funding fascist death squads in El Salvador and Nicaragua. I met with a man who I thought could provide me with information.

The conversation took a strange turn. He told me he could hook me up with an editor at a newspaper who needed “bright reporters.” The money, he said, would be good, much better than I was making working for LA Weekly.

I turned him down. Later, I discovered that the editor he wanted me to meet was supporting the group who was funding death squads.

I probably could have taken a job with that newspaper. I could have covered a wide range of interesting stories…but not the story I was working on. Definitely not that one.

When you work as a staff employee for a major newspaper or television news outlet, you deal with two censorship poisons. The government and your own employer.

It’s a party, but not one you want to sign up for, unless you’re excited about giving up your freedom. The money is there, and I have nothing against money, but there is a heavy downside. You’re a slave, and you know it every time you wander off the reservation and touch the electrified fence.

In a real sense, your computer is hacked the minute you walk through the door, sign the papers, and take the job.

Computer hacked, mind on hold.

Hell of a life.

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

Top IRS official takes the Fifth: what it means

Top IRS official takes the Fifth: what it means

by Jon Rappoport

May 22, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Now it’s getting interesting.

Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt filings, will take the Fifth in front of Congress tomorrow.

She won’t answer questions. She won’t say, for example, why she never informed Congress that she knew there was criminal fiddling going on at the IRS, where employees “gave extra scrutiny” to tea party, conservative, patriot, and other groups during the application process.

Instead, as the DOJ launches a criminal investigation, Lerner will tell the House Oversight Committee, “I decline to answer. I invoke my Fifth Amendment right.” Multiple times she will say this.

Meaning: “If I answer, I could incriminate myself.”

Her lawyer, William Taylor, has asked the Committee to excuse Lerner from testifying tomorrow, Wednesday, since she won’t be answering questions. Taylor wrote to the House Committee, “[Forcing her to testify would] have no other purpose other than to embarrass or burden her.”

Tsk, tsk. Mustn’t embarrass a person who has committed crimes. Be nice. Be kind. Yes, Lois Lerner failed to tell the Committee anything about IRS crimes, when she testified four times last year, but so what? Give her a break. Goodness gracious, don’t put her through an ordeal.

Somehow, Lerner’s lawyer’s logic doesn’t stand up. But he’s a lawyer, so that’s no surprise.

Then there was this: a presidential election last year. 2012? Obama? Remember?

If Lois Lerner had blown the whistle then, and the full-blown scandal that’s erupting now had occurred before the election, who knows who would have won the presidency.

Lois was obviously protecting a president running to win a second term. She’s “pre-taking” the Fifth now and hoping she won’t have to appear before the Committee tomorrow, so the Obama administration won’t have to risk hearing a Congressman ask, WERE YOU PROTECTING THE PRESIDENT FROM SCANDAL IN AN ELECTION YEAR?

WERE YOU LYING SO OBAMA COULD WIN REELECTION?

Ahem…the Fifth Amendment wasn’t designed for that purpose. It was designed so a person wouldn’t have to incriminate himself/herself. The Fifth doesn’t exist to protect someone else from scandal.

We get it, Lois. We get what you’re up to.

If you do stand before the Committee tomorrow, why don’t you just say, “I refuse to answer on the grounds that I would cast doubt on the 2012 presidential election and the president.” Come out with it.

One question, though. Are you sure the president you’re protecting isn’t named George Bush? Because this sounds a lot like what Bush’s people were doing all those years.

Am I dreaming here? This is the Obama administration, right? The presidency that was supposed to be transparent and good and different and transcendent, and prophetic of a New Age?

Gee, you mean it’s just biz as usual? It’s every presidency and every administration that pulls dirty tricks? It’s one continuous, unbroken line of diabolical scum at work?

What a shock. Let me hold on to my chair, because the room might start spinning.

The Matrix Revealed

Lois, what if there is no Clark? What if he’s not in some phone booth taking off his suit and turning into Superman, so he can rescue you? What if the president and his henchmen are just throwing you to the wolves?

Consider that. Then consider what would happen if you changed your mind at the 11th hour, and instead of taking the Fifth, you checked into the Committee room tomorrow and told everything, and I mean everything, you know.

You could rock the vote, retrospectively. You could make the kind of splash we rarely see. You could upset so many apple carts it would be wondrous to behold.

Wasn’t this administration supposed to be about a massive healing and cleansing? You could make it so, Lois. You could engage with the people, for once, and tell the truth.

I know you’re sweating bullets right now, but think about it.

Imagine the looks on the faces of Steven Miller, Eric Holder, Barack Obama.

The truth and the whole truth.

Priceless.

Lois, your lawyer, Taylor, has written to the House Committee, “[Lois] has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation, but under the circumstances, she has no choice but to take this course [and invoke the Fifth].”

Wow, Lois, do you see how crazy it’s getting? Your own attorney is basically saying you have no reason to take the Fifth…except for the fact that you have to protect other people. Isn’t that right? Isn’t that what he really means? So who is he really working for?

You’re out there alone. You’re exposed. Why not give them all the shaft and tell the whole sordid story?

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

Authorities never have “issues with authority”

Authorities never have “issues with authority”

by Jon Rappoport

May 21, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

It’s simple. Authorities invented the idea that other people have issues with authority.

Psychiatrists rank right up there among the elitists setting the standards. They, for example, have concocted a little fictional doodad called Oppositional Defiance Disorder. And magically, they never accuse their professional colleagues of having it. No.

Why should they? They amuse themselves by deciding when civilians are overly defiant and need pacification (drugs).

But we’re also talking about character structure here, because psychiatrists turn out to be exactly the people who want to slap labels like ODD on others. They like that. So they labor in universities and hospitals and earn their degrees and state-issued licenses, knowing that soon they will have that power.

Having gained it, there is nothing to be defiant about. They’re sitting on top of the heap, which they call science.

It’s quite a racket.

The Matrix Revealed

In response, how about this? The Challenge to Authority Syndrome (CAS). It would be diagnosed in people who hold positions of authority and react very badly when someone lower on the totem pole doubts them.

Symptoms include: facial flushes; body tremors; shouts excessively; deals out punishment; calls challenger a “terrorist”; obtains secret warrant to spy on challenger…

Treatment for CAS: sedatives; aspartame; fluoridated water.

There are literally millions of jobs and positions in this country that are entirely dependent on listening to instructions and following them, no questions asked. No suggestions permitted. No divergence tolerated.

Therefore, the potential pool of people who “have issues with authority” is huge. It seems only fair to do a reversal and start diagnosing authorities with CAS.

In 1957, at the age of 19, I found myself taking a train into New York, to see a psychologist who was going to give me a Rorschach (inkblot) Test.

We sat in his office and he ran down his credentials and background, and assured me he was a “specialist.” Right away, I had “issues.”

He said he would show me 10 cards with pictures, and he wanted me to tell him what I saw. His interpretation of my answers would enable him to assess my state of mind.

Really? Now I had serious issues.

He flashed the first card. The picture looked like a bat. Well, all ten pictures pretty much look like bats or butterflies or moths.

But I thought it would be too obvious to say “bat.” I was going for more arcane material to make it interesting.

So…a full hour later, I was still working on one section of the picture on card one. I was seeing clouds, branches, statues, ancient Rome, space travel, stoves, noses, Graham crackers, interplanetary musical notation, pregnant deer, Civil War soldiers, private detectives’ hats, freezers, sandstorms, X-rays, lint, faces in the moon, candy wrappers…

The authority figure was sweating. He was supposed to make notes on everything I said without comment. At the rate I was going, we’d be in his office all night and into the next day.

I observed him come to a boil.

Finally, he snapped. “Keep it simple!” Obvious symptom of CAS.

My, my.

“Why should I keep it simple?” I calmly asked.

“Because I have enough material!”

“What about the other pictures?” I said. “And I’m not through with this one.”

“We don’t need the other pictures!” he said, his face a fine flushing red.

“We don’t? I thought the test was all ten.”

“It doesn’t have to be!”

“Oh,” I said. “But I’m really enjoying this. It’s an interesting picture. They’ve put so much in it…”

He sat there, pen in hand, notebook on the table, and glared at me, as if I’d just blown up his house. He was clearly having a full-blown CAS episode.

“Are you doing this on purpose?” he said.

“Doing what?”

He sputtered, “Finding so many things!”

“Well,” I said, “there’s really nothing in the picture, is there, come to think of it. It’s all what I imagine.”

He shook his finger at me. “No it isn’t. I’m not asking you to imagine anything. I’m asking what you see.”

“I don’t see anything,” I said.

“That’s impossible,” he said.

“I’m just telling you the way it seems to me. Maybe there are right and wrong answers. You’re in charge. You would know.”

The authority. The authority on perception and what it means. The authority on my state of mind.

“No,” he said. “There is no right or wrong.”

“Then I guess I should continue,” I said.

So I did, for another few minutes. On the same section of the picture on card one, I chirped right along.

“Okay,” he said. “That’s enough.”

“No,” I said. “I feel like I’m just getting started. I thinks it’s therapeutic.”

“Listen,” he said. “This isn’t a test of your imagination. I want to know what you see in the picture.”

“I see an inkblot. It’s symmetrical.”

Then he came out with it. “You have a problem with authority,” he said.

“Really? You can tell that from my responses to the picture? Was it the hats? The Civil War soldiers?”

He took a deep breath and tried to calm himself down.

“No,” he said. “You don’t want to be judged.”

“Would you?” I said. “I could sit here and make notes on what you see in the pictures.”

“I’m administering the test,” he said, “not you. I’m trained to interpret it.”

“Okay,” I said. “I see male genitalia there at the top of the picture. They’re reading the New York Times and ordering coffee at a cafe.”

He stood up. He closed his notebook. He looked very tired.

He showed me out the door.

At the tender age of 19, I learned two lessons that day. One: they command, I subvert. And two: pretensions to science make a marvelous front for authorities.

There is something further. So-called mental-health authorities build a feedback loop to make a sale. They essentially ask you what you see, think, and feel, and then, when you tell them, they jam a label on your head. They just rearrange your own words and sell them back to you. In essence:

“I feel sad.”

“You have a condition called Sadness (depression).”

“I feel up and down.”

“You have condition called Up and Down (bipolar).”

No. They have a condition called Authority.

The Rorschach Test was one of those disastrous experiments where academics tried to make art into science. They presumed to carve pictures up into neat and revealing categories.

It didn’t work. It’s never worked. People looking at pictures see what they see, think what they think, and imagine what they imagine. This is why Hitler, Stalin, and the Chinese leadership destroyed so much art and set binding rules on what should be imagined.

Art is dangerous. People move out of standard-response channels and actually conceive of ideas they’ve never considered before. They surpass brainwashing.

They realize, for starters, that any system, when it becomes large enough, can only continue to exist by turning rotten at the core.

Exit From the Matrix

Here is a piece from an interview I did with hypnotherapist Jack True in 1990:

Q (Rappoport): “There seems to be a growing interest, from psychiatrists, in ‘problems around authority.’”

A (Jack): “It’s self-reflexive. The psychiatrists are the authorities. So they want to protect their own turf. Anyone who questions their supremacy can get a diagnosis of mental illness.

“This society is being shaped into tighter systems. It means people in charge have to exert more control. They want to be immune from serious attacks.

“Everything leads back to freedom. When you press down hard on people, they think about their freedom. They want to break out. There are a lot of strategies employed to keep that from occurring.

“Code words are dropped into the culture. ‘Family,’ ‘groups,’ ‘love,’ ‘humanity,’ ‘care,’ concern.’”

Q: “Those are real words.”

A: “Yes, but they’re put there to bring about a kind of trance. They induce certain frequencies that are calming. As vague general terms, in basically trivial contexts, they flatten out emotional responses. They reduce emotional energy.”

Q: “And then what happens?”

A: “A number of things. The idea of freedom becomes less forceful. It become associated with less power. People opt for gentle behavior. But it’s not genuine. It’s the outcome of hypnotic suggestion.”

Q: “And the people who resist, who don’t buy in?”

A: “Their numbers decline. Ways are found to characterize them as mentally ill.”

Q: “If a person doesn’t react well to overweening authority…”

A: “He’s said to have a problem. You see? It’s his problem. That’s turning it around on the rebel. He’s not exposing authority. He’s got a problem.”

Q: And the psychiatrist ‘cares.’”

A: “Sure. He ‘wants to help.’ It’s a load of hypnotic suggestion, all the way up and down the line. I wouldn’t refer a person to a psychiatrist for all the tea in China.”

end of excerpt

JACK TRUE, the most creative hypnotherapist on the face of the planet, is featured in THE MATRIX REVEALED. Jack’s anti-Matrix understanding of the mind and how to liberate it is unparalleled. His insights are unique, staggering. 43 interviews, 320 pages. That is just a faction of what THE MATRIX REVEALED has to offer.

On August 18, 1988, George Bush the Elder gave a speech in which he said, “I want a kinder, gentler nation.” It was perfectly in line with the ongoing pysop Jack True referred to above.

Bush’s words seemed to be positive, but they were really trying to “soften the frequencies” generated by the mind. Bush was basically saying, “We’re the authorities, we’re in charge. Be nice and everything will be all right…”

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

When will Obama say, “I am not a crook”?

When will Obama say, “I am not a crook”?

By Jon Rappoport

May 19, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The upward pressure of ongoing scandals is moving into the White House. Benghazi, AP, IRS.

The president’s surrogates are trying out their lying skills.

Jay Carney: The situation at the IRS isn’t really a scandal, depending on what the definition of “is” is. And if one uses the passive voice, that’s acceptable, as in “mistakes were made.”

Hillary Clinton: It doesn’t matter how and why Americans were killed in Benghazi. They died. We’re alive. We move on.

Steven Miller, retiring/ousted head of the IRS: We gave bad customer service. Who at the IRS is guilty? I asked someone and they told me, but I don’t remember what they said.

Eric Holder: If something bad happened at my agency in relation to spying on AP reporters, I don’t know what it is, because I’ve recused myself. Other people under me are investigating the whole thing. I don’t know who these investigators are. I have to remain ignorant, in order to be objective.

Inside the White House, key players are saying: “Okay, we’ve deleted four thousand emails. That doesn’t sound like enough. Keep looking. Keep deleting. Destroy the computers. And paper. There’s still paper. Order new shredding machines. Check everybody’s schedules and logs of meetings. Make sure they don’t overlap in suspect ways…”

Remember the old phrase “plausible deniability?” The people around the president commit crimes and make sure the president doesn’t know about them. Or if he does know, or if he ordered the crimes to be committed, his people erase the links that would lead to his exposure.

It’s a game. Can the president be protected? Can he deny knowledge and make it stick? Can anyone prove he’s guilty? Can he fire a few underlings and make the whole thing go away?

Of course, the president chose those people around him. He chose criminals who will protect him. That’s true, but it’s not part of the plausible-deniability board game. It doesn’t count.

Magically, the president is pure. He just happened to err in judgment and choose a bevy of criminals to work close to him. What was he thinking?

The president is innocent. Everybody else is guilty. Amazing.

The Matrix Revealed

The public (aka the television audience) waits with baited breath to discover what the president really knew and what he didn’t know. Because that’s the story line, and story line is, above all else, what’s important.

The scandals are spreading like ink on a blotter. Gee, I wonder if the president knew about this? I wonder if he was part of this. How will it end? I have to keep watching, to find out. If I already know, there’s no suspense. That’s no fun. I have to remain ignorant and follow the news. That’s exciting.

If it merely and magically turns out that the president chose 16 pathological liars and felons as his closest advisers, he’s off the hook. He’s fine. If he actually took part in committing crimes, that’s a whole different thing.

Not only is a sucker born every minute, the suckers that are already here are getting more stupid by the hour.

“In retrospect, it may appear odd that I appointed Jack the Ripper as my national security adviser, but at the time I only knew him as a distinguished physician. His record was spotless. Yes, mistakes were made. But now the Ripper is no longer on my staff, and I pledge we will fix the damage he caused. That’s what important. Fixing it as we move forward…and preventing it from happening again.”

So far, the press is circling the blood in the water like minnows. They’re sipping a bit here, a bit there. Benghazi, the worst of the crimes, is fading from memory. It’s old news. “It’s already been covered.”

AP is claiming that the DOJ started spying on its reporters after AP was told by the White House that it, the AP, could run with the Yemen-CIA story, and therefore the spying op was launched for some other reason.

This is a potentially explosive revelation, but it hasn’t become a major story—even though the AP itself is a consortium owned by major press outlets.

Fast&Furious? Deaths? Murders? Guns walked into Mexico? That happened light years ago. It’s history. Let the scholars take care of it.

Exit From the Matrix

There’s a lever that could be pulled, at which point all these scandals will flood the Oval Office, but it hasn’t been pulled yet. It’s in the hands of the people who really run and own this country.

They’re counting their chips at the moment and deciding who should fall and who should remain standing. They’re the Trilateral Commission and the inner core of the CFR. They represent corporations and banks who calculate how much destruction they can wreak on America at any given moment, while still maintaining their profit margins and control.

They rely on the elite news media to dole out pieces of the story to eager millions, in the meantime. A piece here, a piece there. The AP has known about government spying on its reporters for months. CBS, NBC, and ABC have known about IRS diddling with non-profit status for months.

Television news is the moonscape where simulacra of truth are manufactured on call. It doesn’t really matter when. Time as we know it no longer exists. Scandals are real when the networks say they are real.

High-IQ idiots like Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Dianne “I’ll cry for you” Sawyer take their cues from sources who, themselves, are tuned up when the owners of the US are ready to go.

There is no authentic beginning, middle, and end of these scandal-stories. There are only fabricated time lines.

A great deal of mass mind control depends on public hunger for a traditional arc of plot. The public wants a shocking revelation (beginning), followed by an increasing tide of new evidence (middle), and judgment day (ending), when the suspects are declared guilty or sort of guilty, or innocent (ignorant).

It doesn’t matter what the tale is or who is involved, as long as the transitions are managed and experienced, like porn.

Evidence of guilt leading to Obama? That’s relevant only in the context of the real decision-makers pulling the levers or not pulling them.

Every president knows everything. He knows it well before he takes his oath of office. He’s the mouthpiece for a crime syndicate. It’s point one in the job description.

Only little children would think otherwise. Fortunately for the high-level criminals, the world is populated with little children of all ages.

“The buck stops here” was never descriptive of what a president does. The sign on his desk should read: “I’m a front man. It’s all a mystery to you kiddies out there.”

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

Eric Holder: idiot zen master

Eric Holder: idiot zen master

by Jon Rappoport

May 17, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

In his recent testimony before Congress, US Attorney General Eric Holder, the so-called highest law-enforcement officer in the land, responded to questions about the AP scandal.

Holder’s Justice Dept. had secretly subpoenaed and seized the phone records of Associated Press reporters.

Holder stated he didn’t know anything about anything, because he had recused himself from the issue and recused himself from the new internal DOJ investigation of the matter.

What?

Huh?

His own agency, the US Dept. of Justice, had spied secretly on reporters. But he, Holder, the head of that agency, decided to remain entirely ignorant about the whole fiasco, once he discovered the vague outline of what was going on.

This is like the manager of a car agency learning that 50 new cars in his lot have packets of heroin in their glove compartments, and immediately withdrawing to Bermuda for a fishing vacation.

The Congressional committee then asked Holder about the new internal DOJ investigation of itself vis-a-vis the AP scandal. Holder said he wasn’t absolutely sure about that either, because, again, he had recused himself.

This is like that car-agency manager sitting in his boat in Bermuda and putting a blindfold over his eyes and plugs in his ears.

Why did Holder recuse himself? Unasked, unanswered. That in itself is staggering.

Possibly, he recused himself because he might be a target of the ensuing investigation into the scandal. In other words, he needed to avoid the appearance of being in charge of his own agency, from which position he could, theoretically, let himself off the hook?!?!

In that case, his power is decimated. He’s a sitting duck. He’s nobody.

Some unit of the Justice Department is tasked with figuring out how and why the DOJ spied on reporters—and who is to say that unit is automatically free from political influence and corruption? Who is to say that unit will do an honest job and indict employees of the DOJ?

In other words, it’s a no-win situation. Doesn’t matter who, at the Dept. of Justice, does or doesn’t recuse himself. Holder could have kept his head in the game and pushed the internal investigation himself. But he didn’t.

He’s the village idiot. He doesn’t know anything about anything.

The press doesn’t gang up and attack him hard.

“Listen, Mr. Holder. We’re not buying your recusal or your ignorance. You’re the man in charge. You’re the boss. If you don’t know what’s going on, what good are you?”

“Mr. Holder, when exactly did you okay the secret seizing of AP reporters’ phone records? We know you did. When was it?”

“What? You never did okay the spying and seizing, Mr. Holder? You mean you, the boss, didn’t know what was happening on your watch? Your people feel no need to get your approval for a major op like this?”

“We’re camping out on your doorstep until we get some real answers.”

NONE of this has happened. The press has whined and complained, and that’s about it.

“I don’t know who put all those packets of heroin in the new cars, and I don’t want to know. Maybe somebody thinks I OKed it, and they’ll investigate me. So it’s my duty to remain as ignorant as I can about the whole thing, to preserve neutrality and integrity…”

Holder is saying that any knowledge he might have, but doesn’t, about the original plan to spy on reporters, about the actual spying, about the aftermath of the spying, and about the new internal investigation into the spying…any knowledge on these subjects could make him INFORMED, and therefore, better able to lie now to investigators, if he were so disposed, which of course he isn’t.

Right? Got it? Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? Irrefutable logic. No problem. Let’s all take a nap.

The Matrix Revealed

Imagine if this happened. A few months after 9/11, the director of the CIA appears before 9/11 Commission and states the following:

“Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve intentionally kept myself entirely ignorant about what the Agency knew leading up to 9/11, what the Agency found out on the day of 9/11, and what the Agency has learned since 9/11. I exist in a pristine state about all these matters, because if you investigate me for malfeasance, I want to be able to say, unequivocally, that I haven’t been tainted by actual knowledge, which I could then twist to my own advantage. And I haven’t covered myself with lies, because I have no idea what the truth is. I trust you understand this. I trust you understand the sacrifice I’ve made in order to help you arrive at the truth. It has not been easy watching sports 24/7 and keeping myself from the news of the day. I have suffered. But I do it because I’m a patriot. You’re welcome.”

Holder actually believes we’re buying his act?

Well, I hate to say this, but he does. He thinks he can get over. He thinks he can slither through and around and over the press.

And he’s probably right, judging by what the press has and hasn’t done so far.

The man is a towering liar and fabricator. He’s all lies all the way up and down.

Can’t the committee before whom he’s testifying at least fall down laughing, because they’re seeing a man like them working his act?

“Wow, Eric, I thought I’d been witness to some major bullshit in my time, but you’re in another league. I’ve told some tall tales, but this, this pose of see no evil, it’s championship material. Really. You’ve taken me to school. I’m awed. Where do I sign up? I need what you’ve got. I really do. You’re pushing Bill Clinton for the heavyweight belt.”

Holder: “I can’t comment on that comment or anything else. I’m merely saying I have no knowledge or understanding of anything, and I’ve achieved this state of mind on purpose. Therefore, I’m clean. I’m a machine carefully built to specs of ignorance, a machine with no function. In that sense, I’m perfect.”

We may be seeing the greatest bureaucratic ploy in the history of the democracy.

Imagine a million bureaucrats like him. Each one defers to the other, who in turn expresses the same across-the-board Zero. At the end of it, the apparatus spits out a blank piece of paper and everybody goes home.

Yes, government is wonderful. It’s cosmically zen. It’s what we all want.

Life without life.

To top it off, Obama, at his press conference yesterday, said he has full confidence in Holder. Meaning: Obama is sure Holder will remain a blank slate.

“I have full confidence that the man who is running the Department of Justice isn’t running it. He’s staring at the wall. That’s what I want him to do.”

Exit From the Matrix

Recusal, the actual version, works like this. A lawyer who once represented a client suing a chemical company for damage is now an appeals judge. Another case involving the same company comes up for review. The judge backs out. He says, “I once went up against the company in court, so I won’t get involved now.”

What Holder is doing is from another planet. He’s found a way to take the Fifth without admitting he has anything to incriminate himself about.

“Mr. Jones, were you at the restaurant on the night of the murder?”

“I recuse myself from answering that question.”

“What?”

“I don’t want to give the impression that I have any knowledge about the murder.”

“But you’re on trial for the murder, sir.”

“Yes, and that in itself is prejudicial. Do you see? Aspersions about my character and actions have been cast. I wish to remove myself from the possibility of such accusations.”

“You can’t. That’s why you’re here. We suspect you of committing murder.”

“I recuse myself.”

“Are you invoking your Fifth Amendment rights?”

“Absolutely not. That would imply I have some knowledge about the crime. I reject that characterization.”

“You Honor, the witness is unresponsive. Please instruct him to answer my original question.”

“As a judge, I find the defendant’s posture of recusal interesting. I think we’ll let him go with a warning and a small fine. Three hours of community service in the White House, for which he’ll earn seven thousand dollars an hour. Court is adjourned.”

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

Stunner: who is suddenly telling liberal jackals to attack Obama?

Stunner: who is suddenly telling liberal jackals to attack Obama?

by Jon Rappoport

May 16, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

When Chris Matthews files for divorce from Barack Obama, you know the world is upside down.

When the liberal online rag, Politico, features a clip of Matthews saying, “[Obama] obviously likes giving speeches more than he does running the executive branch,” we’re through the Looking Glass.

Chris Matthews loses ‘thrill up leg’ …

The liberal jackals are stalking their own leader, the President. After making mind-bending excuses for Obama’s disastrous presidency, they’ve suddenly heard a supersonic whistle, and they’re out for blood.

Jonathan Turley, famous liberal constitutional lawyer, is counting Obama’s sins, ranging far beyond the current IRS and AP phone-tapping scandals.

James Goodale, former lawyer for the NY Times, is writing, at the Daily Beast, “Obama is fast becoming the worst national security press president, worse than Nixon, and it may not get any better.”

Liberal radio host Bill Press is calling for Obama to fire Eric Holder. Charley Rangel says, “No one believes that the president has given us a sufficient answer [to the IRS and DOJ scandals].”

Representative Zoe Lofgren and NBC’s Brian Williams are down Obama’s neck.

Just a few weeks ago, after the Boston bombing, Obama was unassailable. He was still the king with his own people. Now, he’s turning into lunch meat.

Liberals could be shouting and claiming that the IRS targeting of conservative, patriot, and constitutional groups had nothing to do with Obama, that he’s entirely innocent, that he just got rid of the IRS chief and all is well…but they’re not saying it.

They could be insisting that the DOJ tapping AP phones was all on Eric Holder, and Obama had nothing to do with it…but they’re not saying it.

The current press virus is: Obama is Nixon.

What’s going on?

Who’s giving liberals the order to go after Obama? Who shifted the political wind overnight?

The Matrix Revealed

Yesterday, I examined Watergate from the perspective of Nixon’s betrayal of the Rockefeller family. That was the key to his ouster from the presidency. The Washington Post was used as the attack dog. Are we looking at something similar here?

Has Obama failed to live up to his promises to people far more powerful than he is? If so, what is his betrayal?

Is it simply the fact that the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations have chosen Hillary Clinton as the next president—and in order to make that happen, major diversions have to guide the press and public away from her role in the Benghazi catastrophe? Is that why we’re suddenly seeing the IRS and DOJ scandals erupting?

Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission (TC) certainly wields enough power to torpedo Obama, if they want to. And they surround Obama.

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.” Consider the following TC members, who have held Obama posts:

Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;

James Jones, National Security Advisor;

Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;

Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.

All Trilateralists.

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

The TC is the hand that feeds Obama. Has he bitten it?

Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC with his godfather, David Rockefeller: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

A closer look at Tim Geithner’s circle of economic advisers reveals the chilling Trilateral effect: Paul Volker; Alan Greenspan; E. Gerald Corrigan (director, Goldman Sachs); and Peter G Peterson (former CEO, Lehman Brothers, former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations). These men are all Trilateral members.

How many foxes in the hen house do we need, before we realize their Trilateral agenda is controlling the direction of our economy?

Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003):

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

So yes, if the Trilateral Commission wanted to sink Obama’s presidency, they could call that shot. They could radically influence press coverage of the president, they could pull strings and end the worshipful celebration of Obama as the great prophet. They could bring hard doom to him.

Nixon started imposing tariffs on imported goods. That was his Waterloo. He ran afoul of the massive Rockefeller free trade agenda. What has Obama done?

Is he stalling on war with Iran? Has he gone too far in his embrace of Islamic partners? Has he finally balked at continuing the war in Afghanistan?

Setting economic and political policy for the US is a prime operation of the Trilateral Commission. If Obama has crossed swords with the TC, he would be treading on very dangerous ground.

From the shadows of history, let me give you an illustration of how far and deep the TC can reach. It really does boggle the mind.

Here is a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment—in the form of a conversation between a reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper.

The interview took place in 1978. It concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others?After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

Source: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

Of course, although Kaiser and Cooper claimed everything being manipulated by the Trilateral Commission committee was already out in the open, it wasn’t.

Their interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried. It didn’t become a scandal on the level of, say, Watergate, although its essence was far larger than Watergate.

If the mainstream press had made hay out of this interview, had reported it widely, and commented upon it with relentless fervor and disgust and shock (a pipe dream, to be sure); if the interview had been pushed and publicized as a scandal of the greatest depth; if ensuing denials and distractions had been cast aside; the exposure of the Trilaterals would have shaken the country’s foundations, and the press would have had to admit all their coverage of government was a farce and a cartoon.

US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who would become Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor.

Shortly after Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that, if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff. He gave up.

Exit From the Matrix

That’s the kind of power we’re talking about. Barack Obama would merely be a minor figure blowing in the wind, if the TC decided he’d betrayed them. Obama’s administration is stacked with TC members.

They could foment the sudden liberal opposition to this president, which has bloomed overnight like a mushroom in the dark.

No one at the moment is playing the race card for Obama, which has been an effective strategy. No one in the press is claiming that Obama’s Republican opponents are racists. Why not?

The IRS and DOJ scandals are manageable. By themselves, absent the press firestorm, they can be contained. Eric Holder can go. The IRS chief has already been dispatched to nowhere land. The president can claim immunity from these two doofuses. Indeed, he may try that.

As long as his liberal allies keeping pounding on the fact that he’s a great president who has been served badly by his inferiors, the ship could hold water. But right now, that’s not happening. The sudden sea change is swamping the boat.

Remember, with Watergate, we saw a successful attack on the US Attorney General, John Mitchell, on the way to nailing Nixon and knocking him out of the box. That Rockefeller operation worked like a magic machine.

Eric Holder, the current Attorney General, has just testified before Congress that he doesn’t know anything about anything. He’s pretty much said, “Ask me a question about any scandal and I’ll plead vast ignorance. That’s my defense.”

Holder is ripe for a takedown. And then the press hounds would be that much closer to pinning blame on Obama himself.

I’m not saying Obama will be impeached or will resign—although in politics, never say never. I’m saying his presidency, such as it is, could be destroyed very quickly among and by his own supporters.

The clue here, again, is the sudden and boggling liberal press turnaround, their all-out assault on Obama. This kind of thing doesn’t happen by accident. It certainly doesn’t happen from the bowels of the president’s rabid worshipers. But it is happening.

That means marching orders. That means screws have been turned by people who expect and demand and can count on obedience. Those people are players who live far above government. Government is their mechanism, as is the press, when it needs to be.

And right now, it needs to be.

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

Why didn’t the US just attack Afghanistan with Monsanto GMOs?

By Jon Rappoport

May 1, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

It would have been so simple. Flood Afghanistan with Monsanto GMOs. Truckloads of seeds. Tanks full of Roundup herbicide. Result? Nutritionally deficient food crops, chronic disease, poisoning with Roundup. Perfect.

And we know how to do it, because we’ve been doing it to ourselves for almost 20 years. We’ve got it down.

GMO ballot labeling initiatives in Afghanistan? Are you kidding?

Plus…and this is a big winner, Monsanto scientists could have developed a GMO poppy seed. Throw those babies in the growing fields and you’d have gotten some Franken-opium variety. Wildly unpredictable effects. And sprayed with Roundup? Junkies all over the world would rather go cold turkey than shoot that stuff.

Actually, I had a comprehensive plan for closing out the war. It would have worked like a charm. Somehow, the Pentagon wasn’t interested. Now it’s just an historical oddity, a could-have-been. Some day, scholars might cite it in their assessments of US efforts in that far-flung region.

For posterity’s sake, read it. And weep, you Pentagon fools.

Pull all the troops out. Everybody knows we’d have to stay there forever. Kill Taliban, they hide, we leave, they come back. Why go up against that? Just vacate the country.

Then…put a winner of a plan into effect. Something that actually makes sense.

Start easy. From hundreds of planes, drop fast food all over Afghanistan. Burgers. Fishsticks. McMuffins. Legs, breasts, wings. It’s a good intro. Lightens everybody up a little. Two weeks of chicken done right.

Then, from those same planes—candy. Fifty thousand tons of gum drops, jelly beans, Almond Joy, Reese. Hell, Reese all by itself is unstoppable.

Sugar! You’re telling me people can resist sugar? They’ll be scooping that stuff up off the frozen ground. In high mountain areas, tribes live on lichen cooked over yak turds. All of a sudden, here come 20 colors of jelly beans out of the sky!

Give them enough sugar, and they’ll be running in circles one minute and lying back and napping the next. It’s a law of biology.

A month of heavenly candy.

Then next, a million cases of various diet sodas dumped out of our planes. Aspartame! Weird those dudes out. Three months of diet-everything. They won’t be able to find their way back to their yurts. They’ll be bumping into rocks and trees, howling at the moon.

Now comes the heavy action. Carpet bomb the whole country with little TV sets. And beam in soaps, Judge Judy, Rachel Ray, Dave and Jay, Oprah, Little House on the Prairie reruns, Law and Order, CSI, and wait for it—sports! Soccer, and, you guessed it, women’s beach volleyball! Amazons wearing almost nothing running on sand, hour after hour!

“Hey, Ahmed, it’s time for the Friday night tribe meeting.”

“Shh! Beach volleyball! Then Victoria and Billy just adopted a baby. She can’t have kids. Billy paid two million for a little girl. But it’s actually Daisy’s baby. Nobody knows it!”

The fabric of Afghan society comes apart at the seams.

US planes fly over with a few million cases of Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, and Ritalin. Open the bomb-bay doors. Drop those suckers right down the slot. And tranqs! Valium! Old stocks of Librium.

On the ground, pills and capsules everywhere. You can’t walk by without picking a few up and swallowing them. It’s another law of nature.

So after a few more months, you’ve got the whole country hooked on meds. They’re weaving and wobbling and gnashing their teeth, when they aren’t completely zoned. A suicide problem begins to develop.

And finally, out of those blessed US planes comes the coup de grace. A few million computers. Wireless. Afghanistan is online, which means—that’s right—porn! Porn and gambling!

This, in a matter of, oh, six months, will totally destroy the Afghan culture, such as it is. You see, my friends, we’ve got weapons we didn’t know we had. Real weapons!

So we let all this simmer for a while. We let things take their natural course. We’re out of there. Not a single US casualty is being sustained.

And then, just to make sure we have the entire country enveloped and warped beyond repair, the CIA begins to broadcast, through all those TV sets and computers—take a deep breath—ready?—the AFGHAN HOME SHOPPING NETWORK!

Boom!

Oh yes, my friends, where there’s a will, there’s a way. Don’t bother bringing up the fact that the Afghan people don’t have money. They’ll find money! They’ll sell each other if they have to! They’ll pawn their yaks and rifles and take out second mortgages on their shacks and huts and yurts.

The Afghan Home Shopping Network won’t be denied. Shampoos, soap on a string, Kleenex, shower caps, earrings, toe rings, rugs, couches, square-dance instruction CDs, kitchen knives, scarves, fans, belts, undies, shoes, pet food, bird houses, pot holders, battery operated hair dryers, perfume, books on tape, storage containers, stockings, lipstick, eye shadow, bathrobes, self-improvement tapes, bracelets…

Victory.

Absolute conquest.

And not a shot fired.

Exit From the Matrix

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

And when the population begins to develop all sorts of serious symptoms from this campaign, as they surely will, we send in the doctors and the shrinks, and they diagnose! They diagnose diseases and illnesses and disorders from here to Sunday, and they prescribe more (toxic) drugs.

It’s a party.

We do to the Afghans what has been done to us.

Because you see, that’s the pattern. We know it intimately, because we’ve bought into it ourselves.

We’re already that kind of society. Who better to impose it on another population?

And when the people of Afghanistan are softened up, poisoned, and wrecked, we bring in the US public education system and install it. That way we pick up the few remaining holdouts, the kids who have this crazy idea that they want to think for themselves, and we bury them under social programming.

We get those kids collecting aluminum cans and cheering for the 50 or 60 vaccines they’re getting pumped into their already-weakened immune systems. At age six, we teach them the 206 sexual positions described in various ancient texts. We teach them everything equals everything and they must tolerate and respect and celebrate every conceivable point of view.

It’s a blast.

We fly planes over the country dumping chemtrails, and we put fluorides into every water system, to reduce IQ, increase compliance, and promote bone loss.

Now we’re ready for major media outlets. You know, newspapers and TV news networks that do 24/7 he-said he-said and quotes from experts. Beautiful.

And then we can have free elections with candidates from the two major parties. They grin and lie and run for office and people argue and vote and it doesn’t make any difference.

The war is over, no US troops died, no bullets were fired, no bombs were dropped, and everybody’s happy—depending on your definition of happy.

Every once in a while, when the Afghan people start to come out of their trance, the CIA stages a local massacre and the media go crazy. A demand for greater surveillance is invented.

From the high mountain ranges to the lowlands, we’ve got 100 or 200 million video cameras recording everybody, all phone conversations and emails are monitored, and thousands of drones overhead blanket the country with electronic eyeballs.

The government takes away guns. US guns, black-market guns, old Soviet guns, muskets, and stingers, scooped up and shipped to drug cartels for a handsome profit.

All food crops, all trees, all bushes, all weeds, all grass in the country are GMO. The city of Kabul is renamed Monsanto.

It works, it really does.

Pacification, modern style.

Then, back here at home, the Pentagon can take those assets they no longer need for foreign wars…add them to the present considerable DHS arsenal, and deploy them on the domestic front against the restive population, when necessary.

I hereby give the Smithsonian Institute the right to publish, store, and display my Afghanistan war plan along side other military memorabilia.

Sanity deserves a place in history.

Jon Rappoport

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