FBI tells America: believe us and no one else

by Jon Rappoport

April 19, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The implication is clear: there is official truth and then there is everything else. How many times has that assertion put America in the dumper?

As I write this, one suspect in the Marathon bombings is dead, and the other suspect is apparently surrounded in a house in Watertown, Massachsetts. (6:55AM, Pacific) The city of Boston is locked down.

Once events reach this point, an overwhelming number of people believe the authorities. They accept what is happening. The FBI must have it right. Reject all other possibilities.

That’s always a dangerous assumption.

Yesterday, at a heralded press conference, seen by millions around the world, Richard DesLauriers, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston division, produced photos and video of two suspects in the Marathon bombing.

He stated: “…these images should be the only ones, I emphasize, the only ones that the public should view to assist us. Other photos should not be deemed credible, and they unnecessarily divert the public’s attention in the wrong direction, and create undo work for vital law-enforcement resources.”

Translation: Ignore all the images uncovered by independent researchers, citizen reporters, bloggers. Forget, for example, about photos of those men who appear to work for Craft International, a private security contractor, who were standing at the finish line of the Marathon. We, the FBI, are running this show. We’re the pros, we deal, you behave.

NBC’s Brian Williams, the Unctuous One, in his lead-in to the press conference, said: “It’s been twenty-four hours of fits and starts, and false reports on people who have been pursued in this investigation, including folks who have been identified through photography, but this will be the word from the FBI.”

Translation: The guessing is over. Drum roll. The F B I has the real goods. Those other photos aren’t officially certified by law-enforcement, or by us, the fawning water carriers for the Bureau and DHS. And that unfortunate and cruel detention of the Saudi lad, who was misidentified as a suspect, but later released, his travel visa now revoked, his deportation back to Saudi Arabia underway, after an unscheduled meeting between Obama and the Saudi foreign minister? Means nothing. We were informed by reliable sources that it means nothing. We decide what’s relevant, we give it to you and you take it.

Richard DesLauriers, who starred in the FBI press conference, made his bones at the Bureau by engineering the exchange of 10 Russian sleeper agents in the US for four CIA agents who were in prison in Russia. That was his big career move.

The Russian sleeper agents had been operating under the nose of the FBI in the US, who, in typical fashion, weren’t making any arrests. They were just tracking these Russian spies and watching them, for more than 10 years, as the spies passed across intelligence to their Russian controls.

This was a very delicate exchange, mainly because FBI field agents a) didn’t want to let the Russians go back home and escape prosecution and b) because the FBI and the CIA hate each other, and the FBI people weren’t all that enthused about the value of the deal. Bring home four CIA people in return for releasing 10 Russian sleeper agents? Nothing to celebrate there.

So now Richard DesLauriers is telling the American people: look at the photos of the two men on the FBI’s radar and nobody else. Ignore all other photos and all other information.

Harken back, if you will, to another bombing incident. Oklahoma City, in 1995. The Murrah Federal Building. Remember? Tim McVeigh? The FBI was cooking the books on that one all the way.

Just one example: A secret Department of Justice report on the bombing was presented to a very select audience. This DOJ report wasn’t undertaken voluntarily. No. FBI whistleblower Frederic Whitehurst had forced it to happen, because he’d gone public and said the FBI lab had fabricated evidence in the McVeigh case.

Serious evidence. It turned out there was no reason to believe ammonium nitrate (fertilizer) had been the main explosive used to blow apart the Federal Building on the morning of April 19, 1995. A FBI lab supervisor named David Williams had decided ammonium nitrate was the substance because defendant Terry Nichols possessed a receipt for its purchase.

So Williams made the lab evidence look like it confirmed ammonium nitrate. But it didn’t.

The DOJ report detailing all this was so damning, the judge in the McVeigh trial ran away from it like a wild horse. He refused to allow the report into evidence. He forbade it from being discussed at all.

Why was this so crucial? Because independent bomb experts had gone on the record with a quite different scenario. I interviewed three of them. They agreed that an ammonium nitrate bomb, in the Ryder truck at the curb, parked in front of the Federal Building, could not have caused the profile of damage sustained by the building. Impossible.

Therefore, McVeigh, whatever he was guilty or not guilty of, had accomplices. Professionals, who had wired charges into the columns of the structure. These charges had wrought the real destruction.

But the FBI did everything in its power to focus on McVeigh and and the amateur Nichols only. They ruled out every other lead, and there were plenty of them.

The FBI essentially said, “These are the two suspects. Don’t look for anybody else. Pay no attention to anyone who says there are other perpetrators. They’re crazies. We know the truth.”

Just like now.

In 1995, Americans completely bought into the false FBI evidence and story.

Once the FBI rolls and the news media back up the FBI, it’s a fait accompli. The public automatically follows suit. How could things be any different? How could so many resources be devoted to anything but the truth?

“The FBI killed one terrorist. Now they have his brother, the other bomber, surrounded. This is it. This is the only story. Everything else is nonsense.”

Yes, no, and maybe are reduced to yes.

“The FBI would never have come this far with the case if they didn’t have things right.”

Yes, that was exactly the mindset in Oklahoma City in 1995. Until it wasn’t. Until independent researchers uncovered miles of undiscovered information about other suspects and FBI lies.

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

Even the NY Times is now rejecting Monsanto GMO science

Apr10

Even the NY Times is now rejecting Monsanto GMO science

by Jon Rappoport

April 9, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

This isn’t a leak. It isn’t a timid flow. It’s a flood.

I’m talking about about the criticism of Monsanto’s so-called science of genetically-engineered food.

For the past 20 years, independent researchers have been attacking Monsanto science in various ways, and finally the NY Times has joined the crowd.

But it’s the way Mark Bittman, lead food columnist for the Times magazine, does it that really crashes the whole GMO delusion. Writing in his April 2 column, “Why Do G.M.O.’s Need Protection?”, Bittman leads with this:

“Genetic engineering in agriculture has disappointed many people who once had hopes for it.”

As in: the party’s over, turn out the lights.

Bittman explains: “…genetic engineering, or, more properly, transgenic engineering – in which a gene, usually from another species of plant, bacterium or animal, is inserted into a plant in the hope of positively changing its nature – has been disappointing.”

As if this weren’t enough, Bittman spells it out more specifically: “In the nearly 20 years of applied use of G.E. in agriculture there have been two notable ‘successes,’ along with a few less notable ones. These are crops resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (Monsanto develops both the seeds and the herbicide to which they’re resistant) and crops that contain their own insecticide. The first have already failed, as so-called superweeds have developed resistance to Roundup, and the second are showing signs of failing, as insects are able to develop resistance to the inserted Bt toxin — originally a bacterial toxin — faster than new crop variations can be generated.”

Bittman goes on to write that superweed resistance was a foregone conclusion; scientists understood, from the earliest days of GMOs, that spraying generations of these weeds with Roundup would give us exactly what we have today: failure of the technology to prevent what it was designed to prevent. The weeds wouldn’t die out. They would retool and thrive.

“The result is that the biggest crisis in monocrop agriculture – something like 90 percent of all soybeans and 70 percent of corn is grown using Roundup Ready seed – lies in glyphosate’s inability to any longer provide total or even predictable control, because around a dozen weed species have developed resistance to it.” Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup.

Just as the weeds developed resistance and immunity to the herbicide, insects that were supposed to be killed by the toxin engineered into Monsanto’s BT crops are also surviving.

Five years ago, it would have been unthinkable that the NY Times would print such a complete rejection of GMO plant technology. Now, it’s “well, everybody knows.”

The Times sees no point in holding back any longer.

Of course, if it were a newspaper with any real courage, it would launch a whole series of front-page pieces on this enormous failure, and the gigantic fraud that lies behind it. Then the Times might actually see its readership improve.

Momentum is something its editors understand well enough. You set your hounds loose on a story, you send them out with a mandate to expose failure, fraud, and crime down to their roots, and you know that, in the ensuing months, formerly reticent researchers and corporate employees and government officials will appear out of the woodwork confessing their insider knowledge.

The story will deepen. It will take on new branches. The revelations will indict the corporation (Monsanto), its government partners, and the scientists who falsified and hid data.

In this case, the FDA and the USDA will come in for major hits. They will backtrack and lie and mis-explain, for a while, and then, like buds in the spring, agency employees will emerge and admit the truth. These agencies were co-conspirators.

And once the story unravels far enough, the human health hazards and destruction wreaked by GMOs will take center stage. All the bland pronouncements about “nobody has gotten sick from GMOs” will evaporate in the wind.

It won’t simply be, “Well, we never tested health dangers adequately,” it’ll be, “We knew there was trouble from the get-go.”

Yes, the Times could make all this happen. But it won’t. There are two basic reasons. First, it considers Big Ag too big to fail. There is now so much acreage in America tied up in GMO crops that to reject the whole show would cause titanic eruptions on many levels.

And second, the Times is part of the very establishment that views the GMO industry as a way of bringing Globalism to fruition for the whole planet.

Centralizing the food supply in a few hands means the population of the world, in the near future, will eat or not eat according to the dictates of a few unelected men. Redistribution of basic resources to the people of Earth, from such a control point, is what Globalism is all about:

“Naturally, we love you all, but decisions must be made. You people over here will live well, you people over there will live not so well, and you people back there will live not at all.

“This is our best judgment. Don’t worry, be happy.”

Jon Rappoport

Experiencing an erection of collectivism lasting 4 hours? Stop watching MSNBC

Apr8

Experiencing an erection of collectivism lasting 4 hours? Stop watching MSNBC.

By Jon Rappoport

April 6, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Bye-bye daddy, bye-bye mommy: MSNBC discovers who children really belong to. Finally. This burning question has been answered. What a relief.

Melissa Harris-Perry, a university professor and weekend host at MSNBC shares the wisdom:

“We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, because we’ve always had a kind of private notion of children—‘your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.’ We haven’t had a very collective notion of ‘these are our children.’ So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments.”

How many ways to take this hogwash apart?

A “kind of private notion of children.” Yes, how primitive. I mean, only bitter clingers would ascribe to this ancient concept, right? Such parents need re-education, they need to move into the modern age and embrace many mothers and fathers, including I suppose, Melissa Harris-Perry herself, although I’m sure her schedule is already overcrowded. But perhaps she’s good for a nod and a wink between violin practice and soccer games where nobody wins.

Then, precisely what community should own your kids? Your block, neighborhood, town, city, nation? People you know? People you don’t know and never will? A coalition? Perhaps…the government? Ah yes, that would would be it, wouldn’t it?

Because, as any good collectivist knows, the government is the ultimate “expression” of the people. The government creates, manages, and sustains the collective. The government decides, the people comply. The government knows best.

Therefore, all you whacko parents out there; stop thinking your children belong to you. You’re wrong.

Hillary Clinton knew this. That’s why she wrote It Takes a Village, another collectivist manifesto. Except her community happens to be nannies, the Secret Service, the State Department, the Senate, and the White House.

Since Melissa Harris-Perry is discussing public education, you can be sure the collective solution to your kids will involve more vaccines, more psychiatric appointments, more diagnoses of fictitious mental disorders, and more doling out of highly toxic and violence-inducing drugs.

More sex-ed at age five and six, since you parents don’t have a clue about sex and shouldn’t be allowed to approach it. More instruction about “sharing” as the basis of all knowledge.

Essentially, a collective is a group of people teaching others about the primacy of the group. It’s a madhouse from start to finish. It takes the principle of the inviolate individual and burns it to the ground.

It attacks the family precisely because the family resists the collective in any society where a few shreds of freedom remain. The family is a potentially dangerous source of decentralized power.

Harris-Perry is really advocating the sacrifice of your children to the “wider problem of all children.” Don’t raise your kids according to your own best principles. No. Give them over to “the wiser ones.” Let’s all do that.

Her solution also, of course, involves an enormous shift of responsibility. Parents can unload that burden. The “community” will shoulder it. I can’t wait.

This is the strategy of regression to the lowest common denominator. Since there are truly horrible parents out there who can’t handle family life, let’s all give up the primary job of raising children in order to save those parents who are abject failures.

Behind this is the program to destroy families and elevate the State. Make no mistake about it. It’s an op from the ground up, and always has been.

Just as state and county and city governments have been targets for the federal government, so is the family. The idea is to overwhelm all opposition to federal power. Under the mask, that is the naked face of the collective: everybody organized under central dominion.

Going still further, we enter the Globalist plan. Institute a world collective, in which every citizen is directly beholden to Earth’s princes and their bureaucrats, “for the good of all.”

It’s a stage-magic trick. Erase the individual and all he stands for. He was here—and then, poof, he’s gone. A mere trace of a memory remains.

If Melissa Harris-Perry wanted to talk about family, you’d think she would have stressed the greater responsibility of a mother and father. At home. She would have talked about alcoholic parents, inattention toward kids, the need to take home life very seriously. But instead, she went the other way.

She didn’t even offer a tip of the hat to churches, neighbors, clubs, cousins, uncles, grandparents—those people who do, in fact, form communities. Not grist for her mill. No, because she’s talking about money. Spending more money on public education. And for that, you need myth and fairy tale.

You need the disastrous construct of a public institution that will carry the job of bringing up children.

As if that were possible.

Perry rejects Private in favor of Government, which is her bread and butter. Public policy. Abstractions seeking a New World.

Much in the same way, Obama endlessly mouths, “We’re all in this together.”

The “this” turns to be the surrender of fierce freedom and independence.

I would like to see millions more parents deliver the correct response to Perry. Home schooling. That would solve it. That would deliver a profound message:

Babble on as long as you want to about pie-in-the-sky communities; try to melt the citizenry down into one giant glob of goo; fake your way into legends of better and more expensive schools replacing parents.

It’s for nothing. People know you’re a hyping con artist. People know that families and good education begin with real parents and can’t succeed without them.

The “new collective spirit” is very old. As old as the hills. College kids who know as much history as caterpillars out for a stroll after the rain are buying this lunacy, but when they leave the friendly confines of school, they’ll discover the only place they can find a job is with the government.

And that tells us something about who will swell the ranks of the collective. Those who have been rendered disabled by education. This is the public department Perry wants to improve.

We need more money to brainwash more children. That’s the underlying message.

To spread it, you only need one college with one cheap four-year class: the students sit in front of their laptops and phones and watch MSNBC 24/7.

To those students whose breath can still fog a mirror, you offer a piece of paper after four years. The paper tells them they’ve matriculated, and they can now be reborn as mosquito drones and launch out into the atmosphere of big government and find a communal nest.

O wonder of wonders. Parenting was unnecessary.

Jon Rappoport

Own a gun, kill an intruder, get paid leave

Apr3

Own a gun, kill a home invader, get paid leave? Here’s how.

By Jon Rappoport

April 3, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Midnight, Monday, April 1. Hot Sulphur Springs, Colorado.

A home. Somebody at the door.

Wife makes 911 call, reports a person “behaving very erratically.”

Man breaks into the house.

Husband and wife have “altercation” with the man.

Both husband and wife have guns.

They both shoot the man. He dies.

Husband and wife sustain minor injuries. Bosses at work place them on paid leave.

No prosecution, no problem.

New Colorado gun laws, passed in the wake of the Aurora and Sandy Hook massacres, require background checks for all gun purchases and set a limit of 15 rounds on clips. Gun owners in the state fear the background checks are a first step toward targeting all gun owners in the state.

But the forced introduction of this new culture doesn’t produce a single ripple or question in the Hot Sulphur Springs home-invasion shooting.

Oh. Wait. That’s because…

The wife is a Colorado deputy district attorney and her husband is a sheriff’s deputy.

They can shoot a home intruder and no one uses that incident to bray and whine about armed citizens killing criminals. They can get paid leave from work and everybody immediately understands.

Reporters don’t bother to press the issue. Was the intruder armed? No question, no answer. Was he really a threat to life and limb? No question, no answer. How exactly did he get into the house? No question, no answer. What are the names of the prosecutor and the sheriff’s deputy? No answer.

That’s called a clue. A clue about where this new gun culture is really heading. As if we didn’t know. Cops and law-enforcement personnel, along with criminals, will have all the guns. Everybody else will have a wooden spoon from the kitchen drawer and a bowl of custard.

Imagine what would have happened if the Hot Sulphur Springs couple had been private citizens, civilians.

“Police are measuring the exact distance from the front door, to see how far the intruder moved into the living room before he was mowed down.”

“Police are checking to see where the couple purchased their weapons.”

“Questions are being raised about the ‘altercation’ that took place before shots were fired. How serious or threatening was it?”

Did the intruder say ‘give me your money or I’ll kill you,’ or did he say ‘say something funny or I’ll bill you.’

“Was the intruder armed? If not, was he killed in cold blood?”

“Gun control groups today offered the following advice: allow the intruder to take all your possessions. Don’t engage in an argument, even if you’re trained to fire a gun. It’s too risky.”

“Assume a fetal position, and if you’re a person of faith, pray. Some studies show that prayer can work miracles.”

“A smile can turn a rainy day into sunshine.”

You should have gone into law-enforcement. Then you would have had the absolute right, when off-duty, to blow away a home invader. Isn’t that the real lesson here?

But if you’re standing in your living room at midnight facing a person who may want to kill you, and you’re just a civilian, you need to process, in a second, the chances that, if you shoot the intruder, you’ll be raked over hot coals by investigators. You have to balance being charged with a very serious felony against the advantage of protecting yourself and your family.

And in the new gun culture, you have to come up with the right answer before you die.

But hey. Not to worry. Even if you do die, you can know you’re contributing to a better world. A world in which peace will ultimately reign. Isn’t that worth your life?

All will be well. Police and criminals will wage their war and, in the long run, the police will win. Then there will be no more crime, ever. Future generations will be safe. Citizens will obey. They will do exactly what they’re told.

If a huge tank comes at them in the street, they will lie down in front of it, not as a sign of protest, but in the spirit of compliance. The State must be right. The State is always right.

Or, as I say, if you really want to kill people, if you really need to scratch that itch, become a cop.

See? These questions aren’t hard to solve, not when you stop and think about them.

Source: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/03/3321794/man-shot-dead-at-home-of-colo.html

Jon Rappoport

Top 10 excuses for Obama signing the Monsanto Protection Act

Mar28

Top 10 excuses for Obama signing the Monsanto Protection Act

by Jon Rappoport

March 28, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Yes, he signed HR 993. It was a bill funding the federal government. There was a rider in it. A Monsanto and biotech rider.

The gist of the rider is: a dangerous ghoulish GMO food crop can’t be stopped by a court order. That crop can still be grown, harvested, and sold in the US.

Isn’t that wonderful? Isn’t it grand?

250,000 people signed an emergency letter to Obama, telling him to send HR 993 back to Congress so the rider could be removed. He didn’t.

Of course, there must be some mistake here, because we all know Obama is the radiant messiah. Right? He’s constantly assuring us “we’re all in this together.”

He would never allow such a rider to pass through his hands and become law, because GMO food IS, in fact, dangerous to human health and is part of an overall plan to put the planet’s food supply into the hands of Monsanto.

Therefore, Obama has excuses. He surely does.

I propose the following ten. You can take your pick and thereby sustain your belief in his mission of bringing peace and love to the world. He’s not just another arch conman who scuttled into the White House. Of course not.

He would never support Monsanto in its drive to patent life forms, own the food supply, drench the world in more pesticides, engineer RNA so it silences and activates genes in the body in random fashion, leading to incalculable consequences for the human race.

He would never come down on the wrong side of the issue that could supersede all others in shaping the future of the human race.

So pick your favorite excuse:

Obama didn’t know what he was signing. He was too busy with other matters. He was on vacation. He was checking his brackets on March Madness. He thought that letter of protest, signed by 250,000 people, was about some new TV show called Monsanto Rider, a Western.

He’ll tell us that, just like the NDAA, which allows him to unilaterally assassinate Americans, this Monsanto rider will never be enforced. It’s just for show. It’s, well, an IDEA, not really a law. It doesn’t set a precedent destroying the power of the judicial system. No. We’re getting our knickers in a twist over nothing. Relax.

He and Michelle are secretly planning, along with Chief Chef Bloomberg, an organic food revolution in America that will sweep aside all resistance.

Obama has inside information we aren’t privy to. It exonerates Monsanto. Astonishingly, Monsanto turns out to be an agent of hope and change.

Obama is Obama. Because his character is basically other-worldly (in a good sense), he would never do harm. Therefore, a priori, the Monsanto rider is all right. We need not worry. Be happy.

All great prophets must undergo tests and survive crises. This is one of those tests. Sooner or later, Obama will reverse course and expose Monsanto for the diabolical son of Satan it is. Just wait. Be patient.

Obama knows full well how hideous Monsanto is on the world scene, how it is gobbling up seed companies and destroying farmers and putting Frankensteinian genetic distortions into our very bodies. He’s just giving Monsanto enough rope to hang itself. He’s allowing Monsanto to operate freely so it can reveal, to humanity, its Grinning Skull—and thence be overthrown by popular revolution. Again, wait. Be patient. “We’re all in this together.”

Obama was drugged by Monsanto operatives. When he wakes up, he won’t remember he signed the bill, nor will he ever know he signed it. This drug can selectively inhibit his mind on that single item. If he ever reads that he signed it, he’ll think he’s reading about Harry Reid buying three casinos in Vegas and having plastic surgery to look like James Bond.

Obama never signed the bill. A lookalike double was brought in to do the deed. Obama is now living under heavy guard, along with Piers Morgan, in a Texas compound run by a bevy of full-auto maximum-clip country women.

Joe Biden, who only pretends to be off his rocker and minus a few dozen light bulbs, is actually running the country. He is Obama’s Cheney. Joe gave the order to sign the bill.

There are your ten. Pick your fave.

Just in case you still think Obama is only peripherally involved with Monsanto, here is the evidence that you’re sadly mistaken. I compiled it some months ago and published it:

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

These activists weren’t just reading tea leaves. On the campaign trail, Obama said: “Let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they’re buying.”

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

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

Then came the reality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monsanto GMO alfalfa.

Monsanto GMO sugar beets.

Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.

Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.

Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.

Syngenta GMO stacked corn.

Pioneer GMO soybean.

Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.

Bayer GMO cotton.

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

A GMO papaya strain.

And soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

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

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

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

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

Obama was lying all along. He was, and he still is, Monsanto’s man in Washington.

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

Wake up.

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Rappoport

Monsanto proves that corporations don’t run the government

Mar27

Monsanto proves that corporations don’t run the government

by Jon Rappoport

March 27, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Collectivists have a favorite target. Big bad corporations. This is a complete scam. Why did Goldman Sachs turn out to be the biggest funder of Obama’s 2008 election bid? Why weren’t the corporate banksters who demanded and received those enormous bailouts, under both Bush and Obama, prosecuted for crimes?

Collectivists actually love big corporations. Collectivists just want to distract us from their real goals. And in order to enact those goals, they need banks, they need the military-industrial complex, they need Big Pharma and Big Oil.

They especially need somebody to control the world’s food supply, because that’s one of the ultimate squeeze plays on the global population. So who do they bow down to, in that arena? Monsanto, Dow, DuPont.

Washington politicians aren’t victims who can’t fight off big bad corporations. They aren’t at the mercy of those corporations. That’s a load of nonsense. That’s Politics 101 for brainwashed college students.

O poor little politicians! No power. No way to win against the big boys. No chance.

If you buy that, you’re ready to buy condos on Mars.

Politicians play the victim tune because it diverts attention away from them. It shifts the blame and responsibility.

Asking Congress to pass laws canceling corporate donations to their election campaigns, and instituting instead “public funding,” is a joke. That’s not going to happen, and even if it did, politicians would find back doors.

Bottom line: the politicians want to be in bed with corporations. To say that our elected representatives can’t resist corporate money is like saying people aren’t responsible for their own corrupt practices. It may be fashionable to assume that everyone is a pawn and a victim, but it doesn’t hold water.

So we come to the so-called Monsanto Protection Act, the rider to a funding bill that just sailed through the Senate, and is awaiting Obama’s signature. This sneak measure will nullify court decisions to ban GMO crops while those crops are under review for being “potentially dangerous.”

Here, again, we hear excuses made for the politicians. They didn’t know the rider was in the bill, they didn’t read it, they didn’t understand the consequences, they were played by Monsanto and other biotech giants.

If you sit in the Senate and vote yes on a bill, and you didn’t read the bill, whose fault is that? If you allow one of these thousand-page monstrosities to pass into law, and you don’t know the full meaning of it, and you don’t make a huge stink about it in public, what good are you?

If you allow Monsanto to take over your vote, is whining and complaining after the fact of any use?

Of course Monsanto is a crime boss. Of course it’s in the process of degrading life on planet Earth. Yes, we know that. But to say it can’t be stopped because the politicians are “under its sway” is an egregious lie.

“Oh, the big corporations own America.” I’ve heard that just as you have, for decades. And it’s a true statement because the people in government who could resist the takeover don’t. They surrender. They sit there. They take money. They lie. They participate in their own corruption.

The victim mindset always blames somebody else. That’s the way it works. So the people who love big government and support a collectivist state are going to exonerate government and accuse corporations of stealing the country.

Corporations have stolen the country, side by side with the politicians who have sold their own principles and their own souls.

The theft is a team operation. It always has been.

Robert Anton Wilson once wrote: The political left hates big corporations; the political right hates big government; and they’re both correct.

But as long as the hatred is split down the middle and channeled into two separate beds of foul festering crime, the divide-and-conquer operation succeeds.

GMOs have spread across the world. Who forwarded that agenda? Presidents, legislators, and the biotech giants. Together.

Who stacked his administration with ex-Monsanto people? The current sitting president.

Again, it’s fashionable to say the juggernaut of corporations is too powerful for government to resist. That’s absurd. The government has multiple agencies that could cause lethal trouble for mega-corporations. But it doesn’t happen.

When Eisenhower left the presidency, he famously warned against the growing power of the military-industrial complex. The military is part of the government. Eisenhower wasn’t just accusing corporations.

Since its inception, the CIA, a government agency, has run interference for corporations in foreign lands, subverting and even overthrowing governments that were unfriendly to these corporations’ agendas.

Is Monsanto clever and relentless? Of course. But they don’t win alone. They have political partners in America at every level.

This latest fiasco, the Monsanto Protection Act, isn’t written in stone. It could be repealed, even after passage, by a new piece of legislation. The Congress could do it. The fact that they won’t speaks volumes about their character.

Once you realize the global Monsanto takeover is an operation deploying both corporate and government forces, the idea that the federal government is “here to help us,” a notion that has gained much currency during Obama’s reign, goes into the garbage can.

Many people can’t handle that. One way or another, through one ideological lens or another, they have to see Washington DC as a shining city on the hill. It’s a prime feature of their religion.

Washington is also a source of financial aid. Whether we’re talking about a small welfare check or massive contracts let out to companies, the federal government is in the business of buying friends.

This largesse contains its own buried rider: don’t resist what the government’s corporate allies are doing. If the federal government says or implies that Monsanto is good, it’s good.

“Well,” Clinton supporters and Bush supporters and Obama supporters say, “the government does make mistakes. They do let big corporations slide and skate and gain certain advantages. You see, politics is a gray area. It’s confusing. There are all sorts of conflicts and partnerships and deals, because that’s the way of the world. You can’t fight that. A compromise is made here in order to do something good over there…”

No, Virginia, it’s a lot worse than that. Government and corporations march and dance together to their own music, shredding the law and the Constitution as they go.

These partners have made sure that GMOs spread everywhere. These partners make sure Big Pharma is protected against prosecution for heinous crimes. It’s business as usual, and it takes two to tango.

The Monsanto Protection Act isn’t just a slimy move by a huge corporation. It’s a collaborative effort.

All those corporate lobbyists who infect Washington with their machinations and their money? Are they really imposing their will on politicians because those pols are at their mercy? In a victim’s dream, yes. But in reality, any legislator who tells himself he can’t get reelected unless he takes corporate money is really saying he won’t stand up on his two hind legs and blow the whistle on the whole stinking system.

If one, five, 10, 20 Congressmen started exposing the real government-corporate game, loudly and passionately and eloquently, we’d see a crisis that would make the fiscal cliff and sequestration look like a child’s birthday party.

Names would be named. Crimes would be detailed. Endemic corruption would float to the surface and sit there steaming, for all to see.

People who view themselves as chronic victims view the world in those terms. They see government as the victim of corporations. They forward and promote this big lie. They make endless excuses and spin endless fairy tales.

Let’s opt instead for a more stark approach: Congressional scum just passed a rider protecting Monsanto from getting the justice it deserves. It’s never too late to reverse that decision.

That’s more realistic.

How many times have legislators been “duped” by sneaky bills passing through their hands? At what point are they supposed to wake up and do something about it?

When you’ve had the farm stolen from you a few thousand times, and you’ve done nothing about it, there’s only one conclusion possible: you like it that way.

Jon Rappoport

Brand new GMO food can rewire your body: more evil coming

Mar26

Brand new GMO food can rewire your body: more evil coming

by Jon Rappoport

March 26, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

It’s already bad. Very bad. For the past 25 years, the biotech Dr. Frankensteins have been inserting DNA into food crops.

The widespread dangers of this technique have been exposed. People all over the world, including many scientists and farmers, are up in arms about it.

Countries have banned GMO crops or insisted on labeling.

Now, though, the game is changing, and it’ll make things even more unpredictable. The threat is ominous and drastic, to say the least.

GM Watch reports the latest GMO innovation: designed food plants that make new double-stranded (ds) RNA. What does the RNA do? It can silence a gene. It can activate a gene that was silent.

If you imagine the gene structure as a board covered with light bulbs, in the course of living some genes light up (activation) and some genes go dark (silent) at different times. This new designed RNA can change that process. No one knows how.

No one knows because no safety studies have been done. If you have genes lighting up and going dark in unpredictable ways, the functions of a plant or a body can change randomly.

Genes that were doing their jobs could stop doing their jobs. Other genes that were dormant could spring into action and perform tasks that weren’t meant to be performed.

Think of this latest biotech “innovation” as a drunk playing pinball. Lights on the board go on and off, and TILT is always a distinct possibility.

As GM Watch reports, an Australian company, CSIRO, has designed wheat and barley seeds that put genes to sleep, “to change the type of starch made by the plant.”

Also on the way: next-generation biopesticide food crops that repel insect predators. In this case, the designer RNA can be injected or even sprayed. When a gene is silenced in the insect, it dies.

GM Watch states there is published evidence that the designer RNA can move from the plants into the bodies of people who eat the plants, outlasting cooking and digestion, and winding up in the bloodstream.

The RNA has changed gene-expression (activation/silencing) in mice.

Several food-safety inspectors in several countries have been interviewed. They simply rubber-stamp the new RNA technology, assuming it’s safe. No problem.

Pinball, roulette, use any metaphor you want to; this is playing with the fate of the human race. Walk around with designer-RNA in your body, and who knows what effects will follow.

There are still people, at this late date, who believe that all science is good science. They blithely accept the latest thing, and refuse to acknowledge that scientists can be crazy, stupid, or malevolent. They also fail to make the connection between junk science and the greed for profit at any human cost.

Biotech giants like Monsanto view their genetic operation from an entirely different level. Every new DNA or RNA tweak to a plant—no matter how insane—allows them to file a patent, to own that new artificially designed piece of Nature. This is their approach, and it’s obvious they intend to control the planet’s food supply.

It’s a mafia program writ large across the whole world: “buy from us or else; pay us our cut.”

Meanwhile, the damage they inflict is of no concern to them, as the spinning of the genetic roulette wheel opens up the human race to vast mutations.

The new Monsanto Protection Act, as it’s called, is a cynical piece of legislation that underlines this lack of concern; it torpedoes the ability of the court system to stop new gene-designed crops from popping up everywhere.

Source: GM Watch, 3/22/13, “New paper on dsRNA risks—briefing for non-specialists.”

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14717:new-paper-on-dsrna-risks-briefing-for-non-specialists

Jon Rappoport

James Holmes, and how the CIA hid their MKULTRA mind-control program

Mar20

by Jon Rappoport

March 20, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

Back in the early 1990s, I interviewed John Marks, author of Search for the Manchurian Candidate. This was the book that exposed the existence of the infamous CIA MKULTRA program.

I bring up this interview now, because James Holmes may well be on the receiving end of MKULTRA, as his lawyers try to navigate an insanity plea in the Aurora massacre case.

Holmes will be given “truth drugs” to “refresh his memory” about his state of mind at the time of the killings. If that sounds absurd, it is. I wrote a piece the other day detailing how such drugs are often given to produce extreme terror in patients. In other words, the drugs don’t elicit the truth. They’re used as threats to force the patient/suspect to confess to whatever his torturers want him to confess to.

John Marks related the following facts to me. He had filed many Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests to the CIA for documents relating to their mind-control program. He got nothing back.

Finally, as if to play a joke on him, someone at the CIA sent Marks 10 boxes of financial and accounting records. The attitude was, “Here, see what you can do with this.”

I’ve seen some of those records. They’re very boring reading.

But Marks went through them, and lo and behold, he found he could piece together MKULTRA projects, based on the funding data.

Eventually, he assembled enough information to begin naming names. He conducted interviews. The shape of MKULTRA swam into view. And so he wrote his book, Search for the Manchurian Candidate.

He told me that three important books had been written about MKULTRA, and they all stemmed from those 10 boxes of CIA financial records. There was his own book; Operation Mind Control by Walter Bowart; and The Mind Manipulators by Alan Scheflin and Edward Opton.

Marks continued to press the CIA for more MKULTRA information. He explained to me what then happened. A CIA official told him the following: in 1962, after ten years of mind-control experiments, the whole program had been shifted over to another internal CIA department, the Office of Research and Development (ORD).

The ORD had a hundred boxes of information on their MKULTRA work, and there was no way under the sun, Marks was told, that he was ever going to get his hands on any of that. It was over. It didn’t matter how many FOIA requests Marks filed. He was done. The door was shut. Goodbye.

The CIA went darker than it ever had before. No leaks of any kind would be permitted.

In case there is any doubt about it, the idea of relying on the CIA to admit what it has done in the mind-control area, what it is doing, and what it will do should be put to bed by John Mark’s statements. The CIA always has been, and will continue to be, a rogue agency beyond the reach of the law.

Since it is the agency with the most experience using “truth drugs,” when James Holmes is put on ice at a Colorado mental hospital, to go through what the judge has permitted—a “narcoanalytic review” to test Holmes’ state of mind—it’s probable that CIA people will be on hand to advise.

The Colorado in-house psychiatrists know nothing about the use of truth drugs. They especially don’t know how to employ those drugs to produce just enough terror in the patient to get him to admit to Anything.

To give you an idea of how far the CIA, the US military, and its allied academics will go in MKULTRA “research,” here is what I wrote in 1995 about several human experiments. My information was based on the three key books I mentioned above, as well as Martin Lee’s classic, Acid Dreams:

“Dr. Robert Heath of Tulane University, as early as 1955, working for the Army, gave patients LSD while he had electrodes implanted deep inside their brains.”

“In the mid-1950’s, Paul Hoch, M.D., a man who would become Commissioner of Mental Hygiene for the State of New York, then a laborer in the field for the CIA, gave a ‘pseudoneurotic schizophrenic’ patient mescaline. The patient had a not-unfamiliar heaven-and-hell journey on the compound. But Hoch followed this up with a transorbital leucotomy [aka lobotomy]… Hoch also gave a patient LSD, and a local anesthetic, and then proceeded to remove pieces of cerebral cortex, asking at various moments whether the patient’s perceptions were changing.”

People need to understand how the history of mind control and psychiatry are interwoven, and how the madmen and murderers within these “professions” are content to use torture “in the name of science.”

From a current naturalnews article by Dr. Peter Breggin (“Never again! The real history of psychiatry”) we get insight into one aspect of that history:

“[Before World War 2, in America], organized psychiatry had been sterilizing tens of thousands of Americans. For a time in California, you couldn’t be discharged from a state hospital unless you were sterilized. In Virginia the retarded were targeted. American advocates of sterilization went to Berlin to help the Nazis plan their sterilization program. These Americans reassured the Germans that they would meet no opposition from America in sterilizing their mentally and physically ‘unfit’ citizens.

“While the murder of mental patients was going full swing in Germany, knowledgeable American psychiatrists and neurologists didn’t want to be left out. In 1942, the American Psychiatric Association held a debate about whether to sterilize or to murder low IQ ‘retarded’ children when they reached the age of five. Those were the only two alternatives in the debate: sterilization or death.

“After the debate, the official journal of the American Psychiatric Association published an editorial in which it chose sides in favor of murder (‘Euthanasia’ in the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1942, volume 99, pp. 141-143). It said psychiatrists would have to muster their psychological skills to keep parents from feeling guilty about agreeing to have their children killed.”

(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.

The CIA, James Holmes, MKULTRA, and truth-serum torture

Mar18

By Jon Rappoport

March 18, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

In 2002, author Martin Lee wrote an article for Common Dreams: “Truth Serum and Torture.”

It could have been written yesterday, because now a Colorado judge has stated that, if James Holmes pleads not guilty by reason of insanity to the Aurora murders, state psychiatrists can subject him to drugs that will “help him remember his state of mind” at the time of the shootings. The drugging will reveal whether he really was insane that night last summer at the Aurora theater.

Well, when it comes to so-called truth drugs like sodium pentothal, sodium amatyl, scopolamine, mescaline, LSD, and hypnotic benzodiazepines, where are the pros with real experience?

At run-of-the-mill psychiatric wards? No. Those hacks in the Colorado state hospital system have rarely if ever tried out the drugs for the purpose of getting at the truth.

But the CIA has up-to-date interrogators around, and thousands of pages of MKULTRA (mind control) literature, that constitute the best experience in this dark art.

Therefore, it’s highly probable the CIA or their independent contractors will be sitting in on James Holmes’ drug-induced sessions, supervising them, giving advice. It’s the Ghostbusters motto: “Who ya gonna call?”

Martin Lee points out that, even before the CIA was created, its forerunner, the OSS, tried out a cannabis extract as a truth serum. This was back in the 1940s. Lee goes on to trace US intelligence-agency and military “leadership” in truth-drug testing.

In 1947, the US Navy Project Chatter, borrowing from Nazi studies, moved on to experiments with mescaline as a truth drug.

Shortly after its inception, in the late 1940s, the CIA used drugging with sedatives, plus hypnosis, to extract secrets from agents. This method, and barbiturates alternated with amphetamines, were soon rolled up into the infamous and overarching MKULTRA mind-control program, with its hundreds of sub-projects. MKULTRA was all about developing chemical means of eliciting truth from prisoners, along with creating unconscious assassins.

In the 1950s, the CIA employed LSD in Operation Artichoke. People don’t know or forget that, while LSD failed to qualify as a reliable truth serum, its use in very high doses produced extreme terror in people being interrogated. It was this effect, as straight-out torture, the CIA capitalized on. The idea was simple. Demand the truth and threaten with extreme-dose LSD as the alternative.

We shouldn’t discount the possibility that James Holmes, once he enters an insanity plea, and is sent away to a secure hospital for psychiatric eval, will be given drugs that produce the kind of mad panic that will convince him to say, in court, exactly what his handlers want him to say.

Back in 2002, Martin Lee wrote that William Webster, former head of the CIA and FBI, was recommending the use of truth drugs on terrorism suspects under US detention. This statement spurred a significant amount of media coverage at the time.

But in the ensuing years, very few people have bothered to ask the key question: Why should we assume that waterboarding and isolation tanks and sleep deprivation are the only torture methods the CIA/military are employing on these prisoners? What about the drugs?

In particular—because no drug has ever been found to reliably elicit the truth—what about the use of drugs to produce panic and wild terror, as a way to force people to tell what they know, or confess to what they’re told to.

It’s obvious, given the history, that US interrogators have, in fact, been using these drugs on detained terrorism suspects.

Lee ends his prescient article with a chilling quote from former CIA chief of counterterrorism, Vince Cannistraro, that reflects directly the James Holmes situation in 2013:

“Once you’ve used [truth drugs] for national security cases, then it becomes a standard. Sodium pentathol is not that effective, and so you have to use something stronger, It’s a short skip and a hop to LSD, or something worse.”

These drugs are certainly being used in national security cases. Therefore, as Cannistraro predicts, they are now entering the mainstream as the standard. The astonishing statement from the court judge in the James Holmes case, ordering his truth-drug interrogation, couldn’t be a clearer signal:

full-speed ahead in chemically inducing a suspect to give up his right not to incriminate himself;

forget the fact that such truth-drug interrogations are notoriously unreliable;

forget the damage suspects can incur from the effects of the drugs;

and most of all, forget the fact that, although truth drugs don’t work reliably, they can be used to create such terror that the suspect will do or say anything to escape more dosing.

Many people have observed that James Holmes already looks like a man who has been heavily drugged, while in custody.

Whatever Holmes knows about what happened last summer at the Aurora theater; whatever he doesn’t know; whatever role he played or didn’t play; whether he was in the theater doing the shooting or was the patsy set up by professionals to take the fall for the murders…

All of this can be twisted, on strong enough drugs, to cause him to say anything his handlers want him to say in court.

The psychiatrists who are working on Holmes will need advice on methods. They’ll go to, or be approached by, the people who have the track record, the history, the experience: the CIA.

And once that move is made, it will be very much like saying the Holmes case has national-security implications.

In so far as the Aurora murders have been used to try to snuff out the 2^nd Amendment, the case is definitely the gun-grabbers’ version of national security. They want no mistakes in Holmes’ performance.

They want him to enter a plea of non-guilty by reason of insanity. Then they want him, after his stay in a mental hospital for “testing and observation,” to come back to court, and state that is now aware he killed and wounded many people. Then the State will dispose of him one way or another and he will never again see the light of day.

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

Naïve people place false barriers between the practice of psychiatry, institutional confinement, coerced admissions of guilt, torture, brain-twisting drugs, and the CIA’s MKULTRA. They swim together in the same stream far more often than Americans want to admit, or want to know about.

This horrendous stream flows through the James Holmes case.

Other than using drugs to force him to follow orders, what possible value can this “narcoanalytic review” have in a court of law? Think about it. If Holmes enters an insanity plea, thus triggering the ensuing truth-drug interrogation, he’ll already be stating he is crazy. So the drugs will be administered to a crazy man, on the premise that can he recall correctly, or reveal correctly, his state of mind at the time he committed murders.

Is there any defense lawyer in the country who couldn’t cast doubt on the reliability of such evidence?

No, the Holmes case is now being used to put straight-out drug-torture of defendants, in order to gain confessions, into the mainstream of American legal practice.

There is one more long-shot factor here. It’s nearly unthinkable, but it should be mentioned. Many people have found evidence that the Aurora murders were staged. Without recounting the details, suppose there is one more piece of stagework left: the truth drugs used on Holmes are shown to have created brain damage.

If Holmes’ lawyers claim that the prosecution irreparably destroyed their client, they can move for a mistrial.

Can you imagine the uproar, chaos, and destabilization that would result from a declaration of a mistrial, a no-verdict in the case, and Holmes walking out of prison? Or his remand to a psychiatric facility as a permanently damaged person—but without a guilty verdict?

Jon Rappoport

There WAS a recount on the Prop 37 vote, and it was stopped cold

Mar17

There WAS a recount on the Prop 37 vote, and it was stopped cold

by Jon Rappoport

March 17, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The relentless Brad Friedman of TheBradBlog ran this story down and broke it. There was, indeed, a recount of the Prop 37 vote.

Prop 37, the ballot measure that would have mandated labeling of all GMO food sold in California, went down to defeat last November, under suspicious circumstances.

So a small group, headed by Tom Courbat, former senior budget analyst for LA County, decided to challenge the vote.

In California, any voter can do that, if they’re willing to pay for it. And they have to pay for the recount county by county. They pick the counties they want to start with, they contact the county registrars, and they’re told what the price is. It’s different in each county.

So the group picked Orange and Sierra Counties. They paid the fee. The votes were recounted, and there was no appreciable change in the numbers.

The group decided Fresno County should be next. That’s when trouble came and whole thing blew up. The county clerk in Fresno, in charge of all voting processes, is Brandi Orth.

As The Brad Blog reveals, Orth came up with a staggering price for a vote recount. Here are a few of the details:

Orth stated there would be an up-front fee, due before the recount even started, of $18,000.

The cost per DAY of doing the recount? $4,000. This included five vote counters who would each be paid $46 an hour—to sit and count. Then there would be a three-person executive staff, each of whom would be paid an astonishing $92 an hour.

Note: In Orange County, the Prop 37 recount didn’t cost $4,000 a day. The fee? Only $600 a day!

But here is the best part. As Tom Courbat, the leader of the Prop 37 recount group, spoke with Fresno County Clerk, Brandi Orth, he suddenly learned he was being charged for the phone conversation—and also for Orth’s staff “getting ready” for a recount!

Understand this. No recount had begun. Courbat hadn’t given the green light for a recount. But, he was informed, he was already $4000 in the hole.

Courbat estimated a vote recount in Fresno County was going to cost his group $78,000 by the end of three weeks worth of work. They didn’t have the money.

The Fresno County recount was toast. And with it went any chance (even if one assumes a recount would be honest) that Prop 37 could be fairly reviewed in California.

At this point, I ran down a few facts about Fresno County. It’s the number-one county in the US for agricultural production; in 2007, $5.3 billion. Major employers? Kraft Foods, Del Monte Foods, Foster Farms, Zacky Farms, Sun-Maid. A local outfit, David Sunflower Seeds, is owned by the giant ConAgra.

Beginning to form a picture? Fresno is Big Agriculture, and the last time I looked, Big Ag isn’t rushing to support GMO labeling. They love Monsanto, crime boss of the GMO world.

Brandi Orth, who blocked the recount, was installed as Fresno county clerk a mere 10 months before Prop 37 went up before California voters. This happened, as The Brad Blog points out, because the previous county clerk, Victor Salazar, suddenly announced his retirement with three years left on his contract.

Who picked Orth as the new county clerk? The five members of the Fresno board of supervisors. I noticed that two of them, Phil Larson and Debbie Poochigian, were members of the Fresno County Farm Bureau.

That’s quite interesting, because in the run-up to the November Prop 37 vote, the Farm Bureau was one of the organizations that signed on to a large NO on 37 print ad.

One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.

Let’s recap. The recount on the Prop 37 vote is stopped cold in Fresno County (a major center of Big Ag), because the county clerk, Brandi Orth put up absurd, incredible, and arbitrary obstacles. Orth was selected for her job, in the first place, by a board of supervisors on which, at the very least, two of the five members were opponents of Prop 37.

Does the California state government and, in particular, the state attorney general’s office give this foul-smelling situation even a sniff? No.

Does the California Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, who is in charge of all voting in the State, budge from her office and investigate, or better yet, go down to Fresno and personally install a fair and equitable and affordable recount of Prop 37? Of course not. She moves right along to other matters.

What does that tell you?

The stink from the blocked vote-recount goes all the way from Fresno up to the capital city of Sacramento and back down again.

Naturally, the major media give this story no play. They remain silent.

As I’ve detailed in other articles (under the ~/category/yeson37/ section of my blog), there are many reasons to reject the truth of the original Prop 37 vote in California, as well as any election in the State. But after these revelations, if you accept California vote-counts as real, you should check your sanity.

Source: The Brad Blog, “Forget About Fresno: How One CA County Clerk Stopped Prop 37’s Oversight ‘Recount’”

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, 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

Jon Rappoport's Blog

NoMoreFakeNews.com

Category Archives: Government Fraud

FBI tells America: believe us and no one else

Even the NY Times is now rejecting Monsanto GMO science

Experiencing an erection of collectivism lasting 4 hours? Stop watching MSNBC

Own a gun, kill an intruder, get paid leave

Top 10 excuses for Obama signing the Monsanto Protection Act

Monsanto proves that corporations don’t run the government

Brand new GMO food can rewire your body: more evil coming

James Holmes, and how the CIA hid their MKULTRA mind-control program

The CIA, James Holmes, MKULTRA, and truth-serum torture

There WAS a recount on the Prop 37 vote, and it was stopped cold