Mexican drug cartels celebrate gun control

Mexican drug cartels celebrate US gun control / gun grab

By Jon Rappoport

January 11, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The best way to depict what’s going on in America is through a letter from the head of the Sinaloa Drug Cartel, to President Obama.

In case people are ready to assume this letter is real, it isn’t, but the spirit of it is very true and very real:

Dear President Obama,

Let me begin by saying that you can count on us to support your efforts in disarming American citizens in any way we can.

The Fast and Furious operation backfired a bit in this regard, but I’m glad to see it hasn’t stopped you.

As you know, we are making inroads on US soil. We’ve set up significant operations in the Southwest, one area where armed citizens can be a bit of trouble to us, especially if they own land we cross or are adjacent to.

We view their disarming with a positive attitude. I would say your basic gun-grabbing strategy is primarily aimed at the American West. The border states need to be cleaned out. The fewer people there who have guns (particularly those with high-capacity clips), the easier it is for us.

But since our drug trafficking lines take in most of America, wherever citizens aren’t armed we’re generally in better shape.

I’m pleasantly surprised that media in your country haven’t pressed you to name the areas where most gun violence is taking place. After all, if your objective is to reduce that violence, you would think a campaign directed at gangs in inner cities would rank number one on your to-do list.

Those areas and those gangs do subcontracting work for us (and other Mexican cartels). Leaving them in place is a priority for us. So congratulations on being able to skirt this tricky issue. Your cojones are, indeed, huge.

Please pass along my thanks to Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Diane Sawyer. I assume they are in your pocket and carrying your message. Undoubtedly, they are also refraining from bringing up the gang issue. Whenever I speak with the president of Mexico, I point out your masterly and deft control of media as a model we should emulate.

Now to the real reason I’m writing. In Chicago, your crime stronghold, one of our people is on trial. This is a sensitive matter, as you know.

The defendant, Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla, wants to expose our arrangement. This must not happen. So far, your DEA and CIA have managed to gain trial delays.

Niebla and his lawyers are ready to offer documents that show the Sinaloa has US federal permission to ship tons of drugs into Chicago, and from there to other distribution points in the US.

Niebla will reveal this deal was made so that Sinaloa would provide valuable information on our rival cartels to the DEA and the FBI.

Therefore, Niebla will point out that he has special immunity from prosecution. That was part of the deal for high-ranking Sinaloa members.

Fortunately, his trial hasn’t been played up in the American press. Again, well done. Coverage has been stifled. It’s stayed on the back burner, and the CIA and DEA are claiming no such immunity deal exists for Niebla.

But at the same time, the CIA has been making motions in court to have documents excluded from the trial on the basis of National Security.

This is a gross tip-off to our deal, and it doesn’t sit well with me. It’s awkward. I’m sure you agree, Mr. President.

The last thing we need here is exposure, especially while you’re pushing forward your gun-grabbing program.

Sinaloa has members and agents and sub-contractors operating all over the US, and naturally these people are armed. They not only sell drugs, they shoot people. We can’t control everything they do.

They get into intramural squabbles and use their weapons to settle disagreements. Bodies pile up. Sometimes, innocent people are killed.

Our subcontractors commit unrelated crimes that have nothing to do with drugs. They rob, they steal, they shoot, they kill.

If it comes out that Sinaloa and all its component parts, operating within US borders, are contributing mightily to high gun-violence statistics—

And if it comes out that Sinaloa has a special arrangement to do business in the US without fear of disruption—

Your gun-grabbing program and our operations will both be in dire jeopardy.

And the blow-up in the press will be catastrophic for both of us.

You and I understand this is just business, but other people don’t see it that way.

Therefore, Mr. President, I’m stating, in the strongest terms possible, that the Niebla trial in Chicago has to be shut down, one way or another.

Either a quiet plea deal has to be struck, or we will be forced to do something drastic. Soon.

If I’m reading you right, and I believe I am, your gun-grabbing program is just one step in an Operation Chaos aimed at destabilizing your country.

In the past, we have contributed to that agenda, and we continue to do so. We don’t pretend to understand this whole game at its higher levels, but to us that doesn’t matter. We’re in business to make money and sell product.

We support you.

And we expect you to support us.

Congratulations on achieving a second term in office. Please pass along my regards to President Bush, his father, and President Clinton.

By the way, in case you weren’t briefed on the specifics of the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings, I want to state, unequivocally, that no Sinaloa member provided professional services in those operations, which were obviously aimed at provoking a successful follow-up gun-control program.

Yours truly,

XXXXXX

CEO, Sinaloa

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

This what I want to hear Obama say about guns

Jan10

This is what I want to hear Obama say about guns

by Jon Rappoport

January 10, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

The first thing I want to hear Obama say about guns is what I’d expect from any rational person:

“Here is where gun murders are occurring in the United States. Look at this map.”

Yes, let’s start there. I mean, if we were heading up a campaign to stop gun murders and gun maiming, wouldn’t we do that?

Let’s see where all this gun violence is happening. Is it on Western ranches? Is it in the desert? Is it in the Everglades? On Mt. Whitney? In Scarsdale? Shaker Heights?

Gangs! That’s a good place to start, wouldn’t you say? Especially since gangs can obtain guns whether or not they’re legal. So no new law is going to stop them from what they’re doing.

If Obama really wants to solve the problem of gun violence, why doesn’t he say anything about gangs?

Why doesn’t he say anything about New Orleans, Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Philadelphia, and St. Louis?

Is it because he’s not trying to solve gun violence but only gun ownership? Is ownership what’s really bothering him?

And then I want to hear him say this, too:

“A father is home at night. An intruder breaks in. The father is armed. To defend his life and the lives of his family and his property, he has every right to shoot the intruder.

“If he does that, if he shoots the intruder, he’s a good father.”

This is what I want to hear from the lips of the president, just to make things clear, just to set the record straight. No equivocation.

I don’t want to hear anything about calling 911 or waiting for the police. I don’t want to hear anything about turning on the lights or inspecting the safety on the intruder’s gun to see if it’s engaged.

And then I want to hear the president say this:

“There is no doubt the Second Amendment was drafted, in part, to allow citizens to protect themselves against the possible future tyranny of the central government. That potential tyranny was exactly why the whole Constitution was written as it was. To check the power of federal authority.”

I want that on the record, too.

Then and only then is a real conversation about guns possible.

You see, with all the verbiage about assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, many people assume, however, that the real and legal bottom-line reasons for owning a gun in this country are secure.

I don’t agree.

I don’t agree that the president or any of his allies in the White House and Congress acknowledge those basic reasons and accept them.

I hear a lot of talk about “the traditional gun culture” in America. That generalization is meant to be a tip of the hat to hunters in wide open spaces of the West. Oh yes, his father and his grandfather owned guns. Bring down a deer and eat it. Sure. And people love their guns. It’s ingrained in the American spirit.

I’m not falling for any of that. People own guns for reasons other than hunting. They own them to protect themselves against criminals. Which means shooting those criminals. And they own guns to protect themselves against a central government that wants to operate as a de facto monarchy.

Do the president and the Congress explicitly agree? Let’s hear them admit it.

That would be the just the beginning of the dialogue.

Without that admission, however, there is no trust and no good will.

And Mr. President, when you make the admission, you’ll have to go a long way, in your words, in your attitude, to overcome deep public skepticism. That’s up to you. No guarantees.

But without the admission, there is nothing, except the obvious conclusion you’re operating a bait and switch. What you really want is all the guns, and you’re taking a few radical steps in that direction.

You must also explain why law-enforcement agencies have ordered more than a billion rounds of ammunition in the last year. Precisely what are those bullets for? All those agencies operate domestically.

I want to hear the president admit there is a world of difference between an armed citizen defending his life, liberty, and property and the lives of his loved ones…and a criminal using a gun to commit a crime.

I want him to admit that the program to take away guns cannot make a true distinction between these situations. Therefore, the honest and honorable citizen is punished and stripped of legal means for defense, as if he were a criminal.

As a gesture of good will, every wealthy person who declares an intention to grab guns should spell out the precise nature of his own means of protection. This would entail listing the number of security people who guard him and what weapons they carry. It’s called full disclosure. It puts the true cards on the table.

“I’m a limousine liberal. I don’t believe in owning a gun. I wouldn’t know how to shoot a gun if my life depended on it. But I do have fourteen men who work for me who carry weapons…”

Good. Give us their names so their guns can be taken away.

And how about taking guns away from private security companies, the big ones who do contract work for the government? Those people are very easy to locate and inspect. How about grabbing their guns first?

Of course, many policemen in America own guns they don’t use on the job. Those guns should be confiscated immediately, correct?

I want to hear the president say: “Add up the number of guns owned in America. Then subtract from that the number of guns used in crimes. The remainder are not being used to commit crimes. Here is the precise number of guns that are behaving themselves…”

Excuse me for bringing up what may seem to be a peripheral issue, Mr. President, but since the federal government and its corporate allies can now spy on each and every American, 24/7, down to the label on his underwear, and can listen to his every phone call and read his every email and text message and inspect his every purchase, while discovering what may or may not be concealed in his bodily orifices during air travel, don’t you think it’s reasonable to ask for an explanation of all this that goes beyond heading off terrorist attacks?

Aren’t we justified, in fact, in assuming that the federal government views every citizen as a potential threat?

And if so, how would you assess the desire of many people to own weapons?

Please offer a complete and open and honest description of this state of affairs.

You might also enlighten those idiots among us who simultaneously rail about too much government surveillance and yet want the government to take away all our weapons. That would be a bonus.

Again, I apologize for introducing what may seem to be an unconnected point, but I have to ask this question:

Are you the last man in America to find out that many psychiatric drugs induce otherwise law-biding people to commit murder?

It would be ironic if you were. Just asking.

The cat is out of the bag. Everybody and his brother is now aware, for example, that the SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.) have been scrambling neurotransmitters and causing people to go crazy in violent homicidal ways.

And yet, in your speech after the Sandy Hook murders, you spoke of the need to expand mental-health services. Mr. President, do you have any idea what this means?

It means more of these highly volatile and dangerous drugs will be dispensed, and then we will have more murders.

Everybody has figured this out. Step out of the Oval Office bubble and come to your senses. The catch-all phrase “mental health” may make a suitable sound in a presidential speech, but really, it’s a confession of an ignorance so vast as to be stunning, at this late date.

Returning to how I began this article, let’s hear you clarify your position about gun violence versus gun ownership. You really need to do that, since you haven’t shown you intend to stop gun violence, since you’ve said nothing definitive about gangs and those places on the US map where most of the gun violence is taking place.

A commander-on-chief says: “This is the enemy, and this is where the enemy is, and this is where we’re going after him.”

Your failure to do that is a dead giveaway that your agenda is about something else entirely.

Somehow you’ve managed to hypnotize all those fellow liberals into neglecting to see this glaring fact. Maybe they don’t want to stop gun violence, either. They just want to stop ownership.

PS: Brian? Brian Williams? Are you there? Caught you on Letterman the other night. Nice impression of Regis Philbin. You spoke glowingly of the American West and its long tradition of guns. Was it just by a slip of memory you failed to mention the private-citizen use of weapons to shoot criminals? That’s a long tradition, too. Or would referring to it have been cutting too close to the bone? Feel free to retrace your steps on the NBC Nightly News, the nation’s most trusted source of truth.

PPS: Mr. President, just thought of something else. You’ve heard of the name, Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla? I’m sure you’ve been getting briefings on him. He’s standing trial in your old city, Chicago.

Niebla is a member of the Sinaloa Cartel (drug gang). For some reason, his trial keeps getting postponed. Niebla and his lawyers state that he has special immunity from the DEA, because there is a deal between the US federal government and Sinaloa.

In exchange for the Sinaloa providing intelligence on rival Mexican drug gangs, the US government is permitting Sinaloa to ship tons of drugs into the US through Chicago.

US prosecutors have been asserting the right to suppress quite a bit of evidence in the Niebla trial, for national security reasons.

Is this perhaps one reason why you don’t mention gang gun violence in your campaign to take away guns? Because guns in the hands of gang members ensure the smooth flow of drugs into Chicago and then into the rest of the US? That’s a lot of gang guns in a lot of hands in a lot of places in the US.

Jon Rappoport

Alex Jones: Best Night of Television Ever

Jan9

by Jon Rappoport

January 8, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

Piers Morgan (CNN) thought he might pump up his horrendous ratings and avoid having to go back to England. So he invited Alex Jones to come east and appear on his show.

They would discuss gun control and the petition to have Morgan deported. It would be good television. An interesting conversation. Perhaps things would get contentious.

But Morgan’s producers and bookers had made a fatal error of judgment.

To say Alex was loaded for bear is a vast understatement.

He crashed the television party in a way it’s never happened before.

You could call it: the internet invades mainstream media. But that doesn’t begin to do it justice.

This was one man attacking the whole rotting corpse of major media, attacking the fascists of the federal government, attacking the psychiatric/pharmaceutical cartel for dispensing drugs that cause people to kill other people, attacking the host of the show for daring to come to these shores with his putrid put-on Brit arrogance, attacking the brain-dead premise that fewer gun murders equals a far, far better nation (England), swearing an oath that the US government will not disarm the citizenry…and Alex made all this happen in just the first seven minutes of the interview.

You could go back in the archives and comb through the history of television in this country and never find seven minutes like this. Never.

It broke through the fake civility of moronic, pundit-driven, stacked-to-the-ceiling-with-utter-bullshit news programs like a car driving through a showroom window at 80mph.

Watch it, then tell yourself you’re not dreaming, because you’re not. It happened.

If you were, by chance, tuned to the BCS championship game between Alabama and Notre Dame and missed the real slaughter on CNN, catch it.

According to Alex, one of Pier’s producers broke down and cried during the interview. Oh dear. Horrid. I hope the producer had friends to console her in their little mutually constructed elite bubble. Cocktails, tranqs, perhaps a visit to a shrink might be in order. No doubt, this is a case of PTSD, and might necessitate a long recovery.

No, the idiots at CNN were definitely not ready for this. They were blindsided. Piers tried to remain calm. That was his only strategy. He would be the voice of reason. Stiff upper lip and all that.

It worked about as well as waving a feather in front of a typhoon.

Which, when you think about it, is how the people of England handle their fascist government and their falling-apart society. “Look at us, we’re clueless with feathers.”

No doubt Piers is telling himself he stood up to the cave man from Texas, revealing to the American people how pernicious gun owners are. But that wasn’t it. That wasn’t it all.

Instead, this was cardboard television reality taking a dozen torpedoes amidships.

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

Alex did it exactly the way you’re supposed to do it when you want to destroy the whole stinking mess all at once. You give no quarter. You go on the attack from the first moment. You don’t let up.

You ignore the nicey-nice stuff.

I’m sure there are some boomer gun advocates out there who think Alex “presented an unfortunate face of the responsible gun-owner community.” They’re dead wrong. They don’t understand what an attack against tyranny requires. They never have.

You put the fascists on the defensive. That’s rule number one. You put them through the wall into the next county. You hit them with the truth so hard they never recover. That’s the goal.

It happened last night.

I watched the whole curtain of the television Matrix explode. I watched it with a joy that comes from knowing, for a long time, what such a moment would look like if it ever came to pass.

Then it did.

Thank you, CNN. This was your finest moment, your only authentic moment in all your years of building an insane consensus about reality.

Thanks, Alex. You came through like a champion.

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.

After Sandy Hook: how psychiatrists will become policemen

Jan6

After Sandy Hook: how psychiatrists will become policemen

by Jon Rappoport

January 6, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Obama, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, stated that mental-health services must be made more available, presumably to stave off future killers.

Of course, this is monstrously wrong, since so many killers have acted under the compelling influence of SSRI antidepressants and other brain meds. The drugs are known to induce violence.

More mental health means more murders.

Now we hear that Joe Biden’s presidential task force on gun control is meeting with psychiatrists (backup link on infowars.com here). Here is what they’re discussing:

Databases. They want to tighten background checks on people who buy guns, and the checks could include discovering whether applicants have ever been under psychiatric care, and if so, what diagnosis(es) was made.

In order to do that, there will have to be a comprehensive database and a tracking system that extends into, and from, every psychiatrist’s front desk. Law-enforcement will have access to that database.

What happened to doctor-patient confidentiality? It’s possible this issue can be skirted merely by affirming that a gun-applicant has seen a psychiatrist at some point in time—which fact could exclude him from purchasing a weapon.

Organized psychiatry would, of course welcome a comprehensive database of Americans who have obtained psychiatric care. It makes their profession seem even more official than it already is. And it imparts a tinge of USSR-like power.

The implication: “We know who you are. We know you’ve been under the care of a psychiatrist. Wherever you live and work, we can call you crazy if we want to.”

This always was part of the psychiatric agenda, behind the smooth facade of “offering help to those in need.”

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is also sensitive to the fact that many Americans would never walk into a shrink’s office if they thought that would hinder their chance of owning a gun. (Note: for the “Dec 20, 2012 APA Letter to Congress Regarding the Massacre in Newtown, CT”, click here)

But weighing the pros and cons, the advantage is on the side of linking gun-ownership-refusal with psychiatric-treatment history. That makes the APA more powerful. It brings them closer in concert with law-enforcement.

It essentially makes the APA and all its doctors into cops right along side local police forces, state police, the FBI, the ATF, DHS, and the US Marshals Service.

Who could resist that promotion?

Of course, in any case involving a murderer, where it’s suspected that a psychiatric drug induced the violence, unearthing that possibility would be cut off at the pass. The sordid facts would be protected/buried by the full force of the federal government. Another perk.

Local mental-health clinics (drug dispensaries) would bloom like weeds. After all, how are you going to prevent violence unless you corral millions more Americans and put them in front of a shrink or a suitable surrogate for “pre-screening?” It’s The Minority Report come to life.

This system eventually burgeons into a full national program to cut violent crime through prevention. And who will be in charge of making delicate judgments about the likelihood that any person will commit murder? The psychiatrists, naturally. More power for them.

This goes beyond deciding whether a resident of the US can own a gun. It invades any aspect of a person’s life to assess his “mental predisposition.” That’s precisely the kind of infrastructure that would come into being.

Don’t imagine for a moment that psychiatrists actually have the ability to make scientific calls on these questions. Their entire pantheon of 297 official mental disorders is such a pathetic fraud that not one physical test exists to make a diagnosis.

No blood test, no urine test, no saliva test, no brain scan, no genetic test.

But that’s never stopped them before, and it wouldn’t stop them in the new Psychiatric Police State. They’d keep winging it, and they’d realize they have to err on the side of caution, to avoid getting caught with their pants down, when a killer is found to have received “clearance” from a psychiatrist to own a gun or walk around unsupervised.

Therefore, many more Americans would be marked down for “special tracking” and mandatory 72-hour holds in mental lockups.

While in such custody, the strategy would be to load up the patient with as many drugs as possible, to render him docile after release.

Is this entire nightmare scheduled to happen this year? Of course not. But gradual steps eventually add up to a fully boiled frog.

In the world of brain research, the principal push is toward creating the conditioned human. Behind the mask of curing disease, that’s the real agenda. And it ties in quite nicely with a culture in which every human is looked upon as a potential threat to life and limb of his fellow humans.

The shrinks will say they care. They’ll say they only want what’s best for you. They’ll say these mental disorders only need the right drugs to keep them under control. They’ll say we’re all in this together. They’ll say their diagnosis-treatment is the most humane program ever devised in the history of the planet. They’ll say it’s all about greatest good for the greatest number. They’ll say whatever they need to.

Biden and Obama are trying to make a definitive move to take away guns. But for the psychiatrists, this is a trial balloon. Inside the profession, there will be debates about whether linking gun ownership to psychiatric history is a plus or a minus for shrinks.

Will it enhance or injure their reputation and standing? What about doctor-patient confidentiality?

But the first steps are being contemplated. The issue is on the table.

In the “old psychiatry,” before smooth PR and modern marketing really took over, doctors were far more ready to make predictions about the future political ramifications of their work. Absolute madmen like Dr. Jose Delgado and Dr. Ewen Cameron went public with the idea that no human being has an inherent right to his own personality.

The true role of psychiatry, they asserted, was to re-invent human character, personality, behavior, and thought, from the ground up.

Well, decades later, with psychiatry and pharmaceutical companies tied to the hip as one juggernaut, and with marketing departments modulating their pronouncements to fit these times, a redux- prospect is emerging.

Psychiatry can pick up its old political and social banners again. It can enter into an even closer embrace with big government. It can announce that violence can be substantially curbed through an expansion of mental-health services. It can frame this program as both a humane necessity and a leap ahead into “a better world for all of us.”

It can begin, cautiously, at first, to bring back the utopian promises.

“We have the science. Our understanding of the brain is expanding every day. We’re literally seeing why and how conflict arises between people, and we’re seeing it in the folds and channels of that wondrous brain. And we can do something about it. We’re on the cusp of a new dawn…”

Yes, the psychiatric police are ready to take the next step.

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

Meanwhile, behind certain closed doors: “Gentlemen, it’s interesting, isn’t it, how so many killings over the last twenty years have been committed by people under the influence of our drugs. And yet, we use the murders to prove how people need more of these same drugs. Sales skyrocket. And now we can become plainclothes cops with more ultimate power than any cops in history…”

Jon Rappoport

Matrix governments pretend to be real

Jan4

Matrix governments pretend to be real in the fantasy called democracy

By Jon Rappoport

January 4, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

In the Matrix, cover stories are everything. There are layers of them.

When it comes to so-called democratic governments, the lies and legends and fairy tales and half-truths and limited hangouts are nearly endless.

Imagine a bank robber posing as a hundred different people, with a history for each identity. Every identity’s story is a limited hangout, a partial exposure of who he really is…you get some truth about his mistakes, his problems, his struggles, his hopes and dreams, but the one thing you don’t get is the naked details of his bank robberies.

Intro: Robert Stuart, a US software developer, has been charged with a felony. He sold software to a firm outside the country, who used it to promote and facilitate online gambling. All legal. No problem.

But US authorities claim the software was then grabbed and deployed by American business people, who, without permission, used it to enable illegal online betting within these shores. Hence, charges have been filed against…Stuart!

Absurd on the face of it, so far.

“I grew tomatoes in California, sold them to a French wholesaler, but three guys in New Jersey somehow got hold of a few of the tomatoes, threw them in the face of an Atlantic City housewife—so I’m charged with assault.”

However, all this makes perfect sense, if you realize the government is incensed because they’re not getting a piece of the gambling action. And they have to punish somebody, anybody for that. It’s the money.

The money. Okay?

In the year 2000, I went to Nevada, the casino state, to testify at a sub-sub-committee hearing on harmful children’s meds.

My testimony was cut short by a legislator, when I began doing a stand-up routine on the packaging of a cortisone drug that looked like a Disney cartoon.

The representative objected when I mentioned Pfizer. She said, in the interest of full disclosure (as if that were possible), that she owned stock in Pfizer, but I was out of bounds in my excoriation of the company in front of a government committee.

I laughed.

I went on, that afternoon, to testify at another, larger hearing that was looking into school safety, in the wake of the Columbine shootings.

As I sat in the room, waiting for the proceedings to begin, the attorney general of the state of Nevada, Frankie Sue Del Papa (a glorious name I still repeat to myself because it should be a mantra of some kind), made her entrance.

Immediately, she was surrounded by fawning committee members, because, in that state with a permanent population of perhaps 600, she was a star.

Iron filings to a magnet. With a look on her face that bordered on holy awe, Frankie Sue, in turn, told a story about Bill Clinton visiting Vegas, and I couldn’t catch the punch line, but everybody laughed, as if Bill had unzipped his pants in the AG’s office just to prove he didn’t care what anybody said.

I thought to myself, this is what political force really looks like: lessers clinging to greaters. Forget separation of powers.

Lesser government money clings to greater government money. Lesser money runs up to greater money and embraces it.

The money is passed around like drug profits, which it sometimes is. The money flows like honey.

Government smells like money up close.

That’s why officials don’t care a whit about Constitutional limits. Those restrictions are a joke to them. They know where their real power comes from.

When, on September 10, 2001, Don Rumsfeld, king of his own court, announced to the press that $2.3 trillion dollars of the Pentagon budget was unaccounted for, he was calm. He didn’t make a big deal out of it because he, like every pol from the small-town health inspector to the president of the United States, understands that missing money is a cardinal government operation.

Whether it’s CIA heroin cash from the Golden Triangle or black-budget billions that vanish down into concealed projects, it keeps things moving, if by things we mean massive bribes and payoffs, keep-your-mouth-shut hush cash, secret corporate accounts, bank solvency, advanced mind-control research, and anything else that relies on liquid assets.

The press paid scant attention when even Bernie Sanders, whose unshakable socialist principles were insulted, announced that the real US government bailout was hovering somewhere around $16 trillion.

That’s a figure that should have knocked people off their chairs. But it was just another number in the wind.

Big government dispenses big $$ that crosses all lines and floats all boats.

You’ve got foreign oil or drugs or copper or uranium or fertile ag land or cheap labor? The imperial USA government-corporation (and other big government-corporations) wants as much of it as it can get its hands on. And it will bribe you for it.

The federal government is a private bank and a sieve and a Santa Claus and a gangster. Constitution? Never heard of it.

Back in the early part of the 20^th century, when the Carnegie Foundation decided that, other than war, the best way to change (destroy) a society was through education, and when the 1910 Flexner report, funded by Carnegie and Rockefeller, determined that pharmaceutical medicine should be the mandatory wave of the future, the federal government was standing by to back up those proposals with licensing boards and courts and guns, if necessary.

Trying to determine whose money then went where and to whom would have been like trying to decipher Finnegan’s Wake. Good luck. Payoff cash went flying in all directions to make public education and medical drugs into gov-corp empires.

When in 1913, the illegal Federal Reserve was created, untold amounts of $$ were passed to the officials who permitted it to happen.

Insiders didn’t think of this money as bizarre payoffs. Just business the way business is run.

Finance all sides of a war? It’s an investment with assured dividends. The people behind the NY Times and the Washington Post would take a piece of that action in a minute, if they knew the right guy to talk to. And of course, they do know. It’s not a direct outlay of cash to a strutting general. It doesn’t need to be. Money buys corporate and banking stocks, and those companies own other companies who make and sell weapons to everybody whose breath can show up on a mirror.

In other words, welcome to entangling alliances. The people who call isolationists racists and cave men don’t want to think about these matters.

But since the birth of the Republic, America has been undermined by criminals in high places, who have been dedicated to doing international business and all it entails.

As night follows day, this has meant imperial empire. Refraining from empire-building has been labeled “refusing to help those in need.”

That’s one major thread of the money game. The cover story is “aid to the less fortunate.” The real op is “find money wherever you can and use it to steal everything you can.”

In order to realize Obama’s program of elevating the poor and punishing the rich (which is just a con on both ends), massive federal contracts will be let out, because that’s the main action. That’s what the humanitarian messianic program really is.

Those contracts will leak cash like a rowboat battered by machine guns. They’re supposed to. Its federal-corporate biz.

It has nothing to do with executive, legislative, and judicial branches checking each other. That went out with the water wheel and the steam engine.

Whether some woman on a street corner is exulting in her Obama cell phone or some banker is hiding billions offshore, it’s hands in the till.

God bless America? Battle Hymn of the Republic? By the dawn’s early light? No, I’m afraid not.

Domestically, overseas, it’s money, money, where’s my friggin’ money?

Wal-Mart is taking heat for paying bribes to Mexican officials. Wal-Mart pieced off some of the right people, but it stupidly forgot a few others in Washington, and now it has to do a mea culpa and put its people through training programs in ethics, a let’s-pretend exercise.

Glaxo paid out a $3 billion fine for shady marketing of its drugs. That was just a drop in the bucket, given its profits on those drugs. And it was also a cost-of-doing-business payoff to the federal government.

Money, money, where’s my friggin’ money?

The so-called fiscal cliff? Translation: Sometimes the payoffs and the theft expand to enormous proportions, that’s all. And if the US government can maintain the dollar as the reserve currency of the planet, it can print new money for a long time to come.

Making sure the dollar remains the reserve currency? That takes more payoffs to the right people. Passed across the global table in newly printed invented bucks.

The real enduring question of modern democratic government is, who do we need to pay and how much?

Corollary: if they’re too stupid to take the $$, do we have the available military equipment and personnel to make our point?

Mossadegh, Arbenz, Lumumba, Trujillo, Diem, Goulart, Nkrumah, Allende, the Shah, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Assad a) wanted too much money or b) wouldn’t take a bribe at all or c) wouldn’t give enough from their side.

Therefore, boom. They were attacked, shelved, killed.

Payoffs are serious biz. When the government-corporate monarchy comes calling and offers you $$, turning thumbs down can get you in deep trouble.

As they’re lowering your body in the grave, the payoff bagmen will shake their heads and mutter, “What was wrong with that guy?

What else in this world could he want, if not bucks?”

Jon Rappoport

The Nazi roots of the European Union

Jan2

by Jon Rappoport

January 2, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

Once upon a time, there was an industrial combine in Nazi Germany called IG Farben. It was the largest chemical/pharmaceutical octopus in the world. It owned companies, and it had favorable business agreements with companies from England to Central America to Japan.

The author of The Devil’s Chemists, Josiah DuBois, traveled to Guatemala in the early days of World War 2, and returned with the comment that, as far as he could tell, Guatemala was “a wholly owned subsidiary of Farben.”

This article will refer you to two other riveting books, but first I want to make a few comments.

The pharmaceutical empire was and is one of the major forces behind the European Union (EU). It is no accident that these drug corporations wield such power. They aren’t only involved in controlling the medical cartel; they are political planners.

This is how and why Big Pharma fits so closely with what is loosely referred to as the New World Order. The aim of enrolling every human in a cradle-to-grave system of disease diagnosis and toxic drug treatment has a larger purpose: to debilitate, to weaken populations.

This is a political goal. It facilitates control.

IG Farben’s component companies, at the outbreak of World War 2, were Bayer, BASF, and Hoechst. They were chemical and drug companies. Farben put Hitler over the top in Germany, and the war was designed to lead to a united Europe that would be dominated by the Farben nexus.

The loss of the war didn’t derail that plan. It was shifted into an economic blueprint, which became, eventually, the European Union.

The European Commission’s first president was Walter Hallstein, the Nazi lawyer who, during the war, had been in charge of post-war legal planning for the new Europe.

As the Rath Foundation reports: In 1939, on the brink of the war, Hallstein had stated, “The creation of the New Law [of the Nazis] is ONLY the task of the law-makers!”

In 1957, with his reputation sanitized, Hallstein spoke the words in this manner: “The European Commission has full and unlimited power for all decisions related to the architecture of this European community.”

Post-war, IG Farben had been broken up into separate companies, but those companies were following a common agenda. If, for example, you want to know why the endless global debate over labeling GMO food has obscured the real issue—banning GMO crops altogether—you can look to these Farben allies: Bayer, BASF, and Sanofi, among others.

They are among the leaders in GMO research and production. BASF cooperates with Monsanto on research projects. Sanofi is a leader in GM vaccine research.

The original IG Farben had a dream. Its executives and scientists believed they could eventually produce, synthetically, any compound in a laboratory. They could dominate world industry in this fashion.

The dream never died. Today, they see gene-manipulation as the route to that goal.

I refer you to the explosive book, The Nazi Roots of the Brussels EU, by Paul Anthony Taylor, Aleksandra Niedzwiecki, Dr. Matthias Rath, and August Kowalczyk. You can read it at relay-of-life.org. It is a dagger in the heart of the EU.

At the Rath Foundation, you can also read Joseph Borkin’s classic, The Crime and Punishment of IG Farben.

In 1992, I was deeply engaged in researching the specific devastating effects of medical drugs. A comment made by an audience member at a lecture I was giving started me on the road to understanding the influence and history of Farben.

Eventually, I concluded that, at the highest levels of power, these drugs weren’t destructive by accident. They were intended to cause harm. This was covert chemical warfare against the population of the planet. The Rockefeller-Standard Oil-Farben connection was a primary piece of the puzzle.

It was, of course, Rockefeller (and Carnegie) power that forced the birth of pharmaceutical medicine in America, with the publication of the 1910 Flexner Report. The Report was used to excoriate and marginalize Chiropractic, Homeopathy, Osteopathy, and other forms of traditional natural practice, in favor of what would become the modern juggernaut of drug-based treatment.

In a recent article about the FDA, “Medical Murder in the Matrix,” I point out the fact that, if this federal agency has permitted at least 100,000 deaths of Americans, per year, from the direct effects of drugs it, the FDA, has certified as safe, and if the FDA knows these death figures (which it does), then “unintended” and “accidental” can no longer be applied to this ongoing holocaust.

The same can be held true for the pharmaceutical industry itself.

People are exceedingly reluctant to come to this obvious conclusion. They prefer to hem and haw and invent excuses or deny the facts.

To understand the dimensions and history of the ongoing chemical warfare against the population, in the form of medical drugs (and of course pesticides), one must factor in the original octopus, IG Farben.

World War 2 never ended. It simply shifted its strategies.

And just as one can trace extensive collaboration between major American corporations and the Nazi war machine, during the military phase of the war, today you see American corporations wreaking destructive havoc on the American people, as Dow, DuPont, Monsanto and others “work their magic for a better life.”

In any fascist system, the bulk of the people working inside the system, including scientists, refuse to believe the evidence of what is happening before their own eyes. They insist they are doing good. They believe they are on the right side. They see greater top-down control as necessary and correct. They adduce reasonable explanations for inflicted harm and death.

This is how and why conspiracies can exist. Only a few people, at the very top, need to know the true motives.

Everyone else tells themselves fairy tales. This deep-seated obsession is an integral part of mind control, and ultimately it is self-inflicted.

The self-created victim calculates: “I would rather stay in my dream than wake up to a nightmare.”

Yes, but acknowledging the nightmare is a step on the road to liberation from the Matrix.

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

In centuries past, empires conquered foreign lands and made colonies out of them. When that era ended, a less overt style of military and economic conquest was initiated. But there is something most people don’t realize.

When richer nations now go into poorer nations, the so-called incidental goal of bringing “life-saving” medical care with them is a front and a pose.

One of the chief goals of the conquerors is, in fact, pharmaceutical. Changing the habits of populations, so they come to rely on these drugs is high on the to-do list. It rings up profit, of course, for the pharmaceutical empire, and it also poisons the poor into even greater desolation than they are already experiencing. They become even easier to control.

On top of that, the actual untreated causes of the routine desolation—starvation, generation-to-generation malnutrition, contaminated water supplies, lack of general sanitation, overcrowding, and previously stolen agricultural land—are shoved on the back burner of the global media.

Suddenly, we learn that various germ-caused diseases are the real scourges of these countries, and help is coming (slowly), in the form of drugs that kill the germs, along with the medical heroes who will deliver these drugs.

This is a cover story. It’s a preposterous lie. In the conditions of desolation mentioned above, it doesn’t matter what germs are present, and trying to attack them is futile and absurd.

The general conditions of desolation weaken and destroy immune systems. At that point, what would normally be completely harmless germs, any germs, can sweep through an area and cause death and severe illness, because the routine processes of the immune system, which would immediately neutralize the germs, are disabled.

The “medical intervention” is meant to defer, for yet another day, the remedying of the actual problems that keep causing disease—and the medical drugs create new and lethal toxicity, leading to more deaths.

This is the standard op of the modern pharmaceutical empire. To know it is proceeding apace, all you have to do is see foreign doctors getting off planes in Third World countries, or read about some drug giant that is undertaking a humanitarian program of supplying medicines and vaccines to “people in desperate need of them.”

Jon Rappoport

The insane parade: Obama, guns, psychiatric drugs, Adam Lanza, Asperger’s

Dec20

The insane parade: Obama, guns, psychiatric drugs, Adam Lanza, Asperger’s

by Jon Rappoport

December 20, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

American society is now a funnel that slides millions of people into toxic psychiatric treatment. Obama thinks we need a bigger funnel.

At the same time, of course, he’s pushing for greater gun restrictions.

At his December 19 press conference, he said, “We are going to need to work on making access to mental-health care as easy as access to a gun.”

“Mental health” is always the go-to institution whenever a mass murder occurs. It’s like “we need more medical research on the problem.” Generalities are spouted by people who don’t have a clue what they’re talking about.

Mental heath in America now means more psychiatric drugs, especially those, like the SSRI antidepressants, that can and do cause violence. Suicide, homicide.

So Obama’s solution to Sandy Hook is empowering and creating more killers. Brilliant.

Could he have chosen a worse idea? No.

Psychiatry is a non-science parading as truth. Nothing abut it is true.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/02/27/the-liars-liar/

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/09/05/more-evidence-psychiatry-is-a-fake-science/

It also creates violent people, including children.

http://www.breggin.com/31-49.pdf

As for guns, the grabbers like to point to statistics that compare: numbers of crimes committed with guns versus crimes prevented by citizens using guns.

This is a specious con game. The two situations are not related. On the one hand, we have those people who, with weapons, successfully defend themselves and their families and property from violent criminals. That’s a good thing.

On the other hand, we have people who use guns to commit crimes. They’re called criminals.

The specious comparison is like saying, “Because we can see the Devil is influencing more people than God is, legally ban all religion.”

At any rate, the forced decline of gun ownership and the forced upswing in psychiatric drugging is an elite agenda, at its core. It’s not just a “mistake.”

It’s a plan for the future of this country.

Diagnose and drug more people, take away the guns.

Added together, they produce a prison. But it’s all done under the heading of “we care.”

The agenda can be sold to people in wake of mass killings like Sandy Hook.

Obama is the current mouthpiece.

If you think the fiscal cliff is a long fall to the rocks, this dual-agenda cliff (fewer guns, more psychiatric drugs) is a far more destructive leap.

Now let’s consider the psychiatric babble about Adam Lanza.

Believing in these psychiatric conditions is a loser’s game. There are no definitive diagnostic tests for any of them. No blood tests. No saliva tests. No urine tests. No brain scans. No X-rays. That’s a fact.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/02/27/the-liars-liar/

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/09/05/more-evidence-psychiatry-is-a-fake-science/

There are menus of behaviors, which are arbitrarily compiled by committees of psychiatrists and given various names, like autism and Asperger’s.

Making delicate distinctions between them is a fraud, since there are no diagnostic tests to begin with.

Now, what was wrong with Adam Lanzer, the accused Sandy Hook shooter, is matter for speculation. He could have had a severe reaction to a vaccine. He could have been poisoned by an environmental chemical, or by chemicals in food. He could have had a severe nutritional deficit. He could have been deprived of oxygen at birth.

Calling it Asperger’s is a way for the psychiatrist to bill an insurance company and impress and assuage parents with his “superior knowledge.” There is no knowledge.

“The Asperger’s child” is a fiction. Every child is different.

Having gotten that out of the way, we can see there is no predictive capacity to say whether a boy with “Asperger’s” is prone to violence. That’s a fairy tale.

But we can say something about the drugs used to treat people diagnosed with Asperger’s, because then we know exactly what chemicals we’re talking about, and there are histories of what happens to people who are given those drugs.

We have the SSRI antidepressants and so called anti-psychotics, like Risperdone and Zyprexa. The SSRIs definitely can and do cause violent behavior. Suicide, homicide.

http://www.breggin.com/31-49.pdf

http://ssristories.com/

The anti-psychotics are brain hammers that tend toward motor-brain damage. (See Dr. Peter Breggin, Toxic Psychiatry, www.breggin.com)

So if Lanza really was the shooter, and there are very serious reasons to doubt that, the drugs he was prescribed could have pushed him over the edge into murder.

A neighbor speculates that Adam went on a rampage because his mother was seeking to institutionalize him. Out of revenge, he killed 26 people at the school because she loved the school. So now we have several contradictory accounts: the mother was teacher; no, she was a volunteer; no, the school officials had no knowledge she was in any way connected to the school.

Meanwhile, the psychiatric game is always to “blame the disorder.” If the patient goes crazy on the medications, if he develops serious illnesses from the meds, if he kills himself or kills other people because of the meds, the “worsening disorder” caused it. That’s the con game and the out. Be aware of it.

We still don’t know who Adam Lanza’s doctor was. People in Newtown and Sandy Hook undoubtedly do. They could knock on his door and question him, but apparently they’re too cowed by the “priest in the white coat” syndrome to take the bull by the horns and find out what’s what.

Fifteen years ago, I met the mother of a 15-year-old boy to interview her about an unusual treatment she had opted for, for her son. We sat outside a clinic in Los Angeles and discussed it for a few minutes. Then her son walked up.

His gait was stiff and jerky. He had a big smile on his face. We shook hands. He began talking to his mother. I couldn’t understand what he was saying. His words were oddly pronounced. But his mother could understand him.

At first glance, he certainly fit the definition of “a developmental disorder.” Various psychiatric labels could have been applied. But I knew his real story.

Several years earlier, he had gone swimming in the family pool and drowned. Rushed to the hospital, he was put on machines. The doctors told his mother there was no hope. He had suffered oxygen deprivation and brain damage. He was a vegetable. He was going to die. She should allow the doctors to unhook him from the machines.

The mother refused. She went on a relentless search for help. Eventually, she found a doctor who was a pioneer in hyperbaric oxygen therapy. He said there might be a chance with many treatments in the hyperbaric chamber.

After 50 or 60 treatments, her son was back.

http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=13987

These psychiatric labels mean nothing. Every person is different, and the causes for their problems vary.

Categorizing people and then making authoritative statements about their “condition”….doing that is a sign of insanity.

So when you Dr. Hognutloonidiot on television, making statements like, “Normally, with Asperger’s we don’t see violent behavior, although in some instances it might be possible,” realize you’re looking at a straight-out con man who is also crazy.

If five or 10 TV anchors said, “The drugs you give for Asperger’s do in fact cause people to kill,” and if they offered evidence and stuck to their guns, the whole landscape in America would begin to shift.

Jon Rappoport

Is Michelle Obama’s “natural food” campaign designed to hide the White House attack on organic food?

Dec3

IS MICHELLE OBAMA’S “NATURAL FOOD CAMPAIGN” DESIGNED TO HIDE A COORDINATED WHITE HOUSE ATTACK ON ORGANIC FOOD?

By Jon Rappoport

December 2, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

This article follows up on Mike Adams’ devastating pieces exposing Dr. Oz and a coordinated high-level assault on organic food.

http://www.naturalnews.com/038172_Dr_Oz_organics_propaganda_campaign.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/038157_Dr_Oz_organic_food_sellout.html

How high does this assault on organic food go?

Soon after her husband’s 2008 inauguration, Michelle Obama announced her “First Lady do-good project” to the press and public.

Every First Lady picks one.

It’s mandatory. Better education, some charity, a worthy cause. It’s designed PR, aimed at creating good will for the husband sitting in the Oval Office.

That’s the First Lady’s job. She’s a PR agent.

Michelle chose an organic vegetable garden and the health of children. More than her work with military families or her personal fashion/style interests, the organic garden and the bee hives she installed on the South Lawn of the White House became her signature.

The White House vegetable garden was the first planted on the grounds since the days of Eleanor Roosevelt.

As the press trumpeted, Michelle instructed the White House kitchen to order organic food for meals.

We were told produce and honey from the South Lawn garden were served up for the First Family and even at State dinners.

The title of Michelle Obama’s 2012 book is American Grown: The Story of the White House Kitchen Garden and Gardens Across America.

She has tied the issue of childhood obesity to deteriorating eating habits and unhealthy food.

All in all, her presentation has been quite effective and convincing. She’s done a first-rate job.

The all-important impression is unmistakable: the White house stands for “healthy eating.”

But meanwhile…

Her husband is the most powerful enabler of Monsanto in America.

Despite his hints that he would support labeling of GMO food, Barack Obama has done herculean work to destroy true natural food.

The details are undeniable. They include his mind-boggling political appointments of Monsanto operatives to key government posts, and a parade of new GMO crops into the food supply, during his first presidential term.

Monsanto and their allies couldn’t have wished for a better partner. The president has given them everything they’ve asked for.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had 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 perhaps, 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.

Now in 2012, we are seeing, as Mike Adams reveals, a new attack on organic food: organic is an elitist fetish, a nonsensical preoccupation of the 1%, as against the 99%. We are told that conventionally grown, pesticide-laden, genetically engineered food is just as good, is no problem, and patriotic Americans should be loyal to it.

In other words, we should be loyal to the corporate giants who are taking over the food supply, are exercising patent rights on food ownership, are doing whatever they can to squeeze small farmers out of business, are giving us nutritionally deficient food, are lying through their teeth about the heavy health risks of eating this GMO food.

We should be loyal to the police who are ordering homeowners to rip out their vegetable gardens on their lawns.

Yes, this is a coordinated attack on clean nutritious unpoisoned food, and it reaches all the way up into the White House, does a quick detour around Michelle Obama’s smokescreen operation, and arrives in the Oval Office, at the desk of Barack Obama.

Why isn’t Barack out there on the White House lawn picking a few delicious organic vegetables from the garden?

Why isn’t he posing in front of a hundred media cameras taking a bite out of an organic non-GMO tomato?

Why isn’t he leading the way on a campaign to have people in inner cities plant more community organic gardens, to fend off hunger, ill-health, and poverty?

Why isn’t he?

Because he’s working for Monsanto.

Monsanto, the same company, by the way, who took the advice of Mitt Romney, many years ago, to stop overtly promoting chemical pesticides and, instead, get into genetics.

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

If you shop through Amazon, then consider supporting Jon’s work by doing your shopping through Jon’s Amazon referral link.

Why psychiatry and big government are in a pornographic embrace

Nov24

WHY PSYCHIATRY AND BIG GOVERNMENT ARE IN A PORNOGRAPHIC EMBRACE

by Jon Rappoport

November 24, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

Modern psychiatry is based on the premise that there is something wrong with almost everybody. But when it comes to dependence, psychiatry takes a distinct back seat to big government.

Psychiatry and big-government actually share a bed. They both need dependents; otherwise, they’d fade away. In this pornographic intimacy, psychiatry functions as a medical and cultural salesman and PR hustler.

It ensures a steady supply of diagnosed and designated victims for government.

Dr. Marcia Angell, for two decades the editor of the most prestigious medical journal in the world, The New England Journal of Medicine, wrote a devastating piece on psychiatry for the The NY Review of Books.

In the “The Epidemic of Mental Illness: Why?”, Angell points out that a staggering 10% of Americans at least seven years old take antidepressants.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/23/epidemic-mental-illness-why/?pagination=false

She also reveals that these drugs, observed to increase levels of a neurotransmitter called serotonin, were the springboard for claiming that depression was caused by a serotonin deficit. In other words, the whole theory of depression was invented backwards, to fit what the drugs were doing.

This would be somewhat like saying the flu is caused by a lack of Tamiflu in the body.

That was “the science” behind the whole chemical-imbalance theory of depression.

“We’ve got this drug (Prozac) that raises serotonin levels, so let’s say depression is caused by a deficit of serotonin, and let’s sell that idea.”

Angell cites a study done at the National Institute of Mental Health (a federal agency) showing that 46% of randomly selected adults qualified for a diagnosis of mental illness, according to the definitions of disorders established by the American Psychiatric Association.

This is victim-creation at its finest, especially since none of the official 297 mental disorders are diagnosed by any chemical or biological test. They are merely menus or checklists of behaviors.

This would be like going into a doctor’s office for a conversation, after which he brings in a team of doctors who sit around and discuss what you said, take a vote, and decide you have cancer.

The class of psychiatric drugs called anti-psychotics (or major tranquilizers), including Risperdal, Zyprexa, and Seroquel, is now the best-selling class of meds in the US.

Going back two decades, perhaps the number-one person in America dedicated to the psychiatric hustle was, indeed, a government representative. Wife of a two-term president, then senator, now secretary of state, Hillary Clinton campaigned tirelessly for accepting the diagnosis of mental illness “without stigma.”

She led the way; others followed.

The objective was to enable a cultural revolution. “We’re all victims.” “We all have some kind of mental problem.” “We all need treatment.”

The revolution succeeded. And in its wake, big government could and did expand the theme of dependence.

Angell, in her highly readable article, makes a further point that is often overlooked. At one time, patients diagnosed with schizophrenia and depression experienced relatively brief episodes. But with the onset of the drugs for treatment, patients now find themselves dealing with chronic conditions.

The obvious conclusion? The drugs are creating abnormal brain function.

Chronically debilitated patients are a perfect set-up for big-government dependence.

In the US, the use of psychiatric drugs increased 22% from 2001 to 2010.

In 2010, 21% of adult women took antidepressants.

In his book, Anatomy of an Epidemic, Robert Whitaker provides the capper: in 1987, 1.25 million Americans were on government disability as a result of mental illness. By 2010, that figure had risen to 4 million.

Yes, big government and psychiatry are in love. And it isn’t pretty.

The formula for creating this ever-expanding dependence?

One: Continually add new mental disorders to the official list. These labels have no basis in reality. They aren’t accompanied by any diagnostic tests. But they enable many more people to be assigned a mental illness.

Two: Prescribe drugs that are, in and of themselves, destructive and debilitating, and therefore create long-term patients.

Three: Deny the drugs are the culprits. Blame the deterioration of the patient on his “mental disorder.”

Four: Encourage a culture in which patients think of themselves as struggling to “regain normalcy,” but need constant outside help for the rest of their lives.

Five: Offer government assistance in this regard. The assistance, of course, is based on the person remaining “mentally ill.” The assistance is therefore a bargain. “As long as you continue to think of yourself as ill, we the government will help you.”

Dependence.

For detailed evidence that psychiatry is an arbitrary pseudoscience, and for an introduction to evidence that the prescribed drugs are toxic, see my previous articles:

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/02/27/the-liars-liar/

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2012/09/05/more-evidence-psychiatry-is-a-fake-science/

Jon Rappoport

GMOs plus Obamacare: Your ticket to slavery

Nov20

GMOs plus Obamacare: Your ticket to slavery

by Jon Rappoport

November 20, 2012

www.nomorefakenews.com

At this late date, there are still people who don’t see the consequences of Obamacare. They cling to the notion that it’s simply a wonderful system that will allow more people to get vital medical care. That’s all they see or want to see.

They agree that medical treatment has an alarming toxic track record. But they don’t want to admit that Obamacare will spread that toxicity even further.

Why are these people blind? Because they think of themselves as caring humanitarians, and they fit Obamacare right into that self-serving picture. It’s part of their “religion.”

Also, they don’t want to “be negative.”

Some day, I’m sure, being negative will get you a public decapitation in the town square.

Okay. Here we go.

The recent study which revealed that rats fed with GMOs developed cancer is just one example of the health hazards of GMO food.

The argument advanced by the Monsanto forces and their allies is: “people who eat GMO food aren’t dropping like flies, so we’re all okay.”

This is a case made by con artists for idiots.

GMO crops were originally introduced with no human safety studies. The crops were given carte blanche because the whole approval process was rigged.

People could be developing cancers as a result of eating GMO food and no one would know. People could be developing serious digestive disorders and neurological problems and no one would know.

To pursue this in detail, read Jeffrey Smith’s classic, Genetic Roulette: The Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. Smith lays out 65 GMO health risks, with references. He also shows how safety assessments of GMO foods fall horribly short.

The GMO overlords need a cover-story-diversion for the harm their foods inflict. That cover story will, increasingly, be fashioned and sculpted by Obamacare.

Obamacare will eventually morph into a blueprint of all diagnosable diseases and disorders, and permitted treatments.

That’s what health insurance does. It assembles a comprehensive chart of what is covered by policies.

This will allow a perfect cover for the protection of “favored toxins.” In other words, when disease strikes as a result of GMOs, pesticides, other environmental chemicals, chemtrails, and so on, the medical diagnosis will fail to name the true culprits.

It’s called concealment.

Under Obamacare, who will put together that all-embracing list of permitted disease-diagnoses and treatments? The US Dept. of Health and Human Services. DHHS is a cabinet post under the president.

Therefore, the federal government (in collusion with pharmaceutical companies) will control, in great detail, the practice of medicine, and if that makes you feel warm and fuzzy, I have condos for sale on Pluto. You think the CDC and FDA are overbearing now? You haven’t seen anything yet.

Here’s a case of how this con game would function:

Let’s say a young boy suddenly develops rapid mood swings. He’s up, he’s down, he’s all over the place. He throws tantrums, then he sits in his room and won’t talk to anyone.

Unknown to him or his parents, the cause of all this bizarre behavior was GMO corn. The inserted genes in the corn provoked a massive inflammatory response, in which his immune system attacked the myelin insulation surrounding his nerves.

But the medical diagnosis, according to the Obamacare chart of allowable interpretations: Bipolar disease.

Now come the Bipolar drugs. Lithium, Valproate, with their highly destructive adverse effects—and the sanctity of GMO crops is protected.

And to take this a step further, the company that produces and sells GMO corn seeds knows all this. It knows that many people who are being diagnosed with Bipolar are actually suffering from an autoimmune reaction to the genes inserted in the corn.

They have the perfect medical mechanism for covering up their secret.

In fact, this company is not just a GMO producer. It, like other giants, is also a chemical and pharmaceutical outfit. It makes a drug used to treat…Bipolar.

The circle is complete. The secret is protected, the money rolls in through several allied channels, and only the patient suffers.

Obamacare, in one of its several heinous aspects, is a stealth operation used to conceal crimes.

If you think this is science fiction, think again. It’s already happening. Researchers are madly probing for genes that cause cancer, and their PR people, based on no solid evidence, are trumpeting the “advances.”

Meanwhile, large numbers of people are developing cancer from exposure to pesticides. But the genetic diversion takes the public’s mind away from this fact into a more esoteric area.

As of 2012, people still have the right to enter a detox program aimed at ridding the body of stored pesticide chemicals. But up the line, the day will come when the Obamacare Program will rule that out as a permitted option for all people under the umbrella of the national health insurance plan. Meaning, everybody.

This is precisely what the drug companies want, which is why they participated in crafting Obamacare in the first place.

They want to lock down the population in a pharmaceutical arena and treat them from cradle to grave with their chemical agents.

No, you don’t see the lockdown now, as Obamacare enters the mainstream, but neither did you see drones flying overhead and giant computers recording every email, phone call, and product purchase you make, back in the day when the FBI was occasionally wire-tapping a suspect after obtaining a warrant.

These thing take time, but they happen.

Back when Lyndon Jonson announced an idea called The Great Society, you didn’t see the time when the US government would be spending a trillion dollars a year on means-tested welfare, or that at least half the country would want that sum to go higher without limit.