Category Archives: Press Fraud

Want vaccine truth? Now you’re a Russian dupe. I’m serious.

Want vaccine truth? Now you’re a Russian dupe. I’m serious.

by Jon Rappoport

November 27, 2017

It had to happen. In the UK, warnings are going out that “anti-vaccination” posts online are the work of Russian disinformation agents who are trying to destabilize the West.

OK, I confess. For the past 30 years, during which I’ve exposed lies about vaccines from top to bottom, I’ve been working for the Kremlin. My code name is Ivan the Giant Killer.

The ibtimes has the story: “UK health officials fear Russian cyber units are ‘spreading false information’ on flu and measles jabs”.

“Concerns have prompted UK government departments to monitor social media and flag false stories.”

“Experts are warning that Russian cyber units are spreading false information about flu and measles jabs in the UK.”

“In an apparent attempt to erode trust in US and European governments, state-sponsored units are using social media to spread lies, the Mirror reported. The Kremlin is believed to be attempting to foster distrust over flu jabs and the MMR measles vaccines.”

“The former National Counter Terrorism Security Office head Chris Phillips warned that Russian cyber farms are a threat to daily life. ‘This is all about destabilisation by external forces. War is ever changing and becoming much more cyber-based,’ Phillips told The Mirror.”

“He added: ‘If the Russian government, or whoever, wishes to exert this kind of influence, is able to cause difficulty in decisions, in trusting the government of the day in that country, or otherwise trusted media and news organisations, then so much the better for them’.”

“According to the Mirror, concerns over the threat to public health and security are so high that government departments have been ordered to monitor social media and flag any troublesome articles.”

“Health chiefs have reportedly held emergency meetings concerning the spread of ‘fake news’ about vaccination campaigns. There are also concerns that the strides made through information programmes [unvarnished propaganda] in schools and communities could be undone by these false stories.”

“Public Health England and the Royal College of GPs have expressed concern over how much false health news is shared online and on social media.”

ERODE PUBLIC TRUST IN GOVERNMENT AND MAINSTREAM MEDIA? Excuse me, but those institutions having been doing a marvelous job destroying public trust all on their own.

And they think you’re complete morons; they think you’ll buy the idea that anti-vaccination information must be false and fake and coming out of Russia.

They think you’ll support censoring that information.

“OK, boys, today we’re going to merge the ‘Russia-did-it’ meme with the ‘beware-of-unofficial-vaccine-disinformation’ meme, roll it all up into a ball and push it out there. We’ve got to do something. More people are waking up to vaccine damage and the preposterous nature of our claims that vaccines are wonderfully safe and effective. We know our claims are bullshit, but we’re supposed to know. They’re not supposed to. But more of them do know.”

Coming up next: “Let’s see. During the presidential campaign, Trump suggested that vaccines could cause autism. Obviously, he got that information from…Russia. More proof he’s an agent working for Putin.”

The Amish are all Russians.

That soccer mom down the street with the kid who pretends he’s super-healthy and has never been vaccinated? She has a secret transmitter in her basement. Every night she taps out signals to her handler in Moscow, using marked pages from Tolstoy’s War and Peace for code. Quick, report her to the FBI. Call the shock troops from Merck and Glaxo.

Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, 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 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

COMPROMISED: Sex-abuser Congressmen are open to massive blackmail

COMPROMISED: Sex-abuser Congressmen are open to massive blackmail

by Jon Rappoport

November 23, 2017

Most people are naïve about how intelligence operations are run. Holding damaging secrets on public figures equals the opportunity for blackmail. This strategy was probably discovered by cave men.

—Sex-abuse claims filed against members of Congress—beyond Al Franken and John Conyers—

Where are all the names of these Congressmen? We’re now told that, in the past 10 years, $17 million has been paid out to accusers in small sums. An unknown part of that money was compensation for explicitly sexual offenses.

There are more cases where the accusers simply gave up and refused to pursue claims. They’re potentially waiting in the wings.

Not only are the Congressmen guilty, they’re open to blackmail. As they vote on bills; as they decide which lobbyists to favor; as they decide what advice to follow from intelligence agencies; as they decide whether to take meetings with agents from other countries; they’re always looking over their shoulders, wondering: HOW MUCH DO THESE PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT ME? WHAT SHOULD I DO TO STAY SAFE?

And in some hotel room, late at night, when a person slips them a folder with details of their sexual misdemeanors or felonies, what are they going to do? How are they going to resist whatever is being asked for?

COMPROMISED.

This is the political elephant in the room the mainstream press isn’t talking about.

What about the NSA and the CIA and other spying agencies in the US (and other countries)? How much devastating information about sexual abuse have they gathered on these Congressmen?

How much covert control have the agencies chosen to exercise?

WE OWN YOU.

The levels of complexity can be dizzying. Suppose a guilty Congressman learns actual secrets about another politician? His impulse is to blow the whistle. But can he? What will he bring down on his own head?

Suppose he knows vital secrets about Monsanto, Dow, Exxon, Eli Lilly?

I’LL KEEP YOUR SECRETS IF YOU KEEP MINE.

A BROTHERHOOD OF SECRET-KEEPERS.

An awareness, over the years, spreads through Congress: “Many of us are guilty and we need to protect each other.”

Because it isn’t just the sexual secrets anymore. It’s the subsequent immoral actions taken and not taken, based on being compromised. Based on being controlled.

“Appreciate your committee vote to kill the bill yesterday, Senator. I assure you that thing in Miami last summer…”

“When does our deal end? When are we even? This is worse than prison.”

“It’s not worse. And it never ends. But don’t worry, be happy. Keep playing the game. It’s no skin off your nose.”

“What about honor?”

“Please. You gave that away a long time ago. In Miami. But we also know about the hotel rooms in New York, Washington, Chicago, LA…”

The Congressman can’t believe the bind he’s in. He’s having the above conversation with a man from the CIA. He and the CIA are supposed to be on the same team. And they are, if he’ll understand who is higher in the pecking order, who gives the commands.

One day, he’ll wake up and realize that, among the four women he abused, three were innocent, but one was sent in by the Agency with the task of seducing him. If necessary, at a later date, she could use their night together as blackmail. (For a rough variation on this theme, see numerous accounts of NY Governor Eliot Spitzer’s 2008 hooker scandal, which caused his resignation from office. Spitzer was attacking Wall Street and Big Pharma.)

Then we come to the issue of reporters, who themselves could be compromised, because they’re secretly guilty of sexual abuse.

For example, long-time political reporter, Glenn Thrush (Politico, NY Times, MSNBC), has just been accused of kissing and groping four women. The Times has suspended him from his position covering the White House.

If Thrush, at any time, has been aware of politicians’ misdeeds, did he cover them and expose them fully—or was he “under the gun” to play ball because of his own secrets?

One could reasonably ask this question about Thrush’s relations with the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign.

Case in point. WikiLeaks (October 2016) released an email from Thrush to John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign manager. Thrush was writing an article that referred to Podesta. He emailed Podesta part of the draft, asking him to “fact-check” it. Astonishingly, Thrush remarked in the email:

“No worries Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u. Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this. Tell me if I fucked up anything.”

Podesta replied: “no problems here.”

Politico’s vice president of communications, Brad Dayspring, made an impassioned and transparently moronic defense of his reporter:

“Glenn is one of the top political reporters in the country [!], in no small part because he understands that it is his job to get inside information, not appear perfect when someone illegally hacks email [!]…I can speak with firsthand knowledge and experience that Glenn checks the validity of often complex reporting with everybody, on both sides of the aisle.”

So who is Brad Dayspring, the ardent defender of his “top political reporter?”

Years earlier, on October 25, 2011, while Dayspring was working as Communications Director for House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, ADWEEK reported (link here):

“Turns out Dayspring’s personal Twitter feed, @BDayspring… follows 1,007 accounts, one of which is SexyTwitPics… Description: ‘We RT [retweet] only the HOTTEST Pics DIRECTLY from Sexy Ladies’ Twitter Accts! (No random girls, xxx, guys) Ladies Mention us w your pics! 18+’”

Maybe it’s a stretch, but I’d say the level of intelligence Dayspring exhibited in defending Glenn Thrush is matched by his interest in SexyTwitPics.

One of the elephants in the room is, of course, Bill Clinton. For several decades, people having been writing about his sexual predations. It’s assumed that he and his allies (including his wife) have been able to avoid final excommunication from politics because of their power—but it would be foolish to assume he has been free from blackmail.

We wouldn’t be talking about some reporter with a damning file on Bill Clinton. We would be talking about an agency like the CIA and their file. No one who is a serial abuser simply shrugs off the CIA and blithely walks away.

In other words, the Clintons may have nine lives precisely BECAUSE they made a deal with the devil…

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, 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 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

After Harvey Weinstein; is Trump next to go down?

After Harvey Weinstein; is Trump next to go down?

The shape of a psyop

by Jon Rappoport

November 7, 2017

(This is Part 1. For Part 2, click here.)

My article here is not about guilt or innocence. Understand that.

It’s about how press reports can be used to build a sense of CONTINUITY, which is vital for the ultimate card that is then played.

Follow along and see how it can be done.

First, the Weinstein story. It is sordid. Ronan Farrow reports, in The New Yorker (11/6):

“In the fall of 2016, Harvey Weinstein set out to suppress allegations that he had sexually harassed or assaulted numerous women. He began to hire private security agencies to collect information on the women and the journalists trying to expose the allegations. According to dozens of pages of documents, and seven people directly involved in the effort, the firms that Weinstein hired included Kroll, which is one of the world’s largest corporate-intelligence companies, and Black Cube, an enterprise run largely by former officers of Mossad and other Israeli intelligence agencies. Black Cube, which has branches in Tel Aviv, London, and Paris, offers its clients the skills of operatives ‘highly experienced and trained in Israel’s elite military and governmental intelligence units,’ according to its literature.”

“Two private investigators from Black Cube, using false identities, met with the actress Rose McGowan, who eventually publicly accused Weinstein of rape, to extract information from her. One of the investigators pretended to be a women’s-rights advocate and secretly recorded at least four meetings with McGowan. The same operative, using a different false identity and implying that she had an allegation against Weinstein, met twice with a journalist to find out which women were talking to the press. In other cases, journalists directed by Weinstein or the private investigators interviewed women and reported back the details.”

“The explicit goal of the investigations, laid out in one contract with Black Cube, signed in July, was to stop the publication of the abuse allegations against Weinstein that eventually emerged in the New York Times and The New Yorker. Over the course of a year, Weinstein had the agencies ‘target,’ or collect information on, dozens of individuals, and compile psychological profiles that sometimes focussed on their personal or sexual histories. Weinstein monitored the progress of the investigations personally.”

Farrow’s story is well worth reading. By inference, it suggests the outline of covert ops that can be used in many situations:

The pipeline would go from the powerful guilty client, to a law firm, which hires the “security companies.”

Persons who work for the security companies can pose as sources for journalists, pretending to offer information. But actually, they’re fishing. They want to know what the journalist knows and what he’s going to do with it, and when.

Then, the first-hand real sources for the reporter can be contacted and pressured.

These sources—victims of sexual abuse—can also be contacted by “sympathetic helpers” who do more fishing.

The security companies will probe the background and history of the reporter and try find information that can be used against him—either to impeach his reputation, or even for blackmail purposes. Anything to stop negative stories about the client from being published.

It would be only one step from there to enlist the cooperation of “Mockingbird” people in the press—covert CIA assets who work as reporters—if the client is powerful enough.

There are many potential wrinkles in this scenario. I’ll give you one that far exceeds what’s revealed or implied in Farrow’s New Yorker piece. This is how Farrow’s tireless work can be used by others, in a larger context, beyond anything Farrow intended:

Weinstein, who is guilty of various sexual offenses, is used to start the ball rolling downhill. Other celebrities, equally guilty, are exposed by victims. The news stories take on the character of a growing fire storm.

The result? The press is seen as the hero, doing its job for once. No one can cast accusations of a cover-up. They even beat the Mossad!

Then, when the public firmly believes the press is shooting straight from the shoulder…

The Trump accusers surface on cue.

At least a dozen women emerge, with their attorneys. They give their testimony of sexual harassment and abuse.

They add fuel to what is already a roaring blaze.

The public, already in a state of outrage, automatically signs on to the latest revelations.

This is not to defend or accuse Trump.

I’m just pointing out the way the game can be played.

It needs a foundation. It needs prior public “preparation” and belief.

More than anything, it needs a sense of continuity.

Otherwise, women who would come forward and accuse Trump of sexual offenses would be dismissed quickly.

But in the wake of many, many stories exposing public figures, the Trump story would have force.

“Aha. First there was Weinstein. Guilty. Then there was Kevin Spacey. Guilty. Then there was Mark Halperin. Guilty. Now there is Trump.”

“Look at how far Weinstein and his hired spies went to cover up his crimes—and they failed. The truth emerged. So now…who can doubt the honesty and sincerity of the press when they hold Trump’s feet to the fire?”

Read this from Washington Post (10/27), headlined: “All of the women who have accused Trump of sexual harassment are lying, White House says”:

“The question was posed during a White House briefing at a time when numerous men in high-profile positions have been undercut of late by allegations of sexual misconduct, including journalist Mark Halperin, who faced accusations this week from former colleagues.”

“’Obviously, sexual harassment has been in the news’,” Jacqueline Alemany of CBS News asked [White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee] Sanders. ‘At least 16 women accused the president of sexually harassing them throughout the course of the campaign. Last week, during a press conference in the Rose Garden, the president called these accusations “fake news.” Is the official White House position that all of these women are lying?’”

“’Yeah, we’ve been clear on that from the beginning, and the president’s spoken on it,’ Sanders said, before quickly pivoting to another reporter to ask a question.”

It’s a perfect news story. First, the headline, which suggests the absurdity of 16 women lying.

Then the claim that the press has slammed one of its own, Mark Halperin, without favor, on behalf of honest journalism. (“We’re fearless.”)

Then the question to the press secretary about Trump: IN LIGHT OF EVERYTHING THAT’S BEEN GOING ON RECENTLY, ARE YOU SAYING ALL THESE TRUMP WOMEN ARE LIARS?

And then the answer: YES.

In light of all the recent revelations about famous sexual offenders, the Post story hits home. It scores.

Again, I’m not saying Trump is guilty or innocent. I’m showing how the game is played. Effectively.

If this follows the Weinstein playbook, one woman will come forward and tell her Trump story.

The press will play it widely and loudly, with details. “Weinstein had his Ashley Judd, Trump now has his (insert name).”

Then another woman will appear and tell her story. And so on.

Media psyops have nothing to do with intrinsic guilt or innocence. They have to do with a final goal—and how to get there. How to achieve credibility with the public.

Working with actual guilt is easier than working with innocence, but the objective is SELLING GUILT.

That’s the trick.

Stay tuned.

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, 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 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Thomas Jefferson comments on fake news

Thomas Jefferson comments on fake news

by Jon Rappoport

November 7, 2017

The current campaign, waged by politicians, media leaders, and their social media partners, against independent media, is an act of sheer desperation.

The tonnage of fake news, spewed from the most prestigious media outlets, has cracked its own foundations.

The public is waking up.

So did Thomas Jefferson, more than 200 years ago.

Here is a progression of Jefferson’s thoughts, over a 20-year period:

“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” (28 January 1786)

“The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.” (January 16, 1787)

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. . . . I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors.” (June 11, 1807)

There is a grand tradition of fake news, and it has always sprung from the major and official sources.

Today’s mainstream reporters, of course, don’t want to think about that. They don’t want reflect on the long stench-ridden history of their own profession.

They would rather pretend their brethren have always served with honor.

This hoax is understandable. Who would want to enlist in a field where truth is of the utmost importance—and yet has been trampled on without let-up throughout its history?

Every journalism school should post a sign on its front door: WE HAVE ALWAYS LIED.

The pompous, bloated, sold-out politicians and media executives, who are currently sitting in committee hearings bemoaning the incursions of independent news sites, should pause for a moment and realize that the public they are supposedly serving are catching a strong whiff of their deliberations—

And they should understand that a natural and growing boycott of mainstream news is well underway.

With your help, the fakers will continue losing.

It’s called justice.

Meanwhile, is there one journalism professor anywhere who will tell his class, “I want to read you three quotes about the news by Thomas Jefferson. We’re going to spend the semester trying to understand what led Jefferson down this path. It’s an important inquiry, unless your idea of a career is whiter teeth and good hair and toeing the line your editors set, minus your own conscience…”

In America, I don’t think one professor could get away with that.

(New piece up on my other blog — OUTSIDE THE REALITY MACHINE, entitled “Karma Shuffle, Invented Religion”, click here.)

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, 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 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Mueller and fake news charges against Manafort

Mueller and fake news charges against Manafort

by Jon Rappoport

October 30, 2017

Here we go. Special counsel Mueller and his team have filed the first federal charges against Trump-campaign officials Paul Manafort and Rick Gates.

CNN is running the headline: MANAFORT, GATES CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE US.

Other press outlets are following suit, emphasizing the “conspiracy against the US.”

CNN writes: “The indictment against the Manafort and Gates contains 12 counts: conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) statements, false statements, and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts.”

—But here is the real takeaway, and of course MSM outlets are ignoring it: the conspiracy charge is a piece of federal boilerplate. Alongside the basket of other charges mentioned above, conspiracy is a general category that is tacked on. It isn’t a specific singular charge. It definitely isn’t “these two men conspired with Russia to hand Trump the election.”

In fact, CNN adds: “The charges do not cover any activities related to the campaign, though it’s possible Mueller could add additional charges.”

But when MSM outlets blare “conspiracy against the United States,” most readers and viewers will assume this does mean a charge of working with Russia to make Trump president.

It’s a nice little devious trick.

Of course, the Mueller indictments are also being used to blot out the Clinton Uranium One scandal and the Trump dirty dossier scandal, both of which involve the Clintons, and Mueller as well, since he was the head of the FBI when the Bureau discovered all sorts of corruption and bribery involving Russia’s nuclear industry, during Uranium One negotiations, and either failed to disclose the findings, or failed to use them to make an impact on Obama.

Today, it’s all about “conspiracy against the United States,” and the mainstream news audience who thinks and comprehends and talks in terms of vague generalities—like thirsty travelers in the desert spotting the mirage of an oasis.

“OH, CONSPIRACY AGAINST AMERICA, WELL THAT’S IT THEN, THEY NAILED THEM.”

That and $2.75 will get you a ride on the New York Subway.

In case you haven’t read my piece on the Clintons and the Uranium One scandal—which most definitely DOES connect Bill and Hillary to corrupt dealings with the Russians, and which hasn’t been “debunked,” as MSM outlets keep insisting, here it is:

—Cue the dawn sunrise and violins for the beautiful first couple of American politics (the Clintons).

But what about the uranium scandal?

The what?

Before I quote a NY Times piece on this—suppose, just suppose the beautiful first couple, Bill and Hillary, have been running a parallel operation to the government, in the form of a Foundation that is taking in major chunks of cash from people who want (and get) serious political favors.

Well, current news stories confirm that. We already know that.

But uranium?

Consider this plot line. Follow the bouncing ball.

Putin wants 20% of uranium on US soil. That 20% is already owned by a Canadian mining company.

The Canadian executives want to sell it to Putin.

But because uranium is a US “national security” product, various US federal agencies have to OK the deal. One of those agencies is the US State Department.

The State Department is headed up by Hillary Clinton. Her Department says yes to the uranium deal.

The kicker? Those Canadian mining executives, who wanted the sale to Putin to go through, donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.

Getting the picture?

On April 23, 2015, the NY Times ran a story under the headline: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.

The bare bones of the story: a Canadian company called Uranium One controlled a great deal of uranium production in the US. It was sold to Russia (meaning Putin and his minions). So Putin now controls 20% of US uranium production.

From the Times: “…the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”

The Times: “The [Pravda] article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company [Uranium One] with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”

“But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.”

“At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.”

“Frank Giustra…a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton…”

“Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal [to sell Uranium One to Putin] had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

If you’re Putin and you’re sitting in Moscow, and the uranium deal has just dropped this bonanza into your lap, what’s your reaction—after you stop laughing and popping champagne corks? Or maybe you never really stop laughing. Maybe this is a joke that keeps on giving. You wake up in the middle of the night with a big grin plastered on your face, and you can’t figure out why…and then you remember, oh yeah, the uranium deal. The US uranium. Who’s running the show in America? Ha-ha-ha. Some egregious dolt? Maybe he’s a sleeper agent we forgot about and he reactivated himself. And this Clinton Foundation—how can the beautiful couple get away with that? Can we give Hillary a medal? Can we put up a statue of her in a park? Does Bill need any more hookers?

You shake your head and go back to sleep. You see a parade of little boats carrying uranium from the US to Russia. A pretty line of putt-putt boats. You chuckle. Row, row, row your boat…merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily…life is but a dream.

Good times.

Final note: there is a great deal of difference between a major outlet like the NY Times running their Clinton/uranium piece for one day—and pounding on it for weeks and months. In the latter case, they would let loose the hounds, who would probe and push and interview relevant people and get confessions and parlay those confessions up the food chain—blowing the story into an enormous scandal—which it is.

The Times had its hands on a volcanic piece…and they let it drop. Because the ceiling and the limit had been reached. The Times basically executed what’s called a limited hangout, a partial exposure of a story that was getting too hot to suppress entirely.

The limited hangout allows the venting of steam—and then nothing more. In this case, the Clinton camp denies there was any quid pro quo, they assert Hillary had nothing to do with the uranium deal, and the curtain falls.

Thus you have the reality which the major media did expose, vs. the reality they could have exposed. The “could have” part would have changed current history—but it was squelched, and put under wraps.

Tossed on the junk heap.

—end of my 2016 article—

Now, the Senate Judiciary Committee and Chairman Chuck Grassley are looking into these crimes, because new reports of corruption are surfacing:

FOX News: “The Hill reported that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S. — but the Obama administration approved the uranium deal benefiting Moscow anyway.”

“Grassley on Wednesday [raised]…the question of whether the [US government] committee that approved the [uranium] transaction [in 2010] was aware of the FBI probe. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) [which approved the uranium deal] included then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

As Newsweek reports, that early FBI probe was launched under FBI Director Robert Mueller. Mueller is now trying to dig up (or invent) every tidbit he can about Russian collusion with…Trump in the 2016 presidential election. My, my.

Newsweek contacted the FBI a few days ago, asking whether Mueller had informed the Obama White House about his old FBI probe that uncovered Russian corruption relevant to the uranium deal that was being put together at the time.

Newsweek: “The FBI said it had no comment to Newsweek questions about whether Mueller alerted senior Obama administration officials, including Clinton, about the [FBI] investigation before they brokered the [uranium] deal.”

BOOM. Are you kidding? No comment? That’s tantamount to admitting, “Look, either way we answer that question, we’re screwed or the Obama White House is screwed, so we’re remaining mum. We’re protecting VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE and the truth doesn’t matter.”

This should be the subject of screaming headlines from mainstream news around the world: FBI CLAMS UP ON URANIUM DEAL. FBI REFUSES TO SAY WHETHER BOSS MUELLER TOLD THE WHITE HOUSE ABOUT RUSSIAN CORRUPTION IN URANIUM DEAL. FBI COVERING UP CORRUPTION IN CLINTON OBAMA RUSSIAN URANIUM DEAL.

However, the FBI refusal is buried deep in mainstream stories.

But wait, it gets even better:

FOX: “[Grassley] is calling for the Justice Department to lift an apparent ‘gag order’ on an FBI informant who reportedly helped the U.S. uncover a [2009-10] corruption and bribery scheme by Russian nuclear officials but allegedly was ‘threatened’ by the Obama administration to stay quiet.”

“Victoria Toensing, a lawyer for the former FBI informant, told Fox News’ ‘America’s Newsroom’ that her client has ‘specific information about [Russian] contributions and bribes to various entities and people in the United States’.”

“She said she could not go further because her client has not been released from a nondisclosure agreement but suggested the gag order could be lifted soon. [It was lifted a few days ago.] Toensing also claimed that her client was ‘threatened by the Loretta Lynch Justice Department’ when he pursued a civil action in which he reportedly sought to disclose some information about the case.”

The gag order and the non-disclosure agreement are nonsense. They don’t apply when enforcing them would cover up a major crime.

I have suggestions for the FBI informant’s lawyer Toensing, if she’s playing it straight.

Hire at least four top-flight private security firms to guard your client around the clock, and hope these firms don’t have strong ties to government law-enforcement.

Issue a firm declaration from your client stating he is in good health and has no intention of committing suicide.

Do these things yesterday.

After all, it’s the Clintons we’re talking about, and Obama and the FBI.

And the Clintons.

And, of course, the Clintons.

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, 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 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Vegas cops change their story: Paddock shot security guard BEFORE mass shooting: huge new can of worms

Vegas cops change their story: Paddock shot security guard BEFORE mass shooting: huge new can of worms

LA Times: “Police said Paddock fired 200 rounds into the hallway” wounding a hotel security guard.

by Jon Rappoport

October 10, 2017

LA Times, October 9: “Police have dramatically changed their account of how the Las Vegas massacre began on Oct. 1, revealing Monday that the gunman shot a hotel security guard [in the leg through the closed door of his hotel room] six minutes before opening fire on a country music concert — raising new questions about why police weren’t able to pinpoint the gunman’s location sooner.”

The previous police story was: Paddock shot security guard Campos after he finished firing on the concert crowd.

The LA Times focuses on how this new information changes the timeline of events—in particular, the addition of minutes before police arrived at Paddock’s door.

Really? That’s the takeaway?

There is a far more serious question. Why did Paddock shoot the security guard through his hotel room door, with 200 rounds of ammunition (according to police), BEFORE starting to fire on the concert crowd?

Whether or not Paddock was using a silenced weapon to shoot the security guard, didn’t he think 200 rounds through a door might possibly alert people in the hotel to what he was about to do—kill people at the concert?

Security guard Campos, according to the Times, was on Paddock’s 32nd floor to check on an alert about another guest’s room door having being left open. Campos wasn’t there to check on Paddock. There is no indication Paddock was suspected of anything.

The new Vegas police sequence of events now goes this way: Paddock is in his room preparing to slaughter people at the concert; security guard Campos comes to the 32nd floor to check on a report of another guest’s door having been left open; Paddock sees Campos out in the hallway outside his door (using a camera Paddock had installed); Paddock fires 200 rounds through his door and hits Campos in the leg; leaving Campos there, Paddock then WAITS SIX MINUTES and begins firing through his broken window(s) at the concert crowd.

Perhaps the police will change their story yet again. Paddock didn’t fire 200 rounds through his door. He stepped out into the hallway and wounded Campos with one shot using a silenced handgun. He then left Campos there, went back into his room, waited six minutes, and then started firing on the concert crowd.

Or, after wounding Campos with one bullet, he paid Campos with a pile of casino chips and told him to wait in the hallway and say nothing to anyone for a half-hour.

Or he bound and gagged Campos after shooting him in the leg and stuffed him into a laundry closet in the hallway.

Or, the most popular tactic in these untenable and absurd stories: “Obviously, Paddock was crazy. There is no way to account for all his actions. We may never know why he did what he did.”

That usually works with the public. The police or the FBI paint themselves into a corner trying to hide the truth. They realize their latest version of events makes no sense. So they invoke the time-honored “we may never know” explanation.

If some reporter wakes up from his stupor and resists going along with the story, he’ll probably hear: “Yes, we’re looking into that. But we have no further comment at this time.”

Or most likely, any time.

Here is a reasonable assessment: since very early on, police had decided on this story: Paddock was the shooter; he was the only shooter; he wounded the security guard after he finished firing on the concert crowd.

But the fact that the security guard was wounded BEFORE the concert shooting was leaking out. People in Las Vegas knew about it. So the cops (or the FBI) decided they had to get out ahead of the leak, if possible. It would be better to change their story than wait and end up with egg on their faces.

And so far, it looks like they made a smart move. Because how many media outlets are pointing out how crazy the new story is?

Most importantly, how many other egregious lies are sitting under the previous security-guard lie? How many other devious twists and turns in the true tale are being hidden?

The Matrix Revealed

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

Why you shouldn’t believe anything the FBI says about the Vegas shooting

Why you shouldn’t believe anything the FBI says about Vegas shooting

by Jon Rappoport

October 9, 2017

No matter how the Vegas shooting investigation looks, the FBI is playing a large role. The forensics, in particular, would be checked by FBI techs and labs.

Vital lab analysis of weapons and ammunition and bullet-angles and cartridges and residue. Weapons Paddock had or didn’t have. Ammunition he had or didn’t have. Modifications he made or didn’t make to those weapons. How many different kinds of bullets were found in victims? What weapons did those bullets come from?

And depending on that evidence—were there multiple shooters, for example?

Should you believe the FBI’s analyses?

Are you kidding? The scurrilous reputation of the FBI in its handling of forensics is astonishing. Read on. Note: I’m saving the best for last:

In 2014-15, stories appeared in the press about the phenomenal corruption of the FBI evidence lab. But since then, there has been very little follow-up. I find no compelling evidence that the federal government has fixed the problem.

April 20, 2015, The Atlantic: “…the Washington Post made clear Saturday in an article that begins with a punch to the gut… ‘Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,’ the newspaper reported, adding that ‘the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death’.”

August 12, 2014, New Scientist: “…the initial results were released of an ongoing review of thousands of criminal cases in which FBI scientists’ testimony may have led to wrongful convictions – including for some people now on death row…[an FBI source states] ’we teach these people [lab techs in training] for two weeks, and they would go back to their laboratories with a certificate of completion and be told: Great you’re qualified to do this [analysis of evidence] – here’s your caseload.’”

Washington Post, April 18, 2015: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”

“Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.”

“The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.”

Giant long-term scandal and corruption. The story is covered. Then it disappears.

Now here’s the capper:

On April 19, 1995, one-third of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City blew up, killing 169 people and wounding 680 others.

Three men were arrested and convicted: Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael Fortier. McVeigh was put to death on June 11, 2001, Nichols is currently serving multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole, and Fortier was sentenced to 12 years (he served that term and was released).

The official narrative of the bombing stated: A Ryder truck parked at the curb outside the Murrah Building contained barrels of ammonium nitrate plus fuel oil (ANFO bombs), and their coordinated explosion occurred shortly after 9AM on the morning of April 19th.

In addition to the deaths and the woundings, the explosion impacted 324 buildings and 86 cars in the area.

(In my 1995, book, “The Oklahoma City Bombing, the Suppressed Truth,” I laid to rest the claim that ANFO bombs could have caused that much damage; and more importantly, I showed that an explosion coming out of a Ryder truck at the curb could not have caused the particular profile of damage sustained by the Murrah Building.)

The vaunted FBI lab decided that, indeed, all the damage and death HAD been caused by ANFO bombs in the Ryder truck.

But wait.

Buckle up.

Two years after the bombing, on March 22, 1997, we had this from CNN: “The Justice Department inspector general’s office has determined that the FBI crime laboratory working on the Oklahoma City bombing case made ‘scientifically unsound’ conclusions that were ‘biased in favor of the prosecution,’ The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.”

“…[FBI] supervisors approved lab reports that they ‘cannot support’ and…FBI lab officials may have erred about the size of the blast, the amount of explosives involved and the type of explosives used in the bombing[!].”

“…harshest criticism was of David Williams, a supervisory agent in the [FBI] explosives unit, the paper [LA Times] said. Those flaws reportedly include the basis of his determination that the main charge of the explosion was ammonium nitrate. The inspector general called such a determination ‘inappropriate,’ the Times said.”

“…FBI officials found a receipt for ammonium nitrate at defendant [Terry] Nichols’ home and, because of that discovery, Williams slanted his conclusion to match the evidence.”

And with those revelations, the case, the investigation, the court trials, and press probes should have taken a whole new direction. But they didn’t.

The fake science was allowed to stand.

So now…there is no reason to believe anything the FBI says about Paddock, his weapons, his ammo, his modifications, the degree of his participation (or non-participation) in the shooting, the trajectories of bullets, the types of bullets found in victims, the nature of the expended shell casings, and other VITAL forensic details in the case.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Vegas shooting: real vs. fake

Vegas shooting: real vs. fake

by Jon Rappoport

October 6, 2017

These are a few observations leading to a hypothesis.

First, there is a video, taken at ground level, of a man going from victim to victim lying on the ground at the concert. He is checking their pulses, asking if they’re all right, calling for medical help. Notice the color of the blood on the ground and on the victims. It is a quite bright red. Would real bloodstains on the ground be that color, or would they be darker?

Next, there is the matter of how Stephen Paddock, the accused shooter, brought 23 weapons and ammo into the Mandalay Hotel and up to his suite.

He was a well-known high-stakes gambler. Hotel personnel surely knew him. They knew he lived in the Vegas area. Yet there he is with a number of suitcases—or over the course of a few days, he appears in the lobby with another suitcase or two each time.

These hotels are security-conscious to the max. No suspicion was aroused? And Paddock risked exposure to take weapons he would never use up to his suite?

Did Paddock bring in the weapons through another hotel entrance with the help of staff? Was this part of the operation an inside job?

Did he actually bring in all these weapons? Or was his hotel suite staged as a prop by others? Was it set up as a showcase for gun-control advocates who, after the fact, would push for new restrictive laws?

The photos of the hotel suite—when were they taken? In the immediate aftermath of the shooting? Where are the hundreds or thousands of shell casings that would have been ejected from the weapon(s)? The photos of the floor show very little brass. My understanding is these casings would have been quite hot. Where are all the burn marks on the carpet and furniture and walls?

This whole “hotel suite” scenario is very murky and needs much more investigation.

There are cell-phone videos taken at ground level at the concert, while you can hear automatic gunfire. A reader brings up an interesting point. Many of these shots would miss human targets. Instead, they would hit solid objects and either remain embedded or bounce. Where are the loud sounds, on the videos, of ricochets—not just a few sounds, but many.

Now here is a hypothesis. Obviously, it applies to more than just the Vegas shooting. In SOME of these events, we see a MIX of fake and real happenings. There are real victims and fake victims. This confusion and conflation of the fake and the real stimulate different and opposing lines of independent investigation.

Some say all the victims are fake. Others say all the victims are real. Both viewpoints tend to generalize from a few sets of facts.

The result? This is perfect for those who are actually behind the operation in the shadows, who want to engender false trails and dead ends and “unsolvable” anomalies.

And conflict among independent researchers who, after all, are the only real threat to the party line.

“Look, here is a group of obvious crisis actors. They’re fakes. Therefore, the whole event is a fake.”

“Here are real victims. Therefore, the whole event is real. There was nothing fake about it.”

Then, on top of this, the mainstream press, in its usual fashion, cherry picks the most far-out “conspiracy theories,” presents them, and says: “Look how ridiculous ALL these people are who question the official investigation.” Another generalization. A way to discredit all independent researchers.

When you think about it, the hypothesis I’m presenting is not strange at all. What do major media news broadcasts do? They mix real facts and fake facts. This is SOP. They mix and stir and derive bizarre conclusions that mislead the public.

“Real or fake” is not always the correct formulation, although that is what many people want to decide. “It must be black or white, yes or no, this or that.” We’re looking at a trap, we’re looking at many minds disposed to function in this fashion.

In certain cases, it can be “real and fake.”

And when it is, and when it’s intentional, it confuses people and they throw up their hands and walk away.

Which is the desired effect.

“Was the whole thing real or fake? I have to know.”

It was both.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Was the Vegas shooter a patsy?

Was the Vegas shooter a patsy?

How did he get all those weapons into his hotel suite?

by Jon Rappoport

October 5, 2017

Daily Mail: “…Jill Sneider of the ATF said that no less than 12 of the rifles found in the room had bump-stock modifications.”

“In total, there were 23 firearms in the hotel room, including an AK-47, an AR-15-type gun, and a handgun.”

That’s a lot of weight. That’s a lot of steel. How did Stephen Paddock, the purported Vegas shooter, get all those weapons into his Mandalay Hotel suite?

Are we supposed to believe no red flags went up? No alarms were triggered?

He had no help? No help from the inside?

On top of that, why did he take all those weapons into the suite? He certainly wasn’t going to use all of them.

It’s easy to say, “He did all that because he was crazy, and there is no way to analyze crazy.” If investigations proceeded on that premise, they wouldn’t be investigations.

Confronted with this pile of weaponry in a suite, after a mass shooting, it would be reasonable to ask, “Did the accused shooter actually bring all these guns in himself?” And further: “Was this some kind of set-up, carried out to forward a “take the guns away from everybody” agenda?

Yes, that would open the door to a very murky area—constructing an alternative time line of events leading up to the shooting. Nevertheless, a true investigation would explore this area. Although police and FBI aren’t talking about it, you can bet a few officers are at least looking into the possibility that Paddock had help bringing all that weaponry into his suite.

Are we to assume the Mandalay Hotel security system is a sieve? They just wave everyone through without a flicker of doubt, with millions of dollars on the premises and millions more being bet in real time in the casino? It’s just a party?

Pit bosses on the floor and eyes in the sky can spot a cheater who is counting cards at a blackjack table, but no one is able to notice a well-known high stakes gambler (Paddock) dragging many suitcases through the premises up into his suite? Really?

The aftermath of the concert shooting has turned into an ideal opportunity for gun control and a stepped up Surveillance State. The presence of so many guns in Paddock’s suite makes a perfect photo op for these agendas.

As more background emerges on Stephen Paddock, we discover he isn’t just a burrito-eating retiree living outside Vegas. According to the press, he’s a millionaire real estate investor. He has many options in life. But he makes a plan to end that life. He surely knows that’s what is going to happen. He wants it to happen. He launches an operation over the course of months to bring about his death.

Yes, it’s possible. And the Valium he’s taking could push him over the edge, because it can cause aggression in some people. Nevertheless, we’re supposed to believe, without explanation, that his impulse for destruction and self-destruction was far more than just a moment’s snap decision. It was embedded in a carefully wrought design. Paddock laid out a sequence of events that would culminate in his “suicide by cop.” We’re supposed to take that as an article of faith.

Or…was this operation something else entirely? Was, for example Paddock, as a gun enthusiast, profiled and targeted and used by a team intent on carrying out the concert shooting?

Was he a patsy?

Was he a Lee Oswald, a Sirhan Sirhan, a James Earl Ray?

The use of patsies varies. The set-ups can be complex. There is more than just one possible pattern. For example, in the case of the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing, Tim McVeigh, to the degree he may have been involved, was only used to get a Ryder Truck to the curb outside the Murrah Federal Building on the morning of April 19th.

We are assured there was an ANFO bomb in the truck (ammonium nitrate plus fuel oil). Seven or eight barrels were linked up to go off at once. Of course, making that happen would take a considerable degree of expertise—beyond McVeigh’s skill. The explosions in the barrels must be simultaneous; otherwise, you’re left with no force and fertilizer all over the street.

Still further, it turns out that, even with a simultaneous ignition, the force and direction of the blast were insufficient to cause the degree and profile of the damage sustained by the Murrah Building. That bomb was a diversion and a distraction.

One alternative explanation: as the bomb in the Ryder truck went off, pillars of the building—which had previously been wired with explosives—were triggered. Those explosives caused the actual damage.

But McVeigh, the “Ryder truck man,” became the face of the crime. He was the “lone bomber.”

The patsy.

The public is taught to believe sophistication in the use of patsies is impossible.

The public is wrong.

The role of Stephen Paddock in the concert shooting cannot be accepted blindly as the press details it.

The Matrix Revealed

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

Shots fired at the Vegas Bellagio the same night as the concert attack? YouTube took down the video.

Shots fired at Vegas Bellagio same night as concert attack? YouTube took down the video.

by Jon Rappoport

October 5, 2017

Yesterday, I posted a video reporting shots fired through the front door of the Vegas Bellagio Hotel on the night of the concert attack.

My, my. YouTube took the video down. We found a new link. Don’t know how long it’ll work.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V_gS9ythDQ?ecver=1&w=540&h=304]

Why did YouTube take down the video? On what grounds? It was truthful and therefore disturbing? The video was taken inside the Bellagio by a guest, and she speaks at length about the shooting incident.

I guess that’s too real. A new standard for violating the rules: “It’s too real, take it down.”

Or: “It’s obviously fake, it must be, because no approved media outlets reported that shooting, but it looks too real so it’s a great fake, take it down.”

Clearly, another shooting in Vegas around the time of the concert shooting would open up the door to the idea of a planned multiple attack, involving more than just a “lone crazy man at the Mandalay Hotel.”

Can’t have that.

No.

We’re already beginning to see new calls for eliminating “fake news” in the wake of the Vegas attacks. The Guardian is bemoaning the fact that many videos are being posted which question, doubt, and reject the official lone gunman scenario.

Can’t have that.

No.

Instead, what we need are more videos of police press conferences. We should bow down and accept that information. The Church of Police Truth. It’s the only way to get to heaven. Join now before it’s too late and you’re infected by the Other.

After working for 19 years as a reporter and author, I went online in 2001 and called this site nomorefakenews. There was a reason for that. It’s called mainstream news.

The Matrix Revealed

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