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

by Jon Rappoport

May 23, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

Just a coincidence. Nothing to see. Move along.

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

Well, here are some new talking points.

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

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

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

Point four: Read point three again.

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

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

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

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

The Daily Caller broke this story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 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

by Jon Rappoport

May 22, 2013

(To join our email list, click here.)

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

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

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

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

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

From Politico:

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

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

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

end Politico excerpt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Computer hacked, mind on hold.

Hell of a life.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 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

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

By Jon Rappoport

May 19, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 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

Eric Holder: idiot zen master

by Jon Rappoport

May 17, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

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

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

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

What?

Huh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holder actually believes we’re buying his act?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life without life.

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

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

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

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

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

“I recuse myself from answering that question.”

“What?”

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

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

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

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

“I recuse myself.”

“Are you invoking your Fifth Amendment rights?”

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

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

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

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 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

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

by Jon Rappoport

May 16, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

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

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

Chris Matthews loses ‘thrill up leg’ …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The current press virus is: Obama is Nixon.

What’s going on?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;

James Jones, National Security Advisor;

Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;

Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.

All Trilateralists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And right now, it needs to be.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 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