by Jon Rappoport

September 29, 2012


Maybe somebody inside Obama’s re-election campaign is spreading disinfo about the president giving away free cell phones, but if so, it isn’t true.

Poor people aren’t getting free phones or discounted service fees from the Obama administration.

People voting for Obama because they have a free cell phone are way off. They should try voting instead for a giant telecom company—only that company isn’t running for president.

Since 1997, people below the poverty line have been getting discounted phone service, because big telecom companies have been making it possible, by charging everybody else a few bucks extra on their monthly phone bills. That’s how it works.

The basic program is called Lifeline, a branch of a non-profit company, Universal Service Administrative Company, set up by the FCC in 1997, as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act passed by Congress. That’s how the poor get discounted phone bills.

The Constitutionality of the federal government setting up a non-profit company is another story for another time. Suffice it to say, it should be illegal.

Free cell phones for the poor come from SafeLink which, according to FactCheck.org, is operated by America Movil, a giant wireless company. SafeLink, however, is paid for by that non-profit the FCC set up, Universal Service Administrative Company, which in turn gets its money from the big telecoms, who charge everybody who isn’t poor a few extra bucks on their phone bills. Got it?

Nothing to do with Obama. There is no Obama Phone.

But what a windfall for the Obama campaign when poor people believe the president gave them their phones. In Ohio alone, a key election state, there are now a million people who have some kind of discounted phone service.

Are government-funded community groups and community organizers out there, across America, recruiting poor people and telling them they can get Obama Phones? There are now 16.5 million people in the US receiving discounted phone services. Between 20 and 30 million Americans are eligible. That’s quite a nice election-vote bump.

“Obama re-elected! It was the phones, pollsters say.”

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.



Jon Rappoport

Use this link to order Jon’s Seminar Series







By Jon Rappoport

September 28, 2012


Yes, of course it was the Federal Reserve. Paul wanted to investigate it and audit it thoroughly, and if by some remote chance he became president, he would have had the leverage to go deep and deeper. And then the global banksters would have tumbled out of the woodwork, for all to see.

But Paul also wanted to bring all the American troops home and get them out of foreign wars. That was just as big a deal. He was stepping on some huge toes there.

So let’s explore a few pieces of America’s current military adventurism and see who’s hiding under what rocks.

Once you laugh off the ridiculous idea that the government is promoting democracy through the Arab Spring, strange questions surface.

Who’s running the real op in the Middle East, and what is their goal?

Obama’s obvious propensity for all things Islamic…how does that fit in?

According to one sensible scenario, the spreading Arab Spring is merely a front for a covert op, whose real ambition—using Libyan and other trained terrorists and NATO surrogates—is a US takeover of the Middle East and North Africa.

And then? Previous dictators in that region, overthrown, will give way to Muslim states, and new Islamic leadership will pay back under-the-table promises to US elites, who want…what?

A better oil deal?

What’s really going on here?

There are those who believe US ambitions in the Middle East have everything to do with establishing a ring of military bases close to Russia. Such moves on the planetary chessboard would signify an enduring competition between the two primary Cold War players. If true, is the only way to achieve American military hegemony through igniting the whole Muslim world? Isn’t that a bit risky? A bit crazy?

Assuming the current chaos in the Middle East and parts of Africa is all a US plan to utilize Islamic proxies, how sensible and pragmatic is the strategy, given the unpredictable range of future consequences? Is this a genius maneuver?

With countries in the Middle East coming, for example, under Muslim Brotherhood control, is the US more likely or less likely to preserve the unimpeded flow of oil? Is a “better oil deal” really in the offing?

Is there another way to look at US actions in the Middle East over the last two presidencies?

One thing is clear. George W Bush and Barack Obama are not highly rated war planners or foreign policy pros. They’re neophytes. They’re also, of course, like the whole parade of modern US presidents, instruments of higher forces. They’re front men.

This doesn’t mean Bush and Obama really comprehend who they’re actually working for. It simply means they’re dupes.

Just as it was eminently predictable that Bush, after 9/11, would want to invade Iraq (“Saddam tried to kill my dad”) and would go along with plans that were on the drawing board long before 9/11, it has been predictable that Obama would show “warm support” for and special treatment to Islam, imagining its modern destiny in terms of “a great self-determined uprising.” Hence, Obama’s key role in Arab Spring.

In other words, both Bush and Obama were carefully profiled long before they ever took office as president.

Profiled by whom?

If we draw an arc of power, extending at least as far back as Vietnam (or from the beginning of the 20th century), coming forward through the latter stages of the Cold War, and then into “the age of terrorism,” the question of who benefits has an answer.

It is the same answer you would get if you inquired into the objectives of the Rockefeller family, the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the elite bankers who breathe life into economies and take life away, according to their private timetable.

Who benefits from the last decade of manipulated US foreign policy and military wars?

The military-industrial complex? Yes.

But above and beyond that?

The great beneficiaries are the elite Globalists who are determined to establish a planetary management system, a political New World Order.

And by using tools like Obama and Bush, they have made headway toward achieving a major item on their agenda: degrade and sink and weaken, and ultimately destroy the United States by keeping it at war.

The United States, from the Globalist perspective, needs to be brought down. It needs to have its pillars crumble. It needs to go away.

There are two reasons. One, it is the primary place in the world where the idea of individual freedom is still alive. And two, its government’s persistent ambition to create unilateral Empire is a threat to international Globalist control of the planet.

American empire and Globalist empire are not exactly the same thing. In the long run, as far as the Rockefellers of this world are concerned, they are mutually exclusive.

So what better way to weaken America than to cater to its government’s empire-building obsession, and to use that obsession to propel it into high-risk military adventures that dead-end in disasters?

Disasters such as:

Huge budget expenditures on wars and ensuing debt. Demoralization of American citizens through wars, to say nothing of the injuries and deaths and debilitation of soldiers. An embrace with radical Islam, and all the blowback that brings. The eventual pinching off of oil supplies in the Middle East. International chaos. Engendering hatred of America abroad. Inculcating self-hatred of the US among Americans at home. Confusion, passivity, despair.

A classic takedown.

In his 2003 Memoirs, David Rockefeller wrote: “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.”

Did you think David was just playing patty-cake, that his plan was only about subverting the money supply, that this was going to be a gentlemanly world domination scheme? No. This is also blood and guts and fear and terror.

The Globalists play for keeps.

US foreign policy and military aggression over the last decade makes no sense because it wasn’t supposed to. That policy was using two dupes, Bush and Obama, to achieve something these preposterous presidents were only dimly aware of.

Of the two, Obama, with his Marxist background, is more cognizant. But he, too, is caught up in his private vision. For him, it is all about some grand “liberation” scheme and imagined “payback” for past oppression.

He was chosen to be president because that is his character.

No, the Arab Spring isn’t ultimately about American hegemony and domination in the Middle East. It’s about a grand American failure there. That’s what’s on page one of the grand Globalist plan. And it’s coming true.

The American war-mongers are following their playbook, and they are being directed, unknowingly, by the Globalist princes, who are using that war-mongering to sink America.

From that perspective, what is happening in the Middle East makes sense.

If Romney wins the election, he will fit neatly into the Bush mold. He’ll join the war party. He’ll see America defeating evil everywhere by continued force. He’ll jump right into the trap.

Only Ron Paul had it right. Bring home everybody. Bring home all the soldiers and stop the madness. That’s why the Bilderberg people hate him so much. He sees a bigger picture. The whole defamation of the Tea Party makes sense, too, at a much deeper level. The Tea Party supported Ron Paul. Many of them, too, saw there was something very, very wrong about Americans For a New Military Century.

Paul and the Tea Party had to be stopped. They had to be stopped, because the Globalist elite wanted the American government-military-contractor-corporate nexus to pursue their insane goals of Middle East domination and fail

Does this sound too complicated to be real? It’s no more complicated than using a bully’s force to defeat him. Only in this case, the victor is a larger bully.

“See? These crazy American war-mongers want to invade everybody and defeat the world. Why stop them? We have to encourage them. We have to engineer what they’re doing so it makes some kind of sense to the American people, so the people don’t rebel. We’ll supply the presidents who’ll supply the rationale, and we’ll keep stoking the fire. Sooner or later, the war-mongers will run out of steam. They’ll crash on the rocks and we’ll pick up the pieces. Let’s make sure they go to the Middle East. There isn’t a better place to fail utterly. Except maybe Afghanistan. Oh, let’s make sure they go there, too, for a long time. Fantastic! Let’s support and massage and polish and push those mad goals!”

Of course, the picture I’ve drawn here becomes a little more complicated when you factor in the role of mega-corporations, who want their considerable piece of the global pie. The American War Mongers and the Globalist Princes “share” certain corporations. Yes, there are overlapping interests. But there is a strong division between those who want American Power and those who want Globalist Power.

The picture of America supporting the Arab Spring and encouraging the Muslim Brotherhood and covertly using terrorists to overthrow dictators in Egypt, Libya, and Syria looks crazy because it is crazy. It’s failure waiting to happen. Obama is presently going along with it, because he is predisposed to want “the liberation of Islam.”

The neocons stand for American empire. People like David Rockefeller stand for destruction of America.

I know there is a tendency to say, “Oh, they’re all bastards and traitors, who cares what their goals are. They’re our enemies. We don’t need to draw subtle differences.”

I suggest the differences aren’t subtle at all. In the first case, you have the government-corporate nexus of the United States directing its energies to become a Roman Caesar extending unilateral empire to far horizons. In the second case, you have Globalist agents pushing those ambitions forward because they know the failure will be huge and spectacular.

Do you think Julius Caesar was entirely alone in his tent cooking up plans to stretch the Roman Empire to the ends of the Earth? Don’t you think there were a few key people planted in his circle of advisors who wanted take Rome down? These covert agents bolstered Caesar, encouraged him, showed him why Rome could only survive by conquering more lands and people. They fed him whatever worked to egg him on toward an eventual future of ruin.

To boil it down to a stark analogy: one crazy man drives his car every day across a plateau toward a cliff. He’s convinced he can go faster and faster and still stop in time. The second man, who is his covert enemy and who is crazy like a fox, tells him, yes, driving faster is a great idea, keep going, don’t stop at 80mph, take it up to 90 and 100, you’re a fantastic driver, I bet you can go 200mph and still stop in time…

The neocons of America actually believe they can take over and transform the whole world through military force. Their remaining shreds of common sense are blasted away by Globalists, breathing down their necks telling them how great and powerful they (the neocons) are, showing them how they can extend empire right into…gigantic failure.

Ron Paul and his supporters saw pieces and sections of this whole insane situation and said, “Stop it all. Bring all our soldiers home. End the madness.”

They threatened everybody in power on all levels. They cut to the chase. That’s why they had to be scrubbed from the picture and sent to the bleachers, like embarrassing cousins from the hills.

That’s why, for example, the idiots at MSNBC pounded on the Tea Party night after night and never mentioned that many, many of these “hicks and racists and bitter clingers” wanted an end to American wars much more fervently than MSNBC’s Messiah, Barack Obama, did. That fact was never brought up. It went against the script.

FOX and CNN never brought it up in any serious way, either. The three other major networks stayed away from it like the plague, too.

Ron Paul, before he dropped out of the race, was educating millions of Americans about war. In the history of outsider “peace candidates” for president, there has never been anyone at his level.

Historically, several peace candidates have been socialists. They wanted an end to American aggression so the Soviet Union could advance its agenda more easily. Ron Paul wanted peace because the Constitution was framed to permit war only on the basis of defense of the nation—and not on the basis of empire-building.

And to media agents of Globalism, the Constitution is like a silver bullet to a vampire. The Constitution promotes life and decimates the Walking Undead.

I believe there is a lot more to this story, including the future role of multinational corporations under a Globalist New World Order. But this is a start. And it offers a reason (among several other reasons) why Ron Paul was stopped in his tracks, a reason not cited nearly enough.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.



Jon Rappoport

Use this link to order Jon’s Seminar Series



Sen. Lieberman Urges President Obama to Sign Executive Order to Take Over the Internet – BlackListedNews.com


Sen. Lieberman Urges President Obama to Sign Executive Order to Take Over the Internet

It is more and more brazen everyday. The political establishment hates our free speech. They hate the fact they no longer have a monopoly on the flow of information nor control the news anymore. The internet and alternative media now dominates the information war. They are losing the Public relations battle where a good majority of the American people have lost faith in the government and now see them as a threat to our freedom and security as a nation.

Even the political elite Zbigneiw Brzezinski and Hillary Clinton stated we have lost the information war. That is because the internet has bypassed the main stream dinosaur media. The major news outlets and newspapers have been losing viewers and readers because they are seen as a propaganda arm. They are losing revenue and are on the verge of collapse because they cannot compete with the alternative media.

The former Democrat and now Independent Senator from Connecticut Joseph Lieberman who is a Israeli duel citizen wants war with Iran. Sen Lieberman is the head Chairmen of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee wants the President to sign the Executive Order to take over the Internet. The White House has sent a five page draft out to certain members of congress. Since the Authoritarians in Congress could not get Internet bills like SOPA and CISPA passed because they kill free speech to pass the Legislation process.

The Government, the mainstream media and the Neo-Con radio has been exposed colluding together to keep people believing in a false paradigm. Rush Limbaugh has been caught having phony phone calls into his radio show to the Media staging an incidents to see an agenda is being blown wide open as a hoax. They cannot sell the war with Iran or Syria. The reason we are in a war in Iraq and Afghanistan has been discredited. The tactic of false flag attacks has been uncovered. The false left-right, Republican-Democrat and Liberal-Conservative two party system paradigm is falling apart.

Lets make taking over the internet an election loser like gun control. Touch our guns and the internet. They are out of office. The authoritarians in Washington need to be removed from power. They have shown their true colors, they hate freedom, the hate the right to keep and bear arms. The government taking over the internet show they hate our free speech the most. Freedom of speech will prevail regardless how hard they try to silence us by censoring the Internet.

Our Bill of Rights and the Internet belongs to the people, it is not the governments. Do not lose heart, we are winning to fight for freedom. This tyranny is in the final death throws of an empire collapsing. They are desperate and panicking. The internet will stay free and always be free.

The Cold Reality News Reportwww.oraclebroadcasting.comwww.blogtalkradio.com/sholman
Twitter: @coldrealitynews

Email: shollyac


Obama Defends False 9/11 Narrative And Absolves USrael of Guilt For Middle East Chaos In Bizarre UN Speech – BlackListedNews.com


Obama Defends False 9/11 Narrative And Absolves USrael of Guilt For Middle East Chaos In Bizarre UN Speech

1 8 13Reddit0 0

September 27, 2012 Print Version

By Saman Mohammadi – The Excavator

In a bizarre speech at the United Nations, President Obama blamed the recent uptick in Middle East rage against the U.S.on a silly YouTube trailer for the film “Innocence of Muslims.”

Obama failed to mention that, prior to the release of the trailer, multiple and illegal U.S. occupations of Muslimcountries after the false flag September 11 events had already made Muslims angry at the United States government.Rage against the godless and Evil Empire was brewing way before any talk of an anti-Islam film surfaced in the MiddleEast.

Obama clearly lives in an alternate universe. According to his worldview, Washington’s unconditional support for theterrorist state in Israel isn’t as big of a deal in the Muslim world as the airing of a 12 minute film trailer mocking ProphetMuhammad.

I’m guessing Obama doesn’t believe in his own words and is deliberately deceiving the world about the nature andorigin of the chaotic events in the Middle East. And it shouldn’t be surprising to see Obama lie so profusely in a majorinternational speech. After all, lying is the biggest cornerstone of his re-election strategy. His biggest lie is thathe ordered the death of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. Only Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tells morelies on the U.N. stage.

The truth is that Obama has killed more women and children with his drones than actual terrorists. The truth is thatwithout deception Obama wouldn’t be President. The truth is that this naked emperor has nothing to stand onexcept lies.

The Cold Reality News Reportwww.oraclebroadcasting.comwww.blogtalkradio.com/sholman
Twitter: @coldrealitynews

Email: shollyac






By Jon Rappoport

September 27, 2012


Official science doesn’t really care about your experience or perception. It cares about its own paradigm.

That paradigm, in order to work, excludes your subjective knowledge.

Two basic questions are eliminated from scientific exploration: what is freedom and what is mind?

A strange embrace among the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and academic philosophy has blocked an understanding of the mind.

Prior to 1970, the discipline of psychology considered several interesting models of mind. Then, psychiatry, struggling to survive in the face of declining public interest, hatched a staggering deal with the pharmaceutical empire.

Drug companies would bankroll the profession of psychiatry as never before. Conferences, research grants, journals, professorships, advertising, PR—money would pour in.

On their part, psychiatric researchers would be obliged to publish studies that “proved” all mental disorders stemmed from chemical imbalances in the brain; these imbalances could be remedied by new drugs. Naturally, Pharma would develop and sell such drugs.

From that moment on, adventurous theories about mind went begging. As far as “science” was concerned, mind was nothing more than the brain. A severely limited materialist view of human life moved solidly to center stage.

It was soon bolstered by a new generation of computer devotees, who assumed that mind was merely an apparatus that functioned on the basis of hardware/software applications—and any notions of individual freedom were possibly delusions “built into the equipment” or bugs that needed to be found and scrubbed away.

It was assumed that only “professionals” had the necessary tools to investigate the mind, and anything a layperson might discover or say about the subject was as important as a street sweeper speculating on nuclear physics.

As a student of philosophy at Amherst College in the late 1950s, I was exposed to a series of sophistries that attempted to skirt the whole question of individual freedom, substituting instead two major premises:

Human beings could only know what they could see with their eyes and measure; it was permissible to continue talking about freedom as if it existed, but this permission was simply an acknowledgment that language consisted of all sorts of quirky habits, and it might be useful to catalog those quirks, like sub-species of butterflies, as long as one didn’t take their meaning seriously.

I wasn’t pleased by either of these admonitions. I’d entered the field of philosophy because I felt freedom was a vital thing, and I sensed it was being attacked on many fronts.

As I wended my way through college, I became aware of the odd fact that, while the philosophy department was doing all it could to avoid squarely facing the issue of individual freedom, the political science department was assigning students original-source material on the founding of the American Republic.

This material (the Declaration, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers), of course, was deeply engaged in establishing freedom as an incontrovertible principle.

When I inquired about the obvious contradiction at the College, I was told it was “one of those inter-departmental differences” that was unavoidable. After all, what should political scientists do? Teach nothing about freedom?

As a young and inexperienced student, 50-plus years ago, I thought perhaps a professor in the psychology department might be able to clear up the confusion.

A practicing therapist on campus fielded my questions and said, “Freedom really isn’t our issue. We want to understand how the mind operates.” He went on to say that the goal of therapy was “happiness and adjustment.”

That pretty much ended my adventure of learning in college. Fortunately, life isn’t college.

Three years after I left Amherst, I was living in Los Angeles, and I had a small studio where I was painting. One night (and I can see this very clearly), I was sitting at my table. There was a piece of blank paper in front of me. To my left, there was a box of oil crayons. I was looking at the sheet of paper, wondering what I might draw on it, when suddenly, and for no discernible reason, I knew that I had the freedom to draw anything.

Sounds silly. But this was not an intellectual observation. Of course I or anyone else can draw anything. That isn’t news. No, this was something much deeper and more expansive. It was as if some interior space, in my mind, a space I’d never realized existed before, made its presence known. And the essence and core of that space was freedom. Was liberation. Was an unbounded and direct knowing about freedom. That space imparted to me one of the most immediate feelings of freedom I’ve ever had. It was luxurious and adventurous and intensely exhilarating. And it came out of nowhere.

The feeling lasted for about a minute, and then it slowly faded away. Ever since that moment, I’ve remembered that, whenever politicians or their allies are obviously trying to discount or dump freedom, when they are trying to sell some substitute, when they are raising some phony banner under which we’re all supposed to march toward our collective destiny…I’ve remembered that freedom is REAL and it has to be defended. To do otherwise would betray a fantastic quality of the space we call Mind.

I’ve also known that freedom isn’t just an effect of a cause, like one billiard ball moving into a pocket after being hit by another ball; it isn’t one electron being kicked by another electron. If freedom can be said to be anywhere, it’s behind all the cause-and-effect activity of matter and energy. Freedom isn’t just another event in a long chain of events; it’s free.

Obviously, I don’t know what your experience of freedom has been. But I’d be willing to bet that, as a child, you had moments and even hours where, perhaps, playing in a field or on the street, you realized you were free and alive and something apart from any restricted, pinched, limited existence.

The feelings you felt were enormous and ecstatic. You understood, at a level no one could challenge, what life was about.

And yet, this is nowhere reflected in the approved studies of psychiatry, psychology, or academic philosophy. It’s discounted as “anecdotal” and spurious and even delusional.

Having a tremendous and stunning experience of freedom might qualify you for psychiatric help. It appears we’re heading in that direction.

These days, many mainstream brain researchers will insist that freedom is nothing more than a “thought generated by brain activity,” no more important than any other thought.

If you’re looking to explain how technocrats can possibly envision a world in which humans are only cogs in a machine, you’ve found the answer. These scientists refuse to admit that freedom is real. As bizarre as this sounds, it’s true. To them we’re all already cogs in a machine. They just want to change the arrangement, the configuration of parts.

You see, and this is where philosophy pokes its head into the fray, to say that freedom is real is to acknowledge that it lies beyond all formulations and theories of cause and effect. And such a confession would torpedo the authoritarian and privileged status of modern science.

No, you say, this couldn’t be true, everybody knows that freedom exists. Everybody knows that you can choose A or B. You can make decisions about your future. I’m sorry to say, not everybody knows this—and the disturbing thing is, the people who are doing the most advanced research on the brain, the kind of research that could shape and fence in our future world, quite definitely do not know freedom exists.

Freedom and “mind independent of the brain” are, to them, maddening little questions they want to get rid of. They want to sweep them under the carpet. They want to chart and map every possible action of the brain and then, inevitably, make those changes in it they deem proper “for the the good of All.”

So, first on the list of things I would recommend is, take inventory of your own experience. Remember moments when, beyond your normal level of daily consciousness, you experienced freedom directly and powerfully. No filters. No intellectual assumptions. Just undeniable encounters.

Why? Because you need to know what you are defending when you defend freedom against attack. Yes, freedom is the right to choose your life. Yes, it’s the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Yes, it’s all those assertions in the Bill of Rights. Yes, the Constitution delineates what the central government can and can’t do. Yes, we know that. But then there is YOU. There is your existence. There is your experience of freedom. Those times, those moments when you felt it so strongly you were thrilled to your core to be alive.

That is natural freedom. That is mind freedom. That is why the founding documents of the Republic have any meaning. They flow from something that is already there, in each one of us. A potential that is already there.

And if you forget that, you defend freedom for an incomplete reason.

I knew a man in his late forties whose life was a complete mess. This was a man you wouldn’t want to be around. He somehow managed to turn every conversation and situation in his life into an unsolvable problem. He annoyed everyone he came into contact with. He was one of those “difficult people,” and his life was falling apart at the seams. He couldn’t hold a job for more than a few months. His bosses would fire him for any reason they could. Anything to get him out the door. He was a classic self-created victim.

In an act of desperation, he went on a vegetarian diet, without really believing it would do any good. It didn’t. He persisted for a month or two, and then he scraped together enough money to go to a spa where he could stay for two weeks and do yoga and fast on fruits and vegetables.

In his second week at the spa, he was walking from yoga class to his room, and suddenly, as he told me, he “felt his body was well-oiled and elastic.” He felt as if he were 10 years old again, on summer vacation from school, with unbounded possibilities stretching out in front of him.

In a matter of moments, his entire framework of unending complaints vanished without a trace. It left no residue in its wake. He could clearly contemplate what he most wanted to do with his life, and he could see his way to achieving it. His sense of grappling with a bottomless inscrutable problem was gone.

This feeling lasted a few days. But even after it dissolved, he was positioned in a new way. He dropped his “whole act,” as he put it. He went on to launch a career, and he made it a success.

A bookish woman in her 30s, who had never worked at a job she enjoyed, decided to sell cars. She got a job at a dealership in Southern California, and after a month she was coming up empty on sales. She saw no chance of breaking through.

Her manager pulled her into his office and suggested she try something a little easier. He helped get her a job in a large store selling home appliances.

Her first day at the store, she swore to herself she would do more to connect with prospective customers. She would treat them “as if they were real people,” she said. Forgetting about landing immediate sales, she made a herculean effort to “climb out of her cave” and chat with people in the store.

After two days, she felt a surge of energy, as if she’d come alive in a new way. For the first time in memory, she was relating to strangers.

The feeling lasted for a month, during which she incidentally racked up many sales. She described her state of mind as “completely open and free,” as if she’d cracked through a barrier.

She quit her job, enrolled at a college, and eventually got her degree in architecture.

I tell these stories because, in each case, the experience of freedom was intense and life-changing, and because the people came to it in radically different ways.

Freedom exists.

It can be drawn out of hiding. It can be felt beyond any structure or pattern, and it most certainly doesn’t depend on permission granted by a government or Official Science.

One can’t explain these experiences by citing specific brain activity. Freedom isn’t a brain phenomenon. It isn’t a delusion. One might say the reverse: everything except freedom is a delusion or the result of oppression.

People tend to believe the mind is either a trap or a “device” for thinking. It can certainly be those things, but it is also a gateway into freedom.

Mind is a kind of space dotted with familiar outposts we visit. Each outpost is a collection of feelings, ideas, preferences, and aversions. We move from one outpost to another, looking for a way out, a way to go beyond our present state.

Then, something unforeseen happens. On our way to a particular outpost for the thousandth time, we make a detour, and we arrive at a spot that contains of none of those feelings, ideas, preferences, or aversions. Instead, we are in a gorgeously empty place. And being there, we experience a joy that expands. We experience ourselves in a natural state.

We know we are free.

Everyone is entitled and equipped to explore what this means because, after all, we aren’t simply talking about a generalized notion; we’re talking about intimate knowledge of what we are.

This is not the province of science. It’s the wide open territory of self. It’s more real than real.

We can become discouraged. We can become cynical. We can lower our expectations and options. But we can’t ultimately avoid what we are. Coming to grips with that is our destiny, as much as motion is the destiny of the body.

The elites who, increasingly, run this planet long ago abandoned any search for their own freedom as individuals. They falsely believe they’re already there. That’s what they keep telling themselves, and that’s why they feel compelled to control everything they can. Control is a substitute for freedom. It’s a false card in the deck. It’s the iron mask that hides the truth. It’s a drug that can induce amnesia about the existence of freedom. It’s the ultimate expression of self-denial.

Before psychiatry, brain research, and pharmaceutical empire-building crowded out truly independent research on the mind, there were two great 20th-century psychologists. They both understood freedom and sought it with stunning intensity. Wilhelm Reich, a breakaway student of Freud, was arrested and put in jail, where he died. JL Moreno, the founder of Psychodrama, was largely ignored by the Freudians coming into power.

In his autobiography, Moreno recounts a 1912 encounter: “I attended one of Freud’s lectures…As the students filed out, he singled me out from the crowd and asked me what I was doing. I responded, ‘Well, Dr. Freud, I start where you leave off…You analyze [patients’] dreams. I give them the courage to dream again…'”

The dream is about freedom. Experiencing it. Creating a life from it.

Taking instructional cues from media about what emotions we are supposed to invest and project into images (mass mind control), we discover that the list of emotions is rather short. It’s stunted. Not only are we supposed to respond with these feelings, we’re all taught we have to “share” them. If we don’t, we’re looked at as strange, as outsiders.

But when we experience freedom directly, we immediately realize such feelings are misplaced. They’re props in a bad play. What we feel when we are standing in the middle of our own freedom is beyond labels. It’s another level of mind. Perhaps it’s beyond mind entirely.

In the old stories of Zen masters, we find teachers who put irrational pressures on students until the “catalog of familiar emotional outposts” in their minds blew apart. At that moment, the students experienced “satori,” which roughly means “seeing into one’s true nature.”

What is that nature? Is it a particular thing, a prior established thing…or is it really freedom?

If it’s freedom, then the world suddenly appears as unending possibility.

Isn’t that what we really want? Isn’t that part and parcel of what we remember, when we reflect on past moments when we felt truly alive?

There is nothing esoteric about this. It is stripping off a layer of fabricated synthetic substance, and finding underneath the ecstatic energy that was always there, waiting for us to return from our long strange trip.

Our nature is to be free.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.



Jon Rappoport

Use this link to order Jon’s Seminar Series



Supremes docket income tax challenge




Colorado man’s challenge to IRS says wages don’t count

Published: 12 hours ago


The government calls those who argue the income tax has no legal foundation “tax protesters” and labels their arguments “frivolous.” And usually judges toss their arguments out of court, assess them court costs on top of taxes, interest and penalties, and sometimes even threaten them if they file further cases.

But now the U.S. Supreme Court – the nine judges who sit on the bench in Washington by virtue of their selection by presidents and confirmation by the U.S. Senate – has docketed exactly that type of case.

The results? Who knows, considering the radical arguments offered by the pro se plaintiff, Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, a Colorado chiropractor who has been involved in a number of business ventures, including PureHealthSystems.com.

Among Maehr’s contentions is that while the government has the legal authority to tax, the Internal Revenue Service has used “unlawful, unconstitutional, unfair and biased” manipulations to assess income taxes on that which is not income – essentially salaries and wages.

Basing his argument on 10 years’ worth of research into tax law, he concludes that salaries and wages are the result of the mutual agreement among participants to exchange labor for money – and that’s not income.

Income, he said, is the increased value of an asset, such as interest on money in a bank account, which can be subjected to income tax.

He told WND his arguments repeatedly have been tossed from courthouses – in his case, nine times over the years – and he’s anxious to see what the Supreme Court justices may decide.

In his petition to the court, he said, “The gravity of these fundamental law questions have never been properly adjudicated, and the evidence in fact available proves without a doubt that the taxation scheme being implemented against petitioner, and all Americans, is fundamentally and profoundly unlawful, unconstitutional, unfair and biased, and is evidence of ongoing, willful, deliberate, and unconscionable fraud.”

WND contacted the office of the U.S. Solicitor General, listed on the Supreme Court website as the defense counsel for the IRS, and office staff who answered the phone refused to comment. WND was transferred to an office for the U.S. attorney general, where officials also declined to comment.

Maehr says information about the case is at the Foundation for Truth in Law.

Officials with the Supreme Court said while the case has been docketed, and a response from the IRS already has been scheduled, the justices still must hold a conference on the case to determine whether, in fact, they will review the arguments.

Maehr wrote in his petition for judicial review that he’s been the victim of administrative bludgeoning used by the IRS to quell citizens with objections as well as questions.

“Petitioner was denied due process, over and over again. Petitioner’s evidence was dismissed without consideration. Petitioner was unlawfully assessed outside lawful means. Petitioner’s evidence that ‘income’ is not wages or payment for labor is clearly supported by court precedent. Petition was mistreated, and the courts unlawfully ruled without regard to respondent’s standing to be acting against him,” he said.

“Respondent is taxing outside clear constitutional parameters, presumptively labeling he, and all Americans as ‘taxpayers,’ apart from any mechanism of law. Respondent is wantonly promoting the mandatory filing of the 1040 form which is clearly in violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Respondent has not produced the law with the IR Code which makes petitioner or any American ‘personally’ liable for filing the 1040 form, let alone other ‘requirements.’”

A copy of a ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, before judges Michael Murphy, Bobby Baldock and Harris Hartz, was included in Maehr’s filing. It appears to support Maehr’s argument, because the judges, without responding to his questions and challenges to the constitutionality of the issue, labeled the claims “frivolous” and claimed Maehr’s petition “contains no valid challenges.”

Maehr’s arguments cite a wide range of historical court and congressional statements regarding taxes. For example, Blacks Law Dictionary calls income tax “a tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades and offices.”

Maehr argues wages are not “profits”; they are simply the result of an exchange of labor for money. Pointing out that businesses routinely pay taxes on “profits,” he noted taxes are not assessed on the expenses of the business.

Simply, the labor of an individual is the “expense” required to obtain the money, so it is not “profit.” To determine otherwise would be to subject corporations such as Wal-Mart to “income taxes” on 100 percent of their cash register receipts, he argues.

The court itself said an 1883 case, “It has been well said that, the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.”

In 1969, the court ruled: “Whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th amendment became effective. … If there is no gain, there is no income. … [Income] is not synonymous with receipts.”

And a 1946 case stated, “Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit.”

“The elements of this case involve respondent/IRS administrative functions being implemented under color of law,” Maehr wrote. “In 2003, petitioner began requesting answers to constitutional questions regarding respondent’s positions in application of its taxation process, but which, since 2003, have been completely ignored and labeled as ‘frivolous’ and he was told that if he wanted any answers, it would have to be found ‘in the courts.’

“The essential, foundational, original intent of Congress regarding ‘income’ taxation and tax authority has been slowly perverted over the decades with actions under color of law,” Maehr continued. “The original intent was known long ago, and supported by this honorable court, but which have been twisted to mean something completely different today. Despite the quoted cases by respondent in response to petition, claiming arguments were only ‘frivolous,’ none of these cited court cases have ever had evidence in fact entered into the record, or presented as evidence to refute petitioner’s, or anyone else’s, lawful challenges to ‘prove’ them ‘frivolous’ outside hearsay and presumption.”

Among the specific questions raised: Is income tax a direct or indirect tax? What defined “income” when the income tax was adopted? What is the constitutional status of the IRS, and when do the IRS administrative procedures violate due process?

“The logical question to ask is, if petitioner is violating any laws … why is he NOT charged with criminal actions? Why is respondent taking the circuitous route using ‘administrative’ ploys, summons, and alleged ‘deficiency’ notices? The answer is because it has deceived the courts, and knows it has accomplices in committing this easy fraud using them, and it knows it cannot bring criminal charges against petition due to the record created by petition proving no such ‘failure’ would stand up in court, but would expose the ‘income’ taxation scam.”

The Supreme Court said the government’s response is due Oct. 11.

Maehr told WND that the IRS bases its existence on the “premise that the 16th Amendment allows direct unapportioned taxes on people, which it does not.”

The fight is over the fact that when one individual exchanges a $10 bill for two $5 bills from another person, there is no “profit.” Substituting labor for either side of that agreement also does not create “profit,” he said.

It’s actually not the first time the challenge has been in court. WND reported in 2007 when the Internal Revenue Service lost a lawyer’s challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation’s income tax.

At the time, lawyer Tom Cryer told WND after a jury acquitted him of two criminal tax counts that the IRS was a “fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever.”

Cryer, who has since died, told WND that the simple truth is income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but a rather category such as profit and interest.

He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn’t necessarily make the compensation income.

He said at the time if ever such an argument were to be presented widely, there could be huge changes required in the way the federal government operates.

“The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority,” he said.

The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001.

At the time, spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington’s IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation or constitutional provision, he said, “I can’t comment.”


“Tehran-Sponsored 9/11″: Globalists Openly Consider False Flag To Kick Start War With Iran | ExplosiveReports.Com


“Tehran-Sponsored 9/11″: Globalists Openly Consider False Flag To Kick Start War With Iran



Jurriaan Maessen
September 26, 2012

Brookings: “Something on the order of an Iranian-backed 9/11, in which the plane wore Iranian markings and Tehran boasted about its sponsorship.(…)”

As Paul Joseph Watson reported today, a member of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) think tank proposed a false flag operation to kick off a military conflict with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The think tank’s director of research Patrick Clawson stated:

“(…) if (…) the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war,” Clawson said.

Statements such as those uttered by Clawson are prevalent among the geo-political policy groups prowling about in Washington DC. In my original June 29, 2009 article titled: “Brookings Publication mentions possibility of ‘Horrific Provocation” to Trigger Iran Invasion” I cover false flag proposals made by the Brookings Institute in their Which Path To Persia document.

In the Brookings paper, the authors propose almost anything to guarantee dominance of Persia by the Anglo-American estabishment, including bribery, lying, cheating and mass murdering by an all-out military assault of Iran. The paper is just one of many recent and not so recent examples of the firm intent of the globalists to engage Iran militarily and acquire its natural resources in the same effort.

The group of authors contemplates four separate options on “how to deal with Iran” in the cold bureaucratic language that poses as scientific but really is nothing more than the semi-intelligent musings by calculating psychopaths. The first option, “Dissuading Tehran” through diplomatic means is being discussed as something tried, tested and ultimately discarded. The second option, “Disarming Tehran” covers several ways of rallying the “international community” around the globalists’ intentions. In the third part, “Toppling Tehran” the warmongering increases as the writers contemplate both covert and overt military action against the Islamic republic of Iran. In the fourth and last section, “Deterring Tehran” the option of “containment” is elaborated upon. The proposed final strategy predictably involves all of the above mentioned options, in roughly the same order of appearance.

To ensure the cooperation of surrounding countries, the authors propose bribery as an effective tool. After the authors assert that “it may be necessary to cut some deals in order to secure Moscow’s support for a tougher Iran policy”, the authors continue with their “brainstorming”, advising a widespread bribery campaign in order to ensure international cooperation in regards to Iran:

“Other countries also will want payoffs from the United States in return for their assistance on Iran. Such deals may be distasteful, but many will be unavoidable if the Persuasion approach is to have a reasonable chance of succeeding.” And further on: “To be successful, a Persuasion approach would invariably require unpleasant compromises with third-party countries to secure their cooperation against Iran.”

This means the US will have to cut all kinds of deals with dictators, bloodthirsty local tyrants and other corrupt kings of Arabia- even facilitating them with weapons. Besides rallying the “international community” around the Anglo-American establishment with the help of these “unpleasant compromises” the paper stresses it will also be necessary to persuade the Iranians themselves to topple their government (page 39):

“Inciting regime change in Iran would be greatly assisted by convincing the Iranian people that their government is so ideologically blinkered that it refuses to do what is best for the people and instead clings to a policy that could only bring ruin on the country.”

But the authors underline the necessity of creating a favourable climate for the transnationalists in which to operate.

“(…) any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context (…) The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer- one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.”

Here the authors seem to abandon even the facade of civility as they proceed. Even though the authors put these vile warmongering words in quotes, they cannot mask the mindset. They mean bribe and deceit- as a steppingstone towards military strikes. The path toward such military strikes will be made smooth by economically strong-holding surrounding countries, forcing them to accept western military action as well as the justifications for it without question.

Military action. This is as acutely on the mind of the current chickenhawks, as the invasion of Iraq was on that of the neocons in the last couple of decades. Apparently, the authors feel compelled to give a justification for the bravura of their manuscript.

“We chose to consider this extreme and highly unpopular option partly for the sake of analytical rigor and partly because if Iran responded to a confrontational American policy- such as an airstrike, harsh new sanctions, or efforts to foment regime change- with a major escalation of terrorist attacks (or more dire moves against Israel and other American allies), invasion could become a very “live” option.”

As the geopolitical feeding frenzy increases, the authors clearly begin to lose their cool as they begin to talk about the real plan behind all this elaborate brainstorming, reflecting the long-term agenda of the globalists for whom they work:

“Like Iraq’, the authors state, ‘Iran is too intrinsically and strategically important a country for the United States to be able to march in, overthrow its government, and then march out, leaving chaos in its wake. (…) Iran exports about 2.5 million barrels per day of oil and, with the right technology, it could produce even more. It also has one of the largest reserves of natural gas in the world. These resources make Iran an important supplier of the energy needs of the global economy. Iran does not border Saudi Arabia- the lynchpin of the oil market- or Kuwait, but it does border Iraq, another major oil producer and a country where the United States now has a great deal at stake.’

And exactly in line with their masters tendency of using false flags, they allow themselves the luxury of speculating openly about a possible ‘provocation’ to escalate things to the point of armed conflict.

‘(…) it is not impossible that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion. And it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocation move (…), the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all.’

Now that would be a great disappointment, wouldn’t it. Under the headline ‘The Question of a Provocation’ on page 66, the authors press the point even further:

‘With provocation, the international diplomatic and domestic political requirements of an invasion would be mitigated, and the more outrageous the Iranian provocation (and the less that the United States is seen to be goading Iran), the more these challenges would be diminished. In the absence of a sufficiently horrific provocation, meeting these requirements would be daunting.’

Reminiscent of the Pearl Harbor-quote by raving neocons pre-9/11, the authors continue imagining how excellent it would be to have an Iranian-sponsored terror attack within the US to trigger war and march off toward Iran. During all this, the authors are aware how unlikely it is that Iran would actually commit such an attack on American soil (probably because they know who is usually responsible for such mass terror attacks):

“Something on the order of an Iranian-backed 9/11, in which the plane wore Iranian markings and Tehran boasted about its sponsorship.(…). The entire question of “options” become irrelevant at that point: what American president could refrain from an invasion after the Iranians had just killed several thousand American civilians in an attack in the United States itself? Regarding the question of international support for an US invasion of the Islamic Republic, the Brookings people lament:

“Other than a Tehran-sponsored 9/11, it is hard to imagine what would change their minds.”

The same goes for their plans in regards to that old favorite of the elite, covert psychological warfare, in order to subdue a sovereign nation. In chapter 7 of the manuscript, called “Inspiring an Insurgency”, it examines the possibility of propagandizing the Iranian people into helping out the globalists lute their nation:

“The core concept lying at the heart of this option would be for the United States to identify one or more Iranian opposition groups and support them as it did other insurgencies in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Kurdistan, Angola, and dozens of other locales since the Second World War. The United States would provide arms, money, training, and organizational assistance to help the groups develop and extend their reach. U.S. media and propaganda outlets could highlight group grievances and showcase rival leaders.”

Isn’t that a familiar sight? Could one way to ‘highlight’ group grievances be to mass distribute the death of a poor woman and then claim it’s all thanks to Twitter?

All this hinting at another false-flag attack underway and prepping the international community for a future invasion of Iran is becoming increasingly serious as the warmongering is being stepped up. This is the time to fix our eyes upon these globalists and their think tanks. If their blatant arrogance permits them to openly publish their bloodthirsty musings, we should be vigilant enough to pass this knowledge around lest we have another 9/11 on our hands.

Like this:

Be the first to like this.

September 26, 2012 Leave a Reply


Obama at U.N. – Don’t Blame Me, Blame Anti-Muslim Movie




President Barack Obama stayed on message today during his address to the U.N. in New York City. Blame a crudely made movie available online, not in theaters, for the weeks of new violence engulfing the Middle East.

President Barack Obama dedicated several long passages to discussing and condemning what the New York Times has described as a 14-minute “amateurish video” that a 55-year-old Southern California man posted on YouTube in June.

Obama spent several minutes during his address telling the world body the U.S. cannot stop such videos no matter how upsetting or insulting they may be. Of course, left unsaid is that his administration attempted to do just that, asking both YouTube and Google to pull the incendiary video – to no avail.





Meet Monsanto’s number one lobbyist: Barack Obama

by Jon Rappoport

September 24, 2012


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

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

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

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

Then came the reality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monsanto GMO alfalfa.

Monsanto GMO sugar beets.

Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.

Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.

Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.

Syngenta GMO stacked corn.

Pioneer GMO soybean.

Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.

Bayer GMO cotton.

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

A GMO papaya strain.

And perhaps, soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

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

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

From this perspective, Michelle Obama’s campaign for home gardens and clean nutritious food suddenly looks like a diversion, a cover story floated to obscure what her husband has actually been doing.

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

Because this is an election season, people will say, “But what about Romney? Is he any better?” I see no indication that he is. The point, however, is that we are talking about a sitting president here, a president who presented himself, and was believed by many to be, an extraordinary departure from politics as usual.

Not only was that a wrong assessment, Obama was lying all along. He was, and he still is, Monsanto’s man in Washington.

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

Wake up.








Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.



Jon Rappoport

Use this link to order Jon’s Seminar Series