This what I want to hear Obama say about guns

This is what I want to hear Obama say about guns

by Jon Rappoport

January 10, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then I want to hear the president say this:

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

I want that on the record, too.

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

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

I don’t agree.

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

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

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

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

That would be the just the beginning of the dialogue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would be ironic if you were. Just asking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Matrix Revealed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Rappoport

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. You can sign up for his free emails at

Media fascism is all about trusted television anchors

Media fascism is all about trusted television anchors

by Jon Rappoport

January 9, 2012

Every civilization and every generation has their defining voices.

The voice does two things. It tells the story of the times; and it injects the telltale emotions, moods, and attitudes of that story.

The public swallows the tale with all its lies and omissions, and accepts the way in which the whole act is spooled out by the sound of the narrative voice.

The tone of the story creates a trance.

Different societies are vulnerable to different styles of story-telling.

Americans on this side of the Atlantic, listening to the radio speeches of Hitler delivered with staccato militant force, thought the German people were clearly crazy to go along.

It never occurred to the Americans, glued to their radios listening to President Roosevelt, that many Germans would think the sing-song pseudo-British style of the aristocratic FDR was a transparent joke.

What I’m talking about here has has NOTHING to do with the American cause or the Nazi cause. It has to do with different voices for different societies.

I’ll take my hypnosis on rye with mustard.” “I’ll have mine on a bun with mayo.”

It’s assumed that, because Hitler and Mussolini were cementing their control through mass arrests and overt shows of force, they could get away with vocal displays of shouting and intimidation. Otherwise, the people would have turned away from them in disgust.

That’s not the whole picture, by any means. Large numbers of people in Germany and Italy responded enthusiastically to the voices of Hitler and Mussolini.

The trance they entered, as a result, wasn’t a passive narcosis. It was a kind of hysteria that demanded action.

If, down the road, America is put under an OPENLY declared state of martial law, with all the bells and whistles attached, the elite television anchors, like Brian Williams and Scott Pelley, will tell that story—not like Mussolini would—but as our anchors always do; in measured, “responsible, objective” tones. It will be “grave and sober.” The voices will suggest a dollop of alarm, but…everything is under control.

That’s the way modern Americans want to hear The Voice narrate the story of the times.

And the president of the moment? He will deploy those same tones. He won’t be standing on the balcony of a building shouting and waving his arms.

But the result will be the same.

In the wake of post-WW2 America, as the feisty combative Harry Truman exited the White House, the bland-egg Eisenhower took up residency. He was always calm and under control. He was the modest hero. He was what you’d call, in his speeches, a Grade B anchor. Not good, but not the worst.

At the same time, American television news was coming into being. Douglas Edwards, one of the first elite anchors, was a smoother, better-trained-for-television Eisenhower. Ed Murrow, who had been narrating the war from London, added his “pregnant-with-meaning” ominous tone to US news broadcasting.

The narrative style of the American voice was under construction.

Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, along with Walter Cronkite, moved in to put their ineradicable stamp on the sound of our civilization. They were a step up from Doug Edwards. They could crystallize a tight range of repressed feelings in every distinct sentence they uttered. They were coming out of literary traditions: Hemingway, Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett.

Tough guy with a warm edge.

America loved it. Those new voices enabled every kind of con, six ways from Sunday, to be visited on an adoring public.

Flash forward to 1968. Despite the revolution of the ’60s, more than half of voting America still wanted the whitebread, big-bullshit, used-car-salesman nostalgia of the previous decade. So Richard Nixon, a man who couldn’t open his lips without lying on several simultaneous levels, waltzed into the White House.

After the hopeless Gerald Ford stood in for Nixon, a cartoon of a cartoon was needed; a peacemaker; a man “of the cloth.” Sold out to David Rockefeller down to his jockstrap, Jimmy Carter came to the presidency to heal the nation from Watergate. He was the new voice silkily twanging the American story, a respite from Nixon.

Then, out of Hollywood, appeared an actor who, despite a wretched history in films, could sell the shining city on the hill. Reagan performed far better than expected on the podium. America wanted a redux of the freedom story, and he supplied it, as the invasive federal government nevertheless continue to burgeon from its every rotting pore.

And on it went. Presidents and anchors on television conspired to deliver a two-dimensional fairy tale, in a country where an accelerated androidal conformity was beginning to dominate the landscape.

Television was the mutual electronic feeding trough for the Great Voices and the public. They mixed and matched and swam in convenient concert, through gray offal.

Talent spotters at the networks and inside the major political parties knew what to look for. They knew how the voices needed to sound. They knew the game.

Slightly more progressive and hip for the boomers? Bill Clinton.

Shit-kicker John Wayne retro? GW Bush.

A new interplanetary sun-god messiah? Obama.

A Hemingway knockoff with an edge in his voice? Dan Rather.

Smooth-groomed high IQ macaque? Brian Williams.

Might turn in his mother to the cops? Scott Pelley.

Drooling sad-eyed swan imported from the Morning Show? Diane Sawyer.

Sacrifice the mind on the altar of cosmically oozing sentimentality, tricked out as news? Oprah.

Floating blithely in an ocean of high-level corporate-government-banking crimes, Americans can choose their favorite voice to obscure the truth and tell a very, very tall tale.

That’s what people want, and that’s what they get.

Will any of these elite voices ever upset a serious apple cart? Not on your life.

If America really wanted a Hitler to stand in the middle of the Rose Bowl, surrounded by perfect columns of ramrod soldiers, and lay out the next hundred years of triumph of the will, do you think the television networks would find one?

Are you kidding? In a New York minute.

But Americans want their fascism soft-boiled. Americans want gradualism. They don’t want a coup in the middle of the night. They want to watch the leaves fall off the tree of freedom one branch at a time.

When the Republicans ran Mitt Romney against Barack Obama, they were banking on the premise that somehow, somewhere, the majority of the public desired a retro Wonder Bread hero. But that voice and that tone and that mood didn’t fit. It didn’t carry the day.

The Matrix Revealed

Interestingly, there was an enormous groundswell for a man who had no voice at all, in the media sense. He just told the truth as he saw it, and he cut deep with that sword. His millions of supporters had awakened from the need for a trance.

They were alert to the fascism of the American power structure. They wanted out, and they had their leader in that cause.

But the Republican door was firmly closed to him, because of his ideas, but also because he wasn’t a typical anchor.

Ron Paul.

You can take this to the bank. If Ron Paul ever became the voice of our times, reality itself as most people accept it would crack under their feet, and they would fall into black space screaming.

One reason? Paul isn’t spinning a story with the impressive rhythms and tones and segueways of a media pro. Therefore, you actually have to pay attention to the content of his words. That alone is enough to give most people strokes, blood clots, and titanic neurological chaos.

Two? Paul knows what American fascism is. He has a solid reference point: the Constitution. He understands our fascism has a corporate and government undertow. When he says Audit the Fed, he’s not speaking as an accountant.

This fact brings on heart arrhythmia at Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission, and the CFR. Accountants can be relied on to hide the basic facts. A guy like Ron Paul? He actually wants the basic truth and basic crimes of the Fed to come to light. All of them. Danger.

Ron Paul is a narrative-breaker. He interrupts the flow and the trance. His memory of history excludes Walter Cronkite as the father of our country. It goes back to the period when there was, God forbid, no television and no radio. There was a Constitution.

The US government is loathe to legislate mandatory television-news-watching to every American. It leaves that aspect of the fascist agenda to its corporate partners and their advertising agencies.

And little boys and girls dream of growing up and becoming finely coiffed and perfumed anchors and pundits.

A precious few will make it. They’ll tell tales of the adored Matrix. They’ll carve their names in the fake book of chords and melodies. They’ll stir the appropriate sentiments. They’ll deliver the news every night. They’ll present every half-cocked limited hangout and define every outrageous set of straitjacket parameters to a prepared audience.

You’re an aspiring anchor? Come on down. Some day you might be the chosen one. You might become the messenger, the talent turned out by the royal court, to ring the bells and sing the songs. If you’re lucky, and you sing on key, you may have five or 10 years before the next up-and-coming voice edges you out.

You might be assigned to bring mind control to your generation. You might be the one to obscure and conceal the real Fed Reserve, the crimes of the medical cartel, the Globalist agenda, the theft of trillions of dollars, the Collectivist framework, and the death of individual freedom.

Doesn’t that sound like a great job? And you can call it responsible journalism.

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. You can sign up for his free emails at