Australia: jail young children without charges; they wouldn’t do that; oh yes they would

Australia: jail young children without charges; they wouldn’t do that; oh yes they would

And it’s a perfect “bait and switch”

by Jon Rappoport

October 16, 2017

It’s still labeled a proposal, but it has widespread support among Australia’s political leaders.

The BBC: “…proposals that could see children as young as 10 held for two weeks without charge under new terror legislation.”

“State and territorial leaders approved the plans with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull at a Coalition of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting…”

The public hasn’t seen any details of the plan.

It’s obviously aimed at children who are suspected of preparing to commit terrorist acts, or children who are suspected of already committing those acts. Evidence would be lacking, formal charges wouldn’t be filed, but the children would still be arrested and held.

Let’s cut to the bottom lines. There are already laws which cover arresting children-terrorists. Yes, there needs to be evidence of some kind, but why is that a problem? For example, if federal police found a compound where children were being trained to handle weapons, and it was clear the intention was terrorism, those children could be taken into custody and investigated.

To understand the deeper point, however, you need to recognize that a new law restricting freedom for one reason can and will be expanded to include more reasons—all in the name of public safety and protection, of course. What creeps along the ground today stands up and runs wild tomorrow.

In this case, simply refer to the merciless Australian crackdown on parents and doctors who question the wisdom of vaccination and offer proof that vaccines are harmful, who are willing the buck the tide of official liars who insist that vaccines are miracles.

A year from now, two years from now, someone in government circles will come up with the bright idea that unvaccinated children, innocent victims of their parents’ madness, should be taken in, quarantined, held, because they are little walking time-bombs of contagion—and they must receive treatment. Which will be vaccination. Which will be “psychological intervention,” to “liberate them” from their parents’ delusions.

“Well you see, when we arrest little children on suspicion of being terrorists, we’re not really blaming the children. They’re victims. We need to sequester them away from the general population and find a way to re-educate them. In a similar fashion, when unvaccinated children are allowed to roam the streets and shops and schools, they too must be sequestered by the government…”

What’s that? You say children suspected of being terrorists and children suspected of being unvaccinated are not equivalent? So what? What leads you to believe the government is operating on a rational or logical basis?

The overriding issue here is control. That is the motive. The government feels a permanent need for more control over the citizenry.

It will seek it out and find it wherever it can, no matter how thin its justification.

“We do this for the children” can eventually mean anything the government wants it to mean.

Right now, Australia’s political leaders are worried about the people they call the “anti-vaxxers.” Why? Because the anti-vaxxers’ message is resonating with the public. Mothers whose babies’ lives have been destroyed by vaccinations are speaking up. Mothers who have raised happy and healthy children without vaccinations are speaking up. The fake medical cover story about the wonders of vaccination is being blown wide open.

What can be done? Whatever will shift control of children from parents to the State.

This new proposal to detain children suspected of terrorism is the planting of a seed that can and will sprout poisonous fruit. Today, terrorism. Tomorrow, vaccination.

To cite an egregious example: in the wake of the 9/11/01 attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush declared a new and improved War on Terror. He said America would seek out and destroy terrorists wherever they could be found; and states who refused to cooperate while they harbored terrorists would be considered enemies. Then…

What country did Bush choose to attack, for one? Iraq. There was no evidence Iraq was a center of terrorism. But that didn’t matter. American neocons wanted a war and they got one, along with a rationale: “Look what happened on 9/11.”

What started as a “reasonable” proclamation led to sheer insanity.

Wake up and smell the bait-and-switch and the con job. It’s coming up over the horizon.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Is Brexit dying on the vine along with England?

Is Brexit dying on the vine along with England?

by Jon Rappoport

October 16, 2017

—The cradle of individual liberty became the cradle of the nanny State—

The deep sickness that infects England infects every large government in the world: once a people’s decision (like Brexit) is made, the leaders who carry out its provisions are the people who rule from the top, along with their sleazy, slime-ridden bureaucratic underlings.

These obstructive underlings, in a free and open market, would be selling sand in the desert, if they were lucky. They certainly wouldn’t be sitting in desks in government offices staring out of windows.

So now we have soft Brexit and hard Brexit, terms used to describe how the Brit vote to leave the European Union could be modified or adhered to. It’s a farce.

Here is soft Brexit: “Well, maybe England will keep all its trade connections with the EU, as before, while pretending to be independent; and oh yes, many waves of immigrants will still be let into the country, even though that was the key issue that swung voters to say LEAVE the EU (EU wants to erase all national borders and flood Europe with migrants)…”

In other words, England would say it’s left the EU, but in every measurable way it hasn’t.

Well, here is my hard Brexit. No matter what crimes the rulers of a nation and their underlings have committed in the past, if that nation once spawned the concept of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, rebuilding itself means reinstituting that liberty, piece by piece, and person by person, with the full meaning of freedom and responsibility embraced. Otherwise, no dice. All national movement will be fakes and pretenders.

Of course England should desert that clap-trap unelected monstrosity called the EU. Of course, it should offload that burden. The elite and self-entitled Globalists who run the fascist EU are your run of the mill totalitarians.

But to make Brexit work in England, far more has to happen than withdrawal: A revival, a renewal, a rebirth, a throwing off of the sticky web of socialism and everything it means. There has to be an international Brexit and a national internal Brexit.

All this insanity began when the nation of the Magna Carta morphed into the welfare nation of “share and care” socialism. Freedom turned into “here’s how you can get all the government freebies you ever dreamed of.”

The individualism that birthed limited government (instead of a grotesque hydra issuing edicts to the populace in double-speak) died out.

It has to be put back.

Leave the EU and leave socialism.

No one said it would be easy.

But there are individuals in England who want freedom and liberty again. They know what freedom is.

If they don’t lead the way, the only Brexit will be the drone-hum of “we are all disabled, fix us.”

Leaving the EU, while keeping full-blown socialism at home, is like walking away from a rattlesnake toward a nest of rattlesnakes.

To the people of Europe who still believe in freedom:

You can say all you want to about the history of Europe, but you also have to say that Europe was the cradle of liberty for the whole world.

The main struggle was held there. And finally, the clear idea of individual freedom emerged.

Then, gradually, in the wake of two World Wars, a new theme took hold. You could call it comfort, or security, peace for all, share and care, the good life.

Under a dominating tax rate, citizens had “services” provided by their governments. Many pleasant services.

Why not? All was well.

Even when these governments were placed under the umbrella of the European Union, most citizens of member countries perceived no real problems—as long as the services continued to flow.

But there was an addendum to the basic contract. The national governments, and their superiors at the EU…they were the Providers, and they could, at their whim, turn the screw and apply new oppressive rules to the citizenry. And they could, if resistance appeared, drop their pose of benevolence and take on the role of Enforcer.

And if they did, where would liberty and individual freedom go?

It would go away.

Escalating floods of migrants entered Europe. This was a turning of the screw. Brought about by “upper management” of the Providers. The crimes and disruptions of these migrants have been well documented in independent media. The people of Europe had no say about the invasion. In fact, it soon became an offense to write about it or speak about it in a public forum.

The lords of government would brook no opposition.

The basic liberty—speaking freely—was on the line and under the boot heel.

For years, a campaign of political correctness in speech had been waged all over Europe. It covered many areas. The EU had been aiding and abetting it.

The “good life” was cracking at the seams. It wasn’t all good anymore.

The Provider was becoming the Enforcer.

Looking back on the change, it was always obvious that it was waiting in the wings. The Providers weren’t messiahs of a socialist utopia. That pretense was merely an intermediate phase in a much larger operation.

Mollify the citizenry for a time, “give them services,” and then when they were lulled into complacency, when they felt safe and secure, when they’d traded liberty for something that looks like liberty, start the chaos.

And clamp down. Assert overt control.

The EU structure was never extreme enough for the overlords. After all, it was a confederation of separate nations. The covert operation was One Nation of Europe, drained of separate traditions, with all former, distinguishing, national characteristics removed. The goal was one continental entity, seeded with enough migrants to eliminate visible differences, and roiled in conflicts.

To make a stew, heat and stir.

Eventually, eliminate the memory that, at one time, individual freedom was birthed in those countries. And one step further: eliminate the knowledge of what individual freedom is.

Bring in immigrants from cultures where authentic freedom, with its attendant responsibilities, means nothing.

The operation is well underway.

The lords of government never wanted utopia. They wanted, and want, submission. They achieved the soft version. Now they’re aiming for the hard.

This is modern European history not taught in schools. Schools would ban even a hint of it.

So the struggle begins again.

It has many faces—some of them ideological, which is to say, embedded in groups for whom national and ethnic identity is the foremost concern.

How long will it take before The Individual, defined by HIS OWN choice and vision, APART FROM SUCH IDENTITY, reemerges?

That was the original battle of the ages: the liberation of each individual.

It wasn’t easy then, and it won’t be easy now.

But it begins in the mind.

And not the group mind.

Not in any group.

In 1859, John Stuart Mill wrote: “If it were felt that the free development of individuality is one of the leading essentials of well-being…there would be no danger that liberty should be undervalued.”

Escaping from, and dissolving the trap that is now Europe may be the work of cooperating groups; but the reason for the escape will ultimately come back to the individual, his power, and his independent self-chosen destiny.

He carries the torch.

Though it may not seem so, his flame vaporizes collectivism.

It was always so, and it is now.

Europe’s great thinkers and writers were the very people who made this clear: freedom exists and it pertains to the individual, not the group, not some shadowy entity, not a collective; freedom is not simply a word or a floating ideal waving its banner in the air; it is the soul’s platform, from which all good things become possible; it is the starting point of a life; it is the blood that runs through a dream of a created future, a better future; it is the brother of the individual’s accountability for his own actions.

Throw a blanket over freedom, and no one is accountable.

This is why so many people now deny freedom. They want to remain unaccountable.

They want everything for nothing, and they want the right to spend that everything, or burn it, tear it up, destroy it. And then ask for more.

For them, the countries of Europe are just places. Easy places to exploit.

But no matter the circumstances, the inner core of the struggle is the same: the liberation of the individual from all the forlorn hopes that lead him back to searching for the utopia he once believed was coming.

That painted illusion is going away.

The individual, falling back on his own resources, will need to relearn half-forgotten lessons. He will have to ignite his own energy.

The challenge can be bracing, and much more. It can awaken sleeping corridors of the spirit, where he once walked in power.

And can walk again.

Profound dissatisfaction and resistance can breed joy.

Once upon a time, he knew that, and then he abandoned the knowledge for a syrupy potion of a New Age; now the bottle is dry.

Now, he is the creator of his own enterprises; his own destiny.

I say Europe will live again.


Exit From the Matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Harvey Clinton, I mean Bill Weinstein

Harvey Clinton, I mean Bill Weinstein

by Jon Rappoport

October 15, 2017

Now that everyone in Hollywood is taking such a brave stance after 20 years and pointing an accusing finger at Harvey Weinstein (cue massive applause and bravos), perhaps we should review Hillary Clinton’s attitude toward women who claim they were abused, attacked, and raped.

Hillary, too, was “disgusted” to learn about Weinstein’s outrageous crimes. Of course, thinking she is still on the campaign trail, she took the opportunity to equate Weinstein and Donald Trump. She somehow forgot about her own hubby Bill. When reminded, she says all that is in the past and it’s “already been litigated.” Which is lawyer talk for “we got away with it.”

Let’s see. Here are a few choice bits culled from dailywire.com:

In 1992, Hillary describes one of Bill’s women, Gennifer Flowers, as “some failed cabaret singer who doesn’t even have much of a résumé to fall back on.” She says, if given the chance to cross-examine Flowers in court, “I mean, I would crucify her.”

Hillary on Monica Lewinsky: “narcissistic loony toon.”

Hillary, while practicing as a lawyer, defends a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl. She wins the case. Then on tape, she’s caught saying, “He [her client] took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.” Then she breaks up laughing.

Hillary talking about Weinstein has the moral high ground of a dump truck unloading toxic chemicals in a landfill.

Lest we forget, there is this, from Zero Hedge (1/25/17, via Disobedient Media): “…the shocking discovery that Hillary and Bill Clinton provided assistance to convicted child trafficker, Laura Silsby, resulting in a reduced sentence for child trafficking.”

“Silsby was arrested at the Haitian border attempting to smuggle 33 children out of Haiti without documentation. Her sentence and charges were reduced after an intervention by Bill Clinton.”

“Hillary and Bill Clinton took an extraordinary interest in Silsby’s case from the moment she was arrested and almost immediately stepped in on her behalf. The Harvard Human Rights Journal stated that one of Bill Clinton’s first acts as special envoy for the United Nations in Haiti ‘was to put out the fire of a child abduction scandal involving American citizens.’ On February 7th, 2010, The Sunday Times reported that Bill Clinton had intervened to strike a deal with the Haitian government, securing the release of all co-conspirators except for Silsby. Prosecutors ultimately sought a six-month sentence in Silsby’s case, reducing charges for conspiracy and child abduction to mere ‘arranging irregular travel.’ A shockingly light penalty given the circumstances of her arrest, which would likely not have been possible but for the intervention of the Clintons in Silsby’s case.”

Even assuming Hillary did not directly intervene in the case, what about her husband Bill? What does Hillary have to say about him?

I believe it would be: It’s all in the past, it’s already been litigated—we got away with it.

For the Clintons, the present has a magical way of dissolving into the past.

After all, Bill, when questioned about sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky, defended his “I did not do it” answer with, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

“Is,” as in right now, as opposed to “was,” in the recent past.

I’m not committing a crime right now, so “What difference, at this point, does it make?” That’s what Hillary said when she was grilled about the Benghazi attack and how she lied about the cause.

The present magically vanishes into the past.

The Clinton way.

And when the past is brought up—that’s already been litigated.

The Clintons—pure as the driven snow.


Exit From the Matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Vegas security guard cancels interviews, then goes missing; concert witness escapes shooting uninjured, testifies there were multiple shooters, then dies at home

Vegas security guard cancels interviews, goes missing; concert witness escapes shooting uninjured, then found dead at home

by Jon Rappoport

October 15, 2017

FOX News, Friday, October 13: “Where in the world is Jesus Campos?”

“The Mandalay Bay security guard shot by Stephen Paddock in the moments leading up to the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history was set to break his silence Thursday night with five television interviews, including one on Fox News, Campos’ union president said.”

“Except when the cameras were about to roll, and media gathered in the building to talk to him, Campos reportedly bolted, and, as of early Friday morning, it wasn’t immediately clear where he was.”

Did Campos decide his account of the shooting would become a problem for him, because it would contradict the official scenario? Did his Mandalay Hotel employer, or the police, tell him to keep his mouth shut?

According to police, the accused shooter, Stephen Paddock, fired 200 rounds through his hotel room door at Campos, wounding him in the leg, either six minutes BEFORE Paddock started shooting at the concert crowd, or at about the same time Paddock started shooting at the concert attendees. The official timeline of events keeps changing.

On a practical level, the timeline would become very important if lawsuits are filed against the Mandalay owners.

Meanwhile, Jeff Rense has posted the long, detailed, written testimony of a witness at the concert, 28-year-old Kymberley Suchomel. Here is a brief excerpt: “We are all hanging out on this sheet [at the concert], dancing our booties off, enjoying ourselves so much that we took off our boots to get even more comfortable…the first volley of gunfire was released. It was a shorter volley than any of the others [that followed]…So, as we are running, we approach this fence where men are throwing women over, and we ran up to it as they had knocked It down, so we were able to get out…”

“But the gunfire wasn’t stopping this whole time. It wasn’t ceasing. It wasn’t slowing down. And It was directly behind us, following us. Bullets were coming from every direction. Behind us, in front of us, to the side of us. But I know, I just know, that there was someone chasing us. The entire time I felt this way. The farther we got from the venue, the closer the gunfire got. I kept looking back expecting to see the gunmen- and I say MEN because there was more than one person. There was more than one gun firing. 100% more than one…”

Kymberley Suchomel and her group did finally escape and get home safely. Then…

As seacoastonline.com reports, “About a week after surviving the mass shooting at the Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas, Kymberley Suchomel has died.”

“Suchomel, 28, who was not injured during last week’s shooting, died early Monday at her Apple Valley home, according to her grandmother, Julie Norton, the co-founder of the High Desert Phoenix Foundation.”

“Norton found Suchomel just after 8:30 a.m. when she arrived to care for her 3-year-old great-granddaughter, Scarlett. She believes Suchomel may have died in her sleep after her husband, Mike, left for work at 4:30 a.m.”

“’Kymberley had epilepsy and she’s always been prone to seizures — she told her friend that she recently had three focal seizures,’ Norton told the Daily Press. ‘I believe the stress from the shooting took her life’.”

Embedded below is a video from a man who states he has military weapons experience, and knows about wounds from high-powered weapons. He views the Vegas shooting as rife with fraud on several levels. Some people will interpret his analysis to mean no one died and it was all a hoax, and others will draw the conclusion that people did die, but there were multiple shooters. I repeat what I wrote in a previous articlethe Vegas event could be both a fraud and real:

People did die. And others, planted in the concert crowd, were faking wounds. If researchers on both sides of this issue start arguing with each other on the basis of “all-fake” or “all-real,” the truth will suffer. And mainstream news can cherry-pick the most “absurd conspiracy theories,” highlight them, and thereby paint all independent analyses with same broad brush.

(To learn more about Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation, click here.)


power outside the matrix

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


Jon Rappoport

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

Video—Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation

Video—Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation

by Jon Rappoport

October 14, 2017

New video. Watch me briefly discuss Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation. This is one of three long sections in my third Matrix collection — Power Outside The Matrix.


Here are the contents of my collection, Power Outside The Matrix:

These are audio presentations. 55 total hours.

* Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation (11.5-hours)

* Writer’s Tutorial (8.5-hours)

* Power Outside The Matrix and The Invention of New Reality (6.5-hours)

Then you will receive the following audio presentations I have previously done:

* The Third Philosophy of Imagination (1-hour)

* The Infinite Imagination (3-hours)

* The Mass Projection of Events (1.5-hours)

* The Decentralization of Power (1.5-hours)

* Creating the Future (6-hours)

* Pictures of Reality (6-hours)

* The Real History of America (2-hours)

* Corporations: The New Gods (7.5-hours)

I have included an additional bonus section:

* The complete text (331 pages) of AIDS INC., the book that exposed a conspiracy of scientific fraud deep within the medical research establishment. The book has become a sought-after item, since its publication in 1988. It contains material about viruses, medical testing, and the invention of disease that is, now and in the future, vital to our understanding of phony epidemics arising in our midst (and how to analyze them). I assure you, the revelations in the book will surprise you; they cut much deeper and are more subtle than “virus made in a lab” scenarios.

* A 2-hour radio interview I did on AIDS in Dec 1987 with host Roy Tuckman on KPFK in Los Angeles, California.

* My book, The Secret Behind Secret Societies

(All the audio presentations are mp3 files and the books are pdf files. You download the files upon purchase. You’ll receive an email with a link to the entire collection.)

At the core of consciousness, there are two impulses in the individual. The first is: give in, surrender. The second is: express power without limit.

The teaching of every civilization and society is: don’t use your power. When you follow the second path, when you express your power without limits, remarkable things happen.

The veil of illusion melts away.

You meet yourself on new ground.

You know what your freedom is for.

Without imposing on the freedom of others, you live the life you always wanted.

That’s what Power Outside The Matrix is all about.

Jon Rappoport

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

Vegas shooting: concert workers’ phone footage wiped clean by FBI

Vegas shooting: concert workers’ phone-footage wiped clean by FBI

What??

by Jon Rappoport

October 13, 2017

Paul Watson at infowars has the story:

“Workers at the Route 91 festival during which Stephen Paddock unleashed his massacre have reportedly been given back their phones and laptops by the FBI only to discover that all messages and videos from the night of the attack have been wiped clean.”

“According to a Las Vegas resident who posted a status update on Facebook, ‘A bunch of people that worked the Route 91 [concert] said they got their cell phones back today. They all said that all their phones are completely wiped clean! All messages and info from that weekend are completely gone. Anyone else experience this’?”

“’A few different people who were vendors there are all saying the same thing,’ the woman later comments.”

“Later in the thread, a Route 91 worker confirms the story, commenting, ‘Of course. It’s an active federal crime scene. They can wipe it clean. I was the beverage manager for the entire event. My laptop is wiped clean’.”

What?

First of all, in a recent article, I demonstrated in detail why you can never trust what the FBI says about evidence in any investigation. There is a notorious history of the Bureau cooking and slanting and inventing data to support prosecutions.

Second, who says the FBI can take people’s phones and laptops, watch and copy the video footage, and then wipe it all away before returning the devices to their owners?

The FBI literally owns the crime scene AND any record of what happened at that scene? Baloney.

The obvious reason for wiping out the footage: it contained evidence that contradicts the official scenario. And most likely, that evidence revealed multiple shooters.

As Vegas cops, the FBI, and the owners of the Mandalay Hotel have changed and massaged the official narrative, one assertion has remained constant: there was only one shooter, and he was Stephen Paddock.

Law-enforcement pounced on that claim early on, without the slightest justification. Without interviewing multiple witnesses who state they saw other shooters.

“Okay, the mass shooting happened yesterday and we know there was only one shooter. That’s it. Don’t ask us any questions about this. Anyone who disagrees with us is spreading rumors and impeding the investigation.”

Admitting multiple shooters is admitting there was cooperation, collusion, conspiracy, a plan, and a purpose for that plan beyond “the lone gunman was crazy.” This is the door law-enforcement keeps slamming shut every time it opens.

And now we have reports that the FBI has wiped witnesses’ phones and laptops. No more footage of the shooting. No more evidence.

Let’s be clear: the FBI is impeding the investigation.

There is no Constitutional rule that states private citizens can’t investigate crimes. There never was. There never will be.

Law enforcement doesn’t OWN investigations.

If they did, every time a journalist probes beneath the surface of a crime and uncovers important information, the FBI could say, “Well, we just opened an investigation of that very crime, and therefore we want all your notes and we want you to cease and desist your inquiry. Shut up and go cover Sunday picnics.”

In most cases, law-enforcement doesn’t have to worry about mainstream reporters. Those denizens simply take dictation from local cops and federal cops and their stories appear in papers and TV news broadcasts wiped clean of independent thought.

That leaves the truth a wide open field.

Private citizens and non-mainstream journalists own that field, not through edict, but through default. Don’t blame us. If you were doing your jobs, we wouldn’t have to do them for you.

Your first rule would be: stop lying.

Destruction of evidence is a felony. Those concert workers whose phones and laptops were wiped clean had a felony committed against them. By agents of government who have sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution.

Thousands of smart lawyers out there will say, “Come on, there’s no way you could make a charge like that stick.” Well, maybe there would be a way, if enough of you decided there has been enough destruction of the Constitution and it’s time to stand up and be counted, come hell or high water.

Meanwhile, whoever can look past the lies and fabrications and distortions of a criminal investigation can say something because they saw something.

Here is a quick excerpt from my recent piece about the FBI’s stance on crime probes. It should give you a clue about the Bureau’s attitude and reputation:

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

In the Vegas shooting case, the FBI is saying: Trust us. We’re the pros. We do investigations the right way. Now give us your cell phone so we can look at video footage of the shooting and make a copy and wipe your phone clean and give it back to you.

Don’t worry, be happy. All is well. The centurions are on duty.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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

The NFL, ESPN, and Mike Wilbon

The NFL, ESPN, and Mike Wilbon

by Jon Rappoport

October 13, 2017

I write this article because there is a pernicious new understanding loose in the land: private property doesn’t exist, no individual owns anything, and “everything belongs to everybody.” It’s basically a Marxist view, to the degree that Marx’s gibberish can be understood.

Over at ESPN, vaunted show host, Mike Wilbon, weighed in on Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys, who announced that any of his players who didn’t stand up for the National Anthem would be benched.

Wilbon: “He [Jones] said he wanted to honor the Anthem…But now it just seems like it was as phony as a three-dollar bill. And the word that comes to mind, and I don’t care who doesn’t like me using it, is ‘plantation.’”

Wilbon characterized Jones’ feelings as follows: “The players are here to serve me, and they will do what I want no matter how much I pay them. They are not equal to me.”

The next day, Wilbon doubled down: “I was critical of Jerry Jones yesterday, I used the phrase ‘plantation mentality.’ Let me repeat it: ‘plantation mentality.’ That’s what it comes off as.”

I see. Jerry Jones is the slaveowner. Some of his players are millionaires. They’re the slaves, because Jones says they can’t play if they won’t stand up for the Anthem at games.

Apparently, Wilbon thinks the owner of a company should have no control over what his employees do ON COMPANY TIME. If employees want to sit in the lobby at eleven in the morning on a Tuesday and put on a recording of the National Anthem and kneel, the owner has no right to intercede. He has no right to spell out consequences.

Maybe Wilbon thinks the NFL is a public utility owned and operated by the federal government.

Wilbon says the Cowboys owner doesn’t think his players are equal to him. Well, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMPANY, of course that’s what Jones thinks. He’s the boss. The players work for him. Is there something about that relationship Wilbon doesn’t understand?

Does Wilbon think a pro football game is a public event, like the signing of a bill by the President? His network, ESPN, pays a fortune for the right to broadcast NFL games. Advertisers, in turn, fork over huge sums to ESPN. Sounds quite similar to BUSINESS.

In case there is any doubt, Jerry Jones isn’t saying his players can’t hold press conferences on their own time, beyond team property, and express their views on the Anthem, America, or police brutality against black people.

Wilbon obviously confuses the public and private sector. Despite the fact that advertising dollars pay his salary—which ought to be a clue—he views a football game as devoid of private ownership. He should check the ad rates for the Super Bowl.

Perhaps Wilbon, like many other people, sees the NFL as a “national institution.” Therefore, curtailing the absolute right to kneel during the anthem violates “a public trust.” Such murky ideas are popular these days, because the bedrock concept of private property and ownership has faded away.

And no, I’m not talking about football players as private property; I’m talking about NFL teams. They’re companies, and they have owners and buildings and fields and stadiums and merchandise.

If these teams manage to bamboozle government entities into paying for stadiums with taxpayer dollars, fans should organize boycotts.

A few weeks ago, there was a flurry of opinion-articles claiming the NFL is a non-profit entity which, outrageously, doesn’t pay taxes. That is incorrect. The teams are profit-making businesses, obligated to pay taxes. The NFL league office was a non-profit, until 2015. It isn’t anymore. Now here’s a story: Wilbon might want to look into the NFL Commissioner’s salary, during the years when the league office was a non-profit. Fifteen million a year? Twenty? Thirty? That’s ridiculous.

Anyway, back to business. As in competition. If a handful of billionaires want to start their own pro football league, and go up against the NFL, they can certainly give it a try. No one is stopping them. All the rules of ownership and private property apply. Perhaps the owners of the new teams in the new league can demand all their players kneel during the National Anthem. See how that goes over. See how that sells. The owners can call their league Progressive American Football. After every change of possession on the field, the team with the ball must move to the Left (on television screens). Why not?

On the other hand, those billionaires could shift to the Right. Call their new league American Patriot Football. Before each game, there would be a half-hour parade featuring hundreds of heavily militarized cops in full armament marching up and down. On big screens, old footage from wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, Libya. Play the Anthem seven times in a row before kickoff. Make Dick Cheney the Commissioner.

Or start a Radical Green League. No tackling. Only touching. Each team must have at least seven women in the starting lineup. In all stadiums before kickoff, televise Al Gore giving a speech about how he made a billion dollars fronting for global warming and the end of the world. Vendors sell tofu dogs, sparkling water from the Himalayas. Every player gets a trophy every Sunday. At halftime, burn the American flag on the 50-yard line.

The CNN League. The players work for CNN. There is a field, but no games. The players just stand there and scream about Trump for three hours.

If these new leagues can’t get television contracts, broadcast the games online.

But in each case, owners own the teams. Get it? They don’t own the players, they employ them. They can set rules for what happens on company time. It’s fairly simple. If the employees don’t like the rules, they can quit.

A few NFL players have done that. Of course, their reason was avoiding getting their skulls dented and waking up one day unsure of their name.

Football. Gotta love it.


The Matrix Revealed

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


Jon Rappoport

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