The film Vaxxed could be outlawed in California, if this bill passes

The film Vaxxed could be outlawed in California, if this bill passes…

California bill AB 1671

by Jon Rappoport

August 22, 2016

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

“Let’s see, Mr. Reporter. You received an undercover recording of a medical researcher confessing his crimes. You posted the recording and wrote about it. You’re the one who is guilty of a crime. Next case!”

“Wait, Your Honor! That recording is vital information for the public. It shows that a vaccine considered to be safe actually causes brain damage in children.”

“No. It shows you violated the law by posting the recording. It was illegally made, and you aided and abetted and forwarded that crime. As I said, next case!”

Buckle up.

The shocking film Vaxxed (trailer) is drawing audiences all over the country. It details the confessions of a CDC researcher, William Thompson, who states that he and his colleagues buried data in a key study on the MMR vaccine.

In the study, the vaccine was given a free pass, with assurances that it didn’t increase the risk of autism in children—when, in fact, the data showed it did increase that risk.

***The key moments in Vaxxed are audio recordings of CDC researcher Thompson confessing his sins.

But wait. Now we have a bill, AB 1671, up before the California legislature. If it passes, it could make it a crime to screen Vaxxed or even write an article about it.

Those recordings of Thompson could be labeled “undercover,” and “illegal,” and therefore make them the target of AB 1671.

Furthermore, AB 1671 specifically seeks to protect “healthcare providers” from “exposure” via “undercover recordings” documenting their crimes. Certainly, by stretching the definitions a bit, the CDC, for whom Thompson works, and Thompson himself, could be considered such healthcare providers. Lawyers could argue that position until the cows come home and hang up a case in various courts for years—while an injunction prohibiting the screening of Vaxxed remains in force.

Nick Cahill, at the Courthouse News Service, reports on AB 1671 (“Abortion Clinic Sting Videos Sprout Free-Speech Battle”, Thursday, August 11, 2016):

“The bill would criminalize publishing undercover video footage of ‘health care providers’ and subject third parties, including journalists, to penalties for reporting and distributing the illegally recorded footage.” [My comment: It appears criminal penalties could be applied to anyone who posts the videos and comments on them, online. Not just reporters. And surely, audio recordings, as well as videos, would be banned.]

Cahill continues: “Under AB 1671, a journalist receiving and posting footage from an anonymous source could be punished by the state as well as be opened up to potential civil lawsuits. Whistleblowers would not be exempt from the proposal either, regardless of how they obtained the illegal footage.”

In the case of Vaxxed, the film makers received or obtained the recordings of CDC researcher Thompson and used them to make their case: Thompson was confessing to crimes he and colleagues committed at the CDC.

But if AB 1671 passes, releasing those recordings and commenting on them, in a film, could be considered a crime, punishable by fine, jail—and the film makers could also be open to lawsuits.

And of course, Vaxxed could be banned from all theaters in California.

As bizarre as it seems, AB 1671 isn’t just targeting people who make the undercover recordings. Its focus is on reporters who receive those recordings and then use them, post them, and write about them.

This lunatic attack on free speech coordinates tightly with the infamous 2015 California law, SB277, which made vaccinating California school children mandatory.

Vaxxed certainly raises ominous questions about that law—and now the government of California is considering the addition of a new law that could ban Vaxxed.


power outside the matrix


DON’T EVEN REPORT VACCINE CRIMES.

“Your kids must get vaccinated, and don’t report vaccine crimes and vaccine damage, when the knowledge of that damage comes from ‘undercover recordings’.”

That’s quite stunning, when you think about it.

The California Gestapo is trying to expand its reach.

Do you really think all this effort is coming from some genuine concern for “protecting the children?”

If so, you’re badly mistaken. This is about naked suppression of the truth, big profits for vaccine manufacturers, and neurological damage in kids.

If you don’t think so, see Vaxxed.

While you can.

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 emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Orwellian CA bill: reporters can’t post undercover videos

Orwellian CA bill: reporters can’t post undercover videos

Planned Parenthood wielding new hammer against free speech

by Jon Rappoport

August 15, 2016

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

This one is big. It adds to California’s growing reputation as Police State Central.

First we had SB 277, which forced vaccinations on school children. Now we have Assembly Bill 1671, which would make it a crime for journalists to post and report on certain undercover videos, even though they didn’t make the videos.

That’s right. In California, such videos are already illegal, because they don’t have permission of all parties to be recorded. But if Bill 1671 passes, reporters who are sent those videos, or find them, couldn’t post them and write stories about them. Mainstream, alternative, freelance reporters—it wouldn’t matter.

Even more bizarre, Bill 1671 specifies undercover videos that secretly record “healthcare providers.” These are the videos targeted by the Bill.

Nick Cahill, at the Courthouse News Service, has the story (“Abortion Clinic Sting Videos Sprout Free-Speech Battle”, Thursday, August 11, 2016). Here are key quotes. Buckle up:

“Controversy surrounding secretly recorded videos showing Planned Parenthood employees discussing fetal tissue sales has morphed into a California proposal that would punish media companies for reporting on certain undercover videos. But media groups say the bill, which is on the verge of clearing the Legislature, could have a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech and set the state up for First Amendment court battles.”

“Born from the 2015 hidden-camera footage released by the anti-abortion Center for Medical Progress, Planned Parenthood is pushing Assembly Bill 1671 which it claims will protect abortion clinics and other health care providers from similar malicious sting operations.”

“The bill would criminalize publishing undercover video footage of ‘health care providers’ and subject third parties, including journalists, to penalties for reporting and distributing the illegally recorded footage.” [My comment: It appears criminal penalties could be applied to anyone who posts the videos and comments on them, online. Not just reporters.]

“Under AB 1671, a journalist receiving and posting footage from an anonymous source could be punished by the state as well as be opened up to potential civil lawsuits. Whistleblowers would not be exempt from the proposal either, regardless of how they obtained the illegal footage.”

“The opponents take issue with how the bill specifically criminalizes the distribution of communication with a health care provider. Targeting a specific area of speech amounts to content-based regulation of speech and is unconstitutional, the ACLU claims.”

“’The same rationale for punishing communications of some preferred professions or industries could as easily be applied to other communications [such as] law enforcement, animal testing labs, gun makers, lethal injection drug producers, the petroleum industry and religious sects,’ ACLU legislative director Kevin Baker wrote in an opposition letter…”

If you feel you’ve just entered the Twilight Zone, gone down the rabbit hole, you have.

How about this? Some enterprising citizen-reporter in California secretly records a conversation with a doctor, in which the doctor admits that he vaccinates all children-patients, but would never vaccinate his own kids.

The video link is sent to a journalist in Los Angeles, who then posts it on his website. Suddenly, that LA journalist is hauled into court and the video is taken down.

What about this? Somebody makes a secret recording of a conversation between a well-known oncologist and his colleague about the massive dangers of chemotherapy—including remarks about several of the doctors’ cancer patients who actually died from chemo. A freelance reporter, who obtains the video, posts it on his site. The video is taken down, the reporter is arrested, prosecuted—and sued.

And couldn’t a California-based pharmaceutical company claim status as a “health provider?” Supposed an employee secretly recorded a conversation between two executives, during which they admitted the company buried studies of a new drug because “too many volunteers died” during testing. The employee sends the recording to a reporter at the LA Times. The reporter shows it to his editor. Is that in itself a crime?

Yes.


power outside the matrix


Here’s another quote from the Courthouse News Service article. This one is staggering:

“Journalists who didn’t participate in the illegal recording but were given a copy and simply passed it on to their superiors could be liable under AB 1671.”

“’A person aids and abets the commission of an offense when he or she, with knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator and with the intent or purpose of committing, facilitating, or encouraging the commission of the offense, by act or advice, aids, promotes, encourages, or instigates the commission of the offense, the proposal [AB 1671] states.”

Reporter: “I’ve got a blockbuster story. I don’t know how we can run it, though.”

Editor: “What’s the story?”

Reporter: “I can’t show you.”

Editor: “What? Why not?”

Reporter: “I’d be violating the law if I did.”

Editor: “Oh. Somebody sent you an undercover video?”

Reporter: “Yeah.”

Editor: “Stop right there. Forget it. We never had this conversation. Now get over to the candy and marshmallow festival and bring me back some good photos.”

Welcome to the new journalism, California-style.

Free speech? 1st Amendment? Never heard of it.

Protection of “health care providers” is now the number-one priority, even if, and especially if, undercover videos reveal their crimes.

—On the other hand, if the state government wants to secretly record a citizen and use that recording to issue a criminal charge against him, it’s perfectly free to do so. Naturally. Of course.

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.

Shooting cops across America: guidance from above

Shooting cops across America: guidance from above

by Jon Rappoport

July 18, 2016

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

The protests and the violence started as a response to what has been happening in inner cities: the police killing innocent people. That was the heavily promoted media and political narrative.

And cops-killing-innocent-black-people was framed as the biggest problem of inner cities.

Preposterous.

Cops shooting innocent people in inner cities does NOT describe the root of what’s been going on in American ghettoes.

Loss of manufacturing jobs, owing to Globalist trade treaties; gang crime; drugs; poverty; absolute dependence on government for survival—now you’re talking about the roots of the devastation.

But that wasn’t the preferred narrative.

So instead, Black Lives Matter (BLM) and affiliated groups have received special attention from above: the President, the US Attorney General, George $oros, and so on.

The objective?

Among others, to present the entire picture of inner cities in America as: cops killing innocent people.

It’s a form of community organizing. Find an issue, any issue that ignites the population of the target group, push it, inflame it, get people out on the street, provoke violence.

End game? The elite end game? Make gun ownership illegal. Install what amounts to a national police force, where every community is ultimately run from the federal level.

Does this do anything to improve life in inner cities?

Of course not. That was never the true goal.

All this guidance and funding from above for BLM and similar groups…it’s not about making life better for anyone.

There are untold numbers of inner-city residents, at this very moment, holed up in their homes, who have been hoping for real solutions for decades. And they know, as they watch the street protests and street violence unfolding, day after day, that nothing good is going to come out of this. They know. But nobody is listening to them.

They’re the silent majority. The people on streets (some of whom have been bused in from other places) are the headline grabbers.

And then put a few snipers and shooters into the mix, and you have an irresistible media propaganda exploitation campaign. Otherwise known as the news. And you have cops dying.

The landscape of the Presidential season is a perfect backdrop. Hillary (“the healer”) vs. Trump (“he’s to blame for everything”).

Obama’s agenda in all this isn’t difficult to spot. During his term in office, he’s continued to permit the federal government to militarize police forces all over the country. Heavier weapons and equipment, fit for a full-bore Army.

Why would he allow this, unless he were aiming toward an escalation of conflict between citizens and cops? And where would the conflict focus most fully? In inner cities. And who would ultimately win? The police/army, of course.

Meanwhile, from his elevated position, he encourages BLM protests.

***He’s playing both sides against the middle.


power outside the matrix


The murders of police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge are lead-ups and previews to the nominating conventions of both Parties. These murders send a signal to those disposed toward violence: keep going.

The federal government positions itself as the ultimate solver of the problem, which is presented and ground down to skin color as the only issue.

The government loves everyone, the government cares, the government particularly cares about the underdog and the victim, but the government is also outfitting police forces all over America with wartime gear, so it can “wage peace.”

This puts every police force in the country in the center of the storm—as both aggressor and target.

And behind and above those police forces, the government is saying:

“We give and we take. We decide how it will go on any given day. Will we declare sympathy for violent people in the streets, or will we crush them? It’s up to us. Stay inside and stay tuned. Keep the news on. Vicariously experience the adrenaline surge of fight-or-flight. It’s our movie. We’re producing it.”

It’s called mind control.

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.

Inside the FBI: agents’ outrage at Hillary email decision

Inside the FBI: agents’ outrage at Hillary email decision

by Jon Rappoport

July 13, 2016

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

—You’re an FBI agent. You sit and watch television night after night, as a Presidential candidate who should have been brought up on felony charges, and thereby disqualified and scuttled, moves through the land and makes promises about what she’ll do as the next leader of the nation. You sit and watch, deepening your grasp on how the system actually works—

How much blood is boiling among FBI agents?

Sharyl Attkisson, former CBS News investigative reporter, has the story:

“Many people at the FBI are outraged, but cannot speak out,” one insider told me,” Attkisson writes.

We’re talking about FBI Director James Comey’s recommendation that Hillary Clinton not be prosecuted in her email scandal. This, after thousands of hours of FBI work scouring the emails connected to Hillary’s illegal private server.

Here are several other comments FBI professionals made, off the record, to Attkisson, with my remarks in parentheses ():

“It appears to me they made a deal not to record [the key FBI-Hillary] interview.”

(This failure, as I wrote, means the interview is lost forever. No stenographic transcript was executed, either. FBI agents’ notes on the interview are useless. They can never be used against Hillary as ironclad evidence in a court of law.)

“Director Comey seems to have taken on responsibilities far beyond the FBI’s purview—he assumed the duties of the Agent, US Attorney and Grand Jury.”

(Indeed he did. He functioned as FBI Director, Grand Jury, Attorney General, and appellate judge. In this last role, he knowingly misinterpreted the Federal Penal Code, which clearly states that gross negligence in the handling of classified material is a crime, regardless of intent. Hillary was, at the very least, grossly negligent. FBI Director Comey acknowledged this.)

“It appears no Grand Jury was empaneled for this investigation. This is absurd, Grand Juries are used in nearly all criminal investigations.”

“Even in the most straightforward of cases, the time span between a target interview [of Hillary] and prosecution opinion [on whether to file charges] takes weeks, not days. If a good interview were conducted [with Clinton] on Saturday, there would have been leads or other new pieces of information to verify or investigate prior to any conclusion to the case.”

(In other words, the fix was already in.)

Attkisson: “During his Congressional testimony, Comey indicated he didn’t look into Clinton’s false statements. He said he needed an additional ‘referral’ or formal request [from Congress] for the FBI to investigate whether she committed perjury under oath to Congress. ‘This makes no sense,’ said a career agent. ‘It is normal practice that if you came upon evidence of a crime different than the one you were originally investigating, it was fair game.’”

(There is no need to wait for a request to investigate from Congress.)

You can bet many people at the FBI are boiling over after Director Comey’s recommendation that Hillary not be charged and prosecuted.

Level of Bureau morale now? Too low to measure.

How would you feel, if you’d spent months uncovering multiple breaches of the law, all of which your boss admitted were quite real—and then he turned around and said the suspect—a Presidential candidate—was innocent?

It’s your job to prove serious violations occurred, and you did, in a case that would have been the highlight of your career, to say nothing of supporting a little item called justice; but then your work was flushed down the drain.

The next time a case even vaguely approaching the magnitude of this one is tossed in your lap, how much commitment are you going to be able to marshal? You’ll know your facts and findings could well be deemed irrelevant, because the person at the top of your food chain is doing politics, not law. He’s essentially working for players who aren’t in your agency. He’s breaking the law, but you can’t touch him.

Your paycheck feeds your family and pays the rent. You want to do the right thing, but you’re trapped. You joined up for honor, but that ideal is off the table.

Your colleagues at work, who feel their own outrage, advise you to keep your mouth shut and move straight ahead, if you want to hold on to your job and grab a promotion somewhere out in the future. That’s what they’re doing.

So you’re living in a culture of corruption.

How does that sit with you?

You’re not naïve. For years you’ve known government is riddled with corruption and lies. But this time, it hits you. Personally. You’re paying the price. You did something honest and important, and suddenly it was transformed into nothing, and you have to pretend all is well.

You’re an FBI agent. You sit and watch television night after night, as a Presidential candidate who should have been brought up on a felony charge, and thereby disqualified and scuttled, moves through the land and makes promises about what she’ll do as the next leader of the nation. You sit and watch, deepening your personal knowledge of how the system actually works.

You’re a federal agent, and once upon a time you thought you had signed on to work for the good of the Republic.

You’re learning, when the chips are down, you’re actually laboring for an extended crime family.

How does that sit? How does it feel?

Are you going to decide you were an idiot for believing in a ideal above and beyond gross personal advantage?

Are you now going to go over to the dark side, and look for ways to grease the wheels of your career?

Or are you, against long odds, somehow going to find a way to stick to your derided principles?

As you sit and watch the news of this Presidential campaign, night after night, that’s the question you ponder, trying to see a way through the darkness.

Where is the dawn?


power outside the matrix


Of course, you and a few of your colleagues, who were intimately involved in the Clinton investigation, could decide to go public. On the record. You could find a media outlet somewhere that would listen to you. You could turn over your notes of the Hillary interview, and you could swear on a stack of bibles that those notes are an accurate reflection of the proceeding. You could explain your other findings. Perhaps, in all her emails, you found criminal connections between Hillary’s State Department and the infamous Clinton Foundation. You could tell the whole truth. You could take that giant step. You could cause a national uproar. You could make your own federal case.

This, too, is going through your mind as you sit in the darkness.

Looking for a way out.

People have told you that, in life, some choices are hard.

But you didn’t really believe these choices would be yours.

Now they are.

You’re sitting in the dark, you’re flying solo.

Looking for that way out.

“I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

At the end of your academy training, at your graduation ceremony, you took that oath, and as at every graduation, by long-standing tradition, the oath was personally administered by, of all people…

The Director of the FBI.

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.

Casting call for extras, actors during Cleveland RNC violence

Casting call for extras, actors during Cleveland RNC violence

by Jon Rappoport

July 11, 2016

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

“Here’s your chance to take to the streets and protest for a cause you believe in. Many thousands will be at your side. When the violence hits, you can run, go crazy, and hopefully escape police batons, water cannons, and flying bullets…”

This isn’t one company looking for actors and extras to protest against Trump in the streets of Cleveland, during the Republican National Convention next week. This is much bigger.

This is a year-long recruitment drive for extras.

You can’t have violence from just a few lone individuals on a quiet street in a city. It doesn’t play well for the media.

No, you need lots of extras and dupes and know-nothings to be there—people who commit no violence themselves, but give the impression of supporting it, people the cops can attack when the going gets nasty, people who will scream and scatter and run in every direction and throw trash and destroy cars. You need a full-blown theatrical production. For the news.

So we’ve had the US Attorney General, the US President, and Hillary Clinton meeting with Black Lives Matter (BLM) leaders. We’ve had major media promoting BLM. We’re seeing violent street protests against police violence across the country, and we’re seeing violence against the police.

This pumps up recruiting for the RNC Cleveland Convention next week, in a city where local officials seemed to have just awakened to the scope of the problem they’re going to face. A few months ago, they put in an order for a several hundred bicycles for cops. Cops on bikes? Really? How about cardboard barriers, too, and free marshmallows?

On the one hand, in Cleveland, we have DHS and FBI and Secret Service officers visiting the homes of “activists,” asking them what their plans are for the Convention—a clear attempt at intimidating them. On the other hand, city officials are still trying, at this late date, to work out arrangements with other cities, so policemen can be brought in to ramp up security.

Clearly, there are agent provocateurs of various persuasions, blending in and among the BLM and pro-immigration groups. These agents would commit the incendiary violence. They would strike the match. To say they are a rerun of the old FBI Cointelpro operation is an oversimplification. The infiltrators could come from several different groups with different ideologies and agendas—but initiating violence is the common denominator.

There is also no telling what kind of blanket the DHS, FBI, and Secret Service are going to try to throw over Cleveland. Is it going to be intentionally light and tattered, to give the violence a chance to spread? Are emergency calls from the mayor of the city, to the governor, going to be answered casually, and with intentional delays? After all, the governor of Ohio is John Kasich, a Republican who ran against Donald Trump for the nomination and despises him. Will Kasich send in state-guard troops right away, or will he hold back? Will the feds, who are supporting Hillary, slow-play the arrival of their forces?

Judging from the way the city government of Cleveland has handled its budget problems over the years, as the city has sunk into further debt and poverty, there is no reason to expect local security for the Convention to be anywhere near sensible or adequate.

Meanwhile, the recruiting for extras and actors continues. People-protestors are needed in the streets. People who avidly support: Bernie Sanders, BLM, unlimited immigration, gender equality, politically correct speech, gun control, the upcoming Globalist trade treaties, more jobs leaving America, the federalization of polices forces, the manufacture of running shoes overseas in slave-labor camps, love and unity, it takes a village, free cell phones, free tuition at illiterate colleges, Hobbits, Harry Potter, the EU, cheap lead-based imports from China, the full CDC schedule of vaccines, more chewing gum for the masses, and the imminent landing of humane messiahs from Andromeda.

Climb on board. Fill out the crowds in Cleveland next week. Be there. Be an extra. Be an actor when the violence begins. Feel the surge of adrenaline.

You’re a dupe.

You’re there because somebody is willing to risk your life in the service of a greater cause: creating chaos, and eventually coming in behind it to install order that sucks away rights and freedoms from everyone. Exactly what you want, right?

When freedom disappears, that must mean more free government goodies are on the way, correct? Those goodies assuage the loss of liberty.

“I’ll take three gallons of ice cream in return for my First and Fourth Amendments.”

“Wait, I also want professional help with my social media, so I can broadcast messages about killing people I don’t like.”

Sign up now. Free hotel rooms in Cleveland while supplies last. Practice your facial expressions of extreme anger and outrage for the news cameras. Some signs available, but make your own. Just be on the streets. Help fill out the crowds. Put your body on the line. The advancing police state needs you.

The upcoming Cleveland production isn’t about Bernie or the BLM or pro-immigration or Trump or the Republicans. It’s about orchestration.

It’s about planned theater. It’s about rigging conflict and rigging a formula which will appear to demand greater clamp-down on everyone living in America.

And it’s also about using the residents of poverty-stricken inner cities across America, who have descended to new lows of desperation, as pawns in the whole drama. Pawns are sacrificed.


Exit From the Matrix


On a final note, I’ll present what’s called a Clue. During the entire history of the so-called federal War on Poverty, which was launched in 1966, and after the estimated expenditure of two trillion dollars, what is the result we see now?

We see a worsening of life.

During this “humane” campaign, when did a President or high government official highlight a single stunning individual success? I’m talking, for example, about an inner-city businessman who, against all odds, created a thriving local company.

When did we see that person held up for praise, not just for a moment, not just at a White House photo-op, not just at a local city picnic—but for the purpose of learning, for the purpose of understanding how success is achieved—so that others could follow in those footsteps?

After all, isn’t this kind of success the prime concept in winning the war on poverty? Isn’t this the path? Isn’t this the way out of poverty, as opposed to the expansion of eternal dependence on the government?

But you see, actual success and victory were never the goals. The goal was the creation of a permanent underclass, which could be provoked and manipulated and used for exactly the kind of violence we’re seeing now.

Violence, then clamp-down, then more loss of freedom, and the expansion of a police state. Follow the bouncing ball.

The cynical exploitation of the upcoming Cleveland Convention is just one more step in that progression.

And street actors and extras are needed.

People who won’t ever know what role they’re actually playing in a piece of live theater they’ll never understand.

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.

FBI-Hillary interview lost; and the silence of the lambs

FBI-Hillary interview lost; and the silence of the lambs

One more clue that the fix is in

by Jon Rappoport

July 11, 2016

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

It’s unthinkable—but not surprising—that the FBI didn’t record their interview with Hillary Clinton.

We’re told the FBI has a policy, in most cases, of not recording interviews with suspects. If true, this case and this suspect should have been vital exceptions.

Among other matters, the Presidency of the United States is at stake.

Numerous press reports reveal that the FBI’s interview of Hillary Clinton was not recorded.

The interview took place just prior to FBI Director Comey recommending no prosecution for Hillary in the email scandal.

The New York Times: “Mr. Comey said he did not take part in the interview of Mrs. Clinton last Saturday. Five or six agents carried it out and provided a summary to him. She was not under oath, but he quickly noted that ‘it’s still a crime to lie to the F.B.I.’ There was no transcript.”

There was no transcript of the Hillary-FBI interview.

There was no recording.

FBI agents merely took notes.

These notes are typically boiled down and summarized later in 302 Forms. Of course, we don’t know what was contained in the notes or the 302s. And we’ll never know, because the FBI will never release them.

FBI Director Comey wasn’t even there during the Hillary interview; he simply read the 302 Forms. Then he made his decision not to recommend prosecution.

It’s impossible that the 302 forms provided Comey with a detailed analysis of all the complex questions and answers required in this investigation.

In other words, the FBI Director, in making his recommendation not to prosecute Hillary, was flying blind. It was his choice—he decided to fly blind. And he decided not to be present at the interview. He wanted to maintain personal distance and deniability.

But it gets worse. In any possible follow-up investigation of this email scandal, Hillary Clinton’s own words, from her interview, will be gone. Gone forever.

Therefore, she would be able to challenge every note taken by every FBI interviewer and every Form 302 by saying, “That was a misinterpretation of what I said.” As we know, the Clintons are experts in wheedling and parsing and evading—otherwise known as lying.

Everything I’ve written so far in this article was well understood by the FBI Director, his investigators, and interviewers—before the interview with Hillary ever took place. None of it was a mystery.

Therefore, there was conscious FBI intent to eradicate/omit the interview. It was no accident, no slip-up.

There was intent to demolish the entire interview by failing to record it or make a stenographic transcript.

That intent to destroy evidence—and then destroying it by omitting it, should be a crime, a felony.

Testifying in front of Congress the day after he recommended no-prosecution, Director Comey was adamant in insisting the FBI investigation was carried out in-house, and there was no collusion with any other person or department outside the Bureau. Even if that’s true, Comey is blowing smoke, because under his supervision, the most crucial moments of the investigation—the Hillary interview—were left to blow away in the wind.

Any lies Hillary told, any obfuscations, any evasions, any refusals to answer—gone forever.

She was the target of the investigation, the suspect. Of all the people FBI agents interviewed, she would be the one whose exact words should be preserved. And they weren’t.

The FBI’s purpose in omitting the whole interview is clear: Hillary Clinton had to escape prosecution. She had to be protected from incriminating herself.

In Comey’s testimony before Congress, he admitted there were at least four lies Hillary told at some point in the investigation. Taken together, as anyone can see, they constitute a prosecutable crime:

* When Hillary said she didn’t use her personal server to send or receive emails marked “classified,” she lied.

* When Hillary said she didn’t send classified material, she lied.

* When Hillary said she used only one device that was connected to her personal server, she lied. She used four.

* When Hillary said she returned all work-related emails from her personal storage to the State Department, she lied. She didn’t return thousands of emails.

In the FBI interview, did Hillary admit to any of these lies?

Did she try to squirm out of them, and in the process obviously reveal her guilt?

Did she bluntly refuse to answer questions about those lies?

Did she bluster and bloviate, in an effort to hide those lies?

Were the FBI interviewers overly polite? Did they grant her absurdly wide latitude and permit her to mouth vague generalities? Did they fail to press her for precise answers? Did they treat her with fawning respect and deference? Did they rig the whole interview to let her off the hook?

We’ll never know—courtesy of the FBI. On purpose.

If Comey had insisted the Hillary interview would be recorded, then, if Hillary had refused to sit down and submit to questioning, Comey could have used the refusal to announce it was a tacit admission of guilt on her part. He could have done what any honest law-enforcement officer would do. But he avoided that whole prospect, and therefore he was actually the person making a tacit admission:

His job was to exonerate Hillary and free her to continue her run for the Presidency.

That’s what he did.


power outside the matrix


It’s worth remembering that Hillary’s husband Bill was impeached, in part, because he lied under oath about an extramarital affair. In that instance, his false statements were on the record.

But not this time. Not with this Clinton.

This time, there was no record, no oath, no independent prosecutor, and the FBI and the Department of Justice were on her side, backing her up.

Hillary hit the sweet spot.

Unabated, her pursuit of her dream job now moves on.

Her dream, the country’s nightmare.

A gift from the FBI.

Silently condoned from above, by the number-one law-enforcement official in the land, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

And from the work-a-day Congress and mainstream reporters, we get nothing. No serious attempt to go after Comey on the failure to make a record of her FBI interview. No attempt to show what that failure really implies.

We only get the silence of the lambs.

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.

3 boggling facts in Hillary email cover-up/Dallas shooting

3 boggling facts in Hillary email cover-up/Dallas shooting

by Jon Rappoport

July 8, 2016

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

—Arch-Globalist Hillary Clinton’s no-prosecution, the recent exit of Britain from the EU which torpedoed the unchecked advance of Globalism, the current Presidential campaign which features a candidate (formerly two candidates) attacking Globalism as no major candidate ever has before—all this suddenly fades from public consciousness in the specter of the Dallas shootings—the racial conflict that has been decades in the making—made in America, by Globalists, for the express purpose of Divide and Conquer—

I know full well how incompetent, stupid, amateurish, and ill-prepared government employees can be. But the dog and pony Hillary show of the last few days is truly staggering.

If the effort was to exonerate Hillary Clinton, it was done so badly the American people are more certain than ever that she is guilty as sin.

Here are the top three actions of the past few days that conspired to free her, while actually revealing how culpable she is, to anyone with a few working brain cells:

One: Just by chance, US Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, the highest law-enforcement official in the land, runs into Bill Clinton at the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. They talk in secret, as the FBI is wrapping up its email-scandal probe and is preparing to present its findings. This Lynch-Clinton meeting assures one and all that the fix is in. “Hillary’s guilty, but we’re going to find her innocent.”

Two: In an unprecedented move, FBI Director Comey holds a global press conference. He runs down a massive list of Hillary’s actions, leaving no doubt she is guilty of gross negligence in her handling of classified materials. But then he does an abrupt turn and recommends no prosecution, because the Bureau found no evidence she intended to do harm.

Comey knows, and ensuing press reports emphasize, that intent is not the legal issue. The Federal Penal Code (Title 18, section 793f) makes that clear. Gross negligence is sufficient for prosecution, conviction, and a sentence of up to ten years in prison.

Furthermore, why is FBI Director making his recommendation in public, before the world? His job is simply to turn over the evidence to his boss, Attorney General Lynch, who will decide whether prosecution is the next step. But since, a day earlier, Lynch inexplicably said she would blindly follow the FBI’s recommendation—thereby abdicating her duty as Attorney General—Comey is suddenly doing her job and occupying her position. He is, for the moment, the US Attorney General.

As any fool can see.

Comey is also an appellate judge, because he is interpreting Title 18 of the Federal Penal Code—and interpreting it falsely.

As any fool can see.

Three: Comey then appears before the Congress for a grilling. Are we to assume he expected to get off easily? Of course not. He knew he would be raked over the coals, and in the process he would reveal more clearly how Hillary had violated the law. Comey would continue to assert there was no need for prosecution, while showing the world that prosecution was exactly the proper path. And that’s what happened, during Comey’s conversation with Rep. Trey Gowdy.

Four main facts emerged out of Comey’s mouth:

* When Hillary said she didn’t use her personal server to send or receive emails marked “classified,” she lied.

* When Hillary said she didn’t send classified material, she lied.

* When Hillary said she used only one device that was connected to her personal server, she lied. She used four.

* When Hillary said she returned all work-related emails from her personal storage to the State Department, she lied. She didn’t return thousands of emails.

Comey admits all this under questioning. He further concedes that lies of this nature would normally be used to mount a prosecution.

Not only that, these lies would be used to form a circumstantial case for intent, the very issue on which Comey found Hillary “innocent.”

Could Comey, Loretta Lynch, and Obama have figured out a worse way to exonerate Hillary? It’s hard to imagine.

More likely, Obama and Lynch decided to put the egg on Comey’s face. He would have to take one for the team.

Comey, in turn, decided that if he was going to be the fall-guy, he would, in the process, lay out the details showing how guilty Hillary was. After all, his own people, his own FBI investigators, had assembled an air-tight case against Hillary. Comey knew they would boil with rage when he exonerated her. So he threw a bone to his team. In effect, he said to them: “I have to recommend no prosecution, but I’ll expose some of what you discovered.”

The question now is, will one or more of Comey’s FBI investigators leak further devastating facts, revealing Hillary’s guilt, to the press?


power outside the matrix


By chance, this whole travesty of justice was suddenly overshadowed by the events in Dallas, where snipers shot 12 police officers and killed five.

Arch-Globalist Hillary Clinton’s no-prosecution, the recent exit of Britain from the EU which torpedoed the unchecked advance of Globalism, the current Presidential campaign which features a candidate (formerly two candidates) attacking Globalism as no major candidate ever has before—all this suddenly fades from public consciousness in the specter of the Dallas shootings—the racial conflict that has been decades in the making—made in America, by Globalists, for the express purpose of Divide and Conquer.

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.