Fluorides, the atomic bomb, and fake news

Fluorides, the atomic bomb, and fake news

Faced with toxic fluorides destroying food crops, animal and human life, and with law suits piling up, atomic scientists decided they could distract the nation by promoting fluorides as a beneficial tooth treatment…

by Jon Rappoport

February 1, 2018

Occasionally, I reprint this article. I wrote it some years ago, during research on toxic chemicals pervading the landscape. I used to send the piece to mainstream reporters, but I eventually gave that up as a bad bet.

They’re dedicated to fake news…and now they’re losing control over public consciousness. Losing badly. Independent media are in the ascendance, and rightly so.

In 1997, Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson, two respected mainstream journalists, peered into an abyss. They found a story about fluorides that was so chilling it had to be told.

The Christian Science Monitor, who had assigned the story, never published it.

Their ensuing article, “Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb,” has been posted on a number of websites.

Author Griffiths told me that researchers who study the effects of fluorides by homing in on communities with fluoridated drinking water, versus communities with unfluoridated water, miss a major point: studying the water is not enough; toxic fluorides are everywhere—they are used throughout the pharmaceutical industry in the manufacture of drugs, and also in many other industries (e.g., aluminum, pesticide).

I want to go over some of the major points of the Griffiths-Bryson article.

Griffiths discovered hundreds of documents from the World War 2 era. These included papers from the Manhattan Project, launched to build the first A-bomb.

Griffiths/Bryson write: “Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production…millions of tons…were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War.”

The documents reveal that fluoride was the most significant health hazard in the US A-bomb program, for workers and for communities around the manufacturing facilities.

Griffiths/Bryson: “Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide ‘evidence useful in litigation’ [against persons who had been poisoned by fluoride and would sue for damages]… The first lawsuits against the US A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the [government] documents show.”

A-bomb scientists were told they had to do studies which would conclude that fluorides were safe.

The most wide-reaching study done was carried out in Newburgh, New York, between 1945 and 1956. This was a secret op called “Program F.” The researchers obtained blood and tissue samples from people who lived in Newburgh, through the good offices of the NY State Health Department.

Griffiths/Bryson found the original and secret version of this study. Comparing it to a different sanitized version, the reporters saw that evidence of adverse effects from fluorides had been suppressed by the US Atomic Energy Commission.

Other studies during the same period were conducted at the University of Rochester. Unwitting hospital patients were given fluorides to test out the results.

Flash forward. Enter Dr. Phyllis Mullenix (see also here), the head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston. In the 1990s, Mullenix did a series of animal studies which showed that, as Griffiths/Bryson write: “…fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin…”

Mullenix applied for further grant monies from the National Institutes of Health. She was turned down. She was also told that fluorides do not have an effect on the CNS.

But Griffiths/Bryson uncovered a 1944 Manhattan Project memo which states: “Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect…it seems most likely that the F [fluoride] component rather than the [uranium] is the causative factor.”

The 1944 memo was sent to the head of the Manhattan Project Medical Section, Colonel Stafford Warren. Warren was asked to give his okay to do animal studies on fluorides’ effects on the CNS. He immediately did give his approval.

But records of the results of this approved project are missing. Most likely classified.

Who was the man who made that 1944 proposal for a rush-program to study the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge, who worked at the Manhattan Project.

Who was brought in to advise Mullenix 50 years later at the Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, as she studied the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge.

Who never told Mullenix of his work on fluoride toxicity for the Manhattan Project? Dr. Harold Hodge.

Was Hodge brought in to look over Mullenix’s shoulder and report on her discoveries? It turns out that Hodge, back in the 1940s, had made suggestions to do effective PR promoting fluoride as a dental treatment. So his presence by Mullenix’s side, all those years later, was quite possibly as an agent assigned to keep track of her efforts.

Getting the idea here? Build an A-bomb. Forget the toxic fluoride consequences. Bury the fluoride studies. Twist the studies.

More on Hodge. In 1944, “a severe pollution incident” occurred in New Jersey, near the Du Pont plant in Deepwater where the company was trying to build the first A-bomb. A fluoride incident. Farmers’ peach and tomato crops were destroyed. Horses and cows became crippled. Some cows had to graze on their bellies. Tomato crops (normally sold to the Campbell Company for soups) were contaminated with fluorides.

The people of the Manhattan Project were terrified of lawsuits and ensuing revelations about the toxic nature of their work. A heads-up memo was written on the subject. Its author? Harold Hodge. Among other issues, he reported on the huge fluoride content in vegetables growing in the polluted area.

Also the high fluoride levels in human blood.

The farmers began to bring lawsuits. Big PR problem.

The lawsuits were settled quietly, for pittances.

Harold Hodge wrote another memo. Get this quote: “Would there be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents [near the A-bomb facility]…through lectures on F [fluoride] toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of F in tooth health?”

Griffiths/Bryson write: “Such lectures were indeed given, not only to New Jersey citizens but to the rest of the nation throughout the Cold War.”

This was a launching pad for fluorides as “successful dental treatments.”

Now you know why promoting toxic fluorides as a dental treatment was so important to government officials.

Footnote: In Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 film, Dr. Strangelove, Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper rails about the destruction fluorides are wreaking on the “pure blood of pure Americans.” Of course, General Ripper is fleshed out as a crazy right-wing fanatic. He’s ready and willing to start a nuclear war. How odd. Apparently unknown to the Strangelove script writers, fluorides were, in fact, very toxic and were an integral part of the program that created atomic bombs in the first place…


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.

Contaminated chemo drugs, the FDA, and chemical warfare against the public

Contaminated chemo drugs, the FDA, and chemical warfare against the public

by Jon Rappoport

December 29, 2017

Chemo drugs are highly poisonous to begin with. But suppose, on top of that, they’re contaminated and tainted?

Welcome to the FDA: the handmaiden to Big Pharma; the promoter of destructive medicines; the opponent of natural health; the agency that should have been disbanded and fumigated decades ago. Corruption Central.

In today’s episode, the Agency has issued a slap on the wrist to Fresenius, a major provider of health care in Europe, with two dozen drug-manufacturing facilities around the world.

Bloomberg reports: “U.S. regulators warned Fresenius SE after the company’s Indian plant that makes cancer-drug ingredients for the U.S. market aborted hundreds of drug-quality tests because they seemed like they were going to fail due to impurities.”

“When workers at the plant found potential tainted products, they halted the tests and said human or machine errors were to blame instead, according to a Food and Drug Administration warning letter dated Dec. 4 that cited 248 aborted checks at the West Bengal facility.”

The FDA’s warning basically instructed Fresenius to do better. Re-examine all their manufacturing and testing practices. Hire an outside consultant.

That’s comforting, isn’t it? With contaminated chemo drugs floating around the world, the FDA says nothing about ferreting out these medicines—and here is the capper from the Bloomberg article:

“The agency also warned that if the company doesn’t correct the issues raised in the letter, FDA workers could refuse products made at the facility admission into the U.S.”

My, my. Fresenius can continue to sell its fraudulently tested, tainted drugs. Not a problem. Business is business. Promise you’ll mend your ways, boys, and stick to your word. Meanwhile, we, at the FDA, will get back to seeing what we can do to limit sales of those REALLY dangerous products called nutritional supplements.

Oh, and by the way, this is not the first warning letter the FDA has issued to Fresenius. As fiercepharma reports: “In a previous warning letter…FDA cited similar…deviations.” And now, the FDA writes to the company, ‘You proposed specific remediation for these deviations in your [previous] response,’ the letter reads. ‘These repeated failures demonstrate that your facility’s oversight and control over the manufacture of drugs is inadequate’.”

But the FDA isn’t stopping Fresenius from exporting its chemo drugs into the US. No one is prosecuting company employees and sending them to prison for fraud and reckless endangerment.

Here are excerpts from my piece about the FDA’s overall mafia operation, to give you the flavor of what goes on at that rogue agency:

In a stunning interview with Truthout’s Martha Rosenberg, former FDA drug reviewer, Ronald Kavanagh, exposes the FDA as a relentless criminal mob protecting its client, Big Pharma, with a host of mob strategies.

Kavanagh: “…widespread racketeering, including witness tampering and witness retaliation.”

“I was threatened with prison.”

“One [FDA] manager threatened my children…I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators.”

Kavanagh reviewed new drug applications made to the FDA by pharmaceutical companies. He was one of the holdouts at the Agency who insisted that the drugs had to be safe and effective before being released to the public.

But honest appraisal wasn’t part of the FDA culture, and Kavanagh swam against the tide, until he realized his life and the life of his children was on the line.

What was his secret task at the FDA? “Drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs.” In other words, rubber stamp them. Say the drugs were safe and effective when they were not.

Kavanagh’s revelations are astonishing. He recalls a meeting where a drug-company representative flat-out stated that his company had paid the FDA for a new-drug approval. Paid for it. As in bribe.

He remarks that the drug pyridostigmine, given to US troops to prevent the later effects of nerve gas, “actually increased the lethality” of certain nerve agents.

Kavanagh recalls being given records of safety data on a drug—and then his bosses told him which sections not to read. Obviously, they knew the drug was dangerous and they knew exactly where, in the reports, that fact would be revealed.

The situation at the FDA isn’t correctable with a few firings. This is an ongoing criminal enterprise, and any government official, serving in any capacity, who has become aware of it and has not taken action, is an accessory to mass poisoning of the population.

Seventeen years ago, the cat was let out of the bag. Dr. Barbara Starfield, writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, on July 26, 2000, in a review titled, “Is US health really the best in the world,” exposed the fact that FDA-approved medical drugs kill 106,000 Americans per year. That’s a MILLION deaths per decade.

Dr. Starfield was a revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. In interviewing her, I discovered she had never been approached by the FDA or any federal agency to help remedy this tragedy. Nor had the federal government taken any steps on its own to stop the dying.

The government has still done nothing.


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.

Are FBI “patriots” getting ready to expose the corrupt Mueller probe?

Are FBI “patriots” getting ready to expose the corrupt Mueller probe?

by Jon Rappoport

December 25, 2017

There are two parts to this article. Part one was written before the recent wave of Mueller-FBI demotion, retirement, and reassignment among key personnel. Part one is a kind of roadmap for whistleblower groups. A way to succeed.

Part two comments on the extraordinary “downsizing” of Mueller-FBI personnel, and its possible connection to FBI whistleblowers within the Bureau.

To paraphrase the Ben Bradlee character in the film, All the President’s Men, nothing much is riding on the Mueller investigation, except the presidency; the role of the mainstream press in politicizing and editorializing its coverage of the White House; the immediate future of US-Russia relations; the future of the Clintons in politics; and the intervention of the Surveillance State in the day-to-day activities of a president and his team.

PART ONE

Did the gunslinger Trump collude with Putin in a secret underground cave, thus placing Hillary on a cross of pain? Did the Clinton Foundation make slimy palm-greasing deals all over the world with high-level crooks and launder their money? Will the knight-puppet Robert Mueller uncover any part of the truth? Will His Excellency, Jeff Sessions, stir from his self-induced narcosis, look around, and find out what’s going on?

—We’ve heard a certain tune before: Honorable government employees will soon expose the crimes of such-and-so, they’ll present the evidence and testimony, and they’ll bring down the house on the heads of corrupt agencies. And then…it doesn’t happen.

At infowars, Paul Watson reports on what former FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom has told Fox Business: “…patriots within the FBI are about to go public with huge new revelations that could sink the credibility of the ‘Russian collusion’ investigation.”

Against these patriots, “Kallstrom said that a ‘5th estate’ [within the FBI] has been working to sabotage President Trump, led by ‘a bunch of sycophants in the FBI’ who are guilty of ‘obstruction of justice’.”

“He [Kallstrom] added that the goal from the outset was to ‘destroy the presidency of the United States,’ a claim backed up by the revelation that top anti-Trump FBI agents had settled on an ‘insurance policy,’ namely the ‘Russian collusion’ investigation, to topple Trump if he defeated Hillary.”

“The former assistant director [Kallstrom] then dropped a bombshell, suggesting that insiders within the FBI are about to go public with new revelations about Mueller and Comey.”

“’I think recent events, that I’m aware of, are going to improve that, because there’s going to be something actually something that’s going to happen in my view,’ he said.”

“’I think there’s a lot of patriots [within the FBI] that have just had it up to here, with what’s going on. And they’re to step forward and tell people what the shenanigans have been, how they shut down the Clinton Foundation investigation, how other things, you know, were done that are so anti what the FBI and United States is all about,’ Kallstrom added.”

If Kallstrom is correct in his prediction, and this isn’t just another dud, certain tactics will need to be deployed. Because there is no guarantee that major news media will cover the revelations of “disgruntled FBI agents.” In fact, major media will do everything possible to ignore, downplay, and discredit these whistleblowers.

One: The FBI whistleblowers will need to produce documents wherever possible. Memos, emails, reports, recordings.

Two: The FBI whistleblowers will need to step out into the light and reveal themselves. They will need to do this as a group.

Three: They will need to do as many press interviews as possible, and also hold their own press conferences.

Four: In all these actions, their personal security and protection will have to be very capable.

Five: They must make reference to specifics, revealing FBI actions to: 1) squash investigations into the Clintons, and 2) promote a fake hypothesis that Trump and the Russians colluded to steal the election of 2016.

Six: Generalities won’t do. They can be shot down in minute as “unfounded opinions.”

Seven: The whistleblowers must compose and build their case in honest and compelling fashion.

Eight: They must be relentless. Despite hostile criticisms and other efforts to silence them, they must persist and weather the storms. They must create enough pressure to force a breakthrough—meaning the mainstream press can no longer resist covering their revelations.

Nine: Once they go public, they must acquire support from as many members of Congress as possible.

Ten: I re-emphasize security and protection. The whistleblowers must assume they are under surveillance—with all that implies.

Eleven: They must assume their own backgrounds and personal and professional histories will come under extreme scrutiny—and lead to accusations and defamation—including fake stories.

Twelve: They should obtain the service of an excellent whistleblower attorney, who will file a lawsuit against the FBI on their behalf—even if the suit never gets off the ground.

Thirteen: By the sheer number of their press interviews (with all levels of media), they need to garner as much support as possible from the American people. This is crucial.

Fourteen: They must be able to refer the American people to the specific crimes created by this “fifth column of traitors” inside the FBI, in order to reject the notion that mere “mistakes were made,” or there were simple “errors of judgment,” or different agents “have honest differences of opinion.”

Fifteen: The one or two busiest spokespeople from the whistleblower group must be able to connect with the public. They can’t be cold fish and they can’t be blowhards slinging charges like hash in a diner.

Sixteen: The whistleblowers must insist on testifying before Congress under oath—whether or not this comes to pass. On the other hand, they can’t put all their eggs in that basket. Relying on Congress would be a huge miscalculation.

Seventeen: The whistleblowers must, wherever possible, present evidence that—in addition to squashing investigations into Clinton crimes—the specifics of these crimes were known to the FBI. And “here those specifics are.”

Eighteen: Do whatever is possible to ensure the whistleblower group isn’t infiltrated by an agent(s) from “the other side.”

As you can see, these points are applicable to many situations, where whistleblowers would step out of the shadows and level charges against their employers and colleagues.

Many of the points loosely fall under the heading of “public relations”—in the authentic, not the fake meaning of that term.

Some whistleblowers unfortunately assume that, because “they have the goods,” the truth will carry the day. This is a serious misreading of the way things work.

In a different arena—attempts to pass state measures mandating the labeling of GMO food—I wrote articles criticizing the “label-it” leaders. They were, in a general sense, “whistleblowers,” who were exposing Monsanto and other biotech firms. But their pro-labeling public relations campaigns were poorly executed, and as it turned out, they had been infiltrated at the highest levels. The truth about GMOs was never communicated with any power. The label-it forces had the goods; they just didn’t know how to use them.

You can be an expert at putting the truth together, but if you’re an amateur at putting it across to the public, things fall apart in the blink of an eye.

FBI “patriots” should take a page from the playbook of the reluctant CDC whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, who, in 2014, stated that he and his research colleagues falsified a key study on the effects of the MMR vaccine, thus hiding its connection to autism. Thompson acquired legal representation from a whistleblower attorney, Rick Morgan, and posted his confession on Morgan’s web page. That was step one. It gave Thompson a certain level of protection.

These FBI agents, by positioning themselves as whistleblowers, with an aggressive attorney (better yet, a large team of attorneys), can create the best possible situation for themselves.

—Press conference, a lawyer steps to the podium: “Today, our firm, representing the men and women behind me, all agents of the FBI, are filing several whistleblower suits against the FBI, the Justice Department, and members of the Mueller special probe…these honorable and courageous agents are putting their careers and their lives on the line to serve their country, as their oath demands. The American people must know what is being done in their name, what crimes have been committed against their interests…we call on the people to rally with us as we seek justice…we also call on the Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Sessions, to support us and protect these lawsuits as they move forward…”

There is a 1960s technical term for this strategy: Heavy Shit.

You might wonder whether the FBI and various players at the Justice Department would let things get to this point. We could make all sorts of guesses and predictions.

Regardless, when whistleblowers exist, if they have vital information, they plan how to go public. If the former Assistant Director of the FBI, Mr. Kallstrom, was doing more than blowing smoke the other day when he spoke with FOX, such whistleblowers exist now inside the FBI. Whatever truth they have, they are thinking about how to proceed.

Truth, Justice, and the American Way, right?

Wherever it leads.

“Sir, what do you know and when did you first know it?”

“In my case, it was when we, at the Bureau, were looking into the Clinton Foundation and when the initial charge was made that the Russians were trying to get Mr. Trump elected. Would you like me to tell the whole story and present my documents?”

“Yes, I would.”

“All right, here we go. Get ready for a few surprises.”

Sheer fantasy? It’s always fantasy until individuals turn it into reality.

We’ve heard stories before about brave patriots working within major institutions of government—groups of patriots, not lone individuals—who are fed up with corruption and lies and cover-ups—who have proof of major crimes, and who are ready to step forward.

Is this FBI scenario just another story, a wishful hope?

Or is it something more?

Working as a reporter for the past 35 years, I’ve had occasional contact with whistleblowers—individuals and groups. The lone individuals tend to be smarter. The groups often come up with a strategy that is unworkable and foolish. That’s the liability of having a group. People lend to sink to the lowest common denominator. What they manage to agree on is a function of “what they believe they’re supposed to do”—a template snatched from various fantasies which will have very little PENETRATING AND LASTING IMPACT.

PART TWO

Among the Mueller-FBI personnel, a rather remarkable downsizing is occurring.

Peter Strzok: This FBI agent was a key figure in investigations of the Hillary Clinton email server, and the purported Russian influence in the 2016 US presidential election. Strzok was the lead FBI agent on Muller’s team probing the Russian-influence theory. Muller fired Strzok from his team, when Strzok’s anti-Trump text messages surfaced.

Andrew McCabe: The deputy director of the FBI has just announced he will retire. He has been under fire, amid charges he was biased in favor of Hillary Clinton during the FBI investigation of her private email server. McCabe’s wife, in her run for a seat in the Virginia State Senate, received a donation of $675,000 from “the Virginia Democratic Party and Common Good VA, the political action committee of [Terry] McAuliffe, a longtime friend and supporter of both Hillary and Bill Clinton who is now the outgoing governor of Virginia,” the Washington Examiner reported.

Jim Baker: He has been “reassigned.” The Examiner: “Baker, who became general [FBI] counsel under [FBI Director James] Comey, has come under scrutiny by congressional Republicans investigating whether he leaked information [to the media] from the infamous Trump dossier, which contains unverified claims about Trump’s deep ties to Russia.”

Bruce Ohr: FOX: “A senior Justice Department official was demoted…amid an ongoing investigation into his contacts with the opposition research firm responsible for the anti-Trump ‘dossier,’ the department confirmed to Fox News.”

There is increasing pressure on other FBI-DOJ-Mueller officials—including Mueller himself—because of conflicts of interest and/or concealment of the roles they’ve played in the Clinton email and Trump-Russia investigations, as well as the Uranium One deal.

It is possible that FBI insiders/agents, who are fed up with political bias inside the FBI-DOJ-Mueller nexus, have assisted in the effort to downsize the Mueller forces.

If so, this would be another whistleblower strategy, a covert one. Instead of stepping out of the shadows as a group, these agents would leak information to loyal Trump appointees, who in turn would take action.

An internal struggle is taking place.

However, covert insider actions, such as these, are only valuable in the short run. If the corruption within the FBI and the DOJ are going to be exposed at a deeper level (and there may be no bottom, when all cards are laid on the table), whistleblowers will have to come out into the open, with a large and coherent case.

The Trump, anti-Trump situation is but the latest in a long line of clues about federal law-enforcement bias. For example, here is one thread among many:

In 2014-15, stories appeared in the press about the phenomenal corruption of the FBI evidence lab. But since then, there has been very little follow-up. I find no compelling evidence that the federal government has fixed the problem.

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’.”

August 12, 2014, New Scientist: “…the initial results were released of an ongoing review of thousands of criminal cases in which FBI scientists’ testimony may have led to wrongful convictions – including for some people now on death row…[an FBI source states] ’we teach these people [lab techs in training] for two weeks, and they would go back to their laboratories with a certificate of completion and be told: Great you’re qualified to do this [analysis of evidence] – here’s your caseload.’”

Two years after the Oklahoma City Bombing bombing, on March 22, 1997, we had this from CNN: “The Justice Department inspector general’s office has determined that the FBI crime laboratory working on the Oklahoma City bombing case made ‘scientifically unsound’ conclusions that were ‘biased in favor of the prosecution,’ The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.”

“…[FBI] supervisors approved lab reports that they ‘cannot support’ and…FBI lab officials may have erred about the size of the blast, the amount of explosives involved and the type of explosives used in the bombing[!].”

“…harshest criticism was of David Williams, a supervisory agent in the [FBI] explosives unit, the paper [LA Times] said. Those flaws reportedly include the basis of his determination that the main charge of the explosion was ammonium nitrate. The inspector general called such a determination ‘inappropriate,’ the Times said.”

“…FBI officials found a receipt for ammonium nitrate at defendant [Terry] Nichols’ home and, because of that discovery, Williams slanted his conclusion to match the evidence.”

Let that one sink in.

The deeper you go, the more crimes you find.


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.

New gift-wrapped UFO revelations from the Pentagon: what’s going on?

New gift-wrapped UFO revelations from the Pentagon: what’s going on?

by Jon Rappoport

December 22, 2017

(UFO archive, here)

You’re walking through a sea of misinformation, disinformation, lies, speculation, goofball theories—and suddenly, the wise men behind the curtain decide to reach out and hand you unvarnished facts that blow your mind. What’s going on?

We have an entirely new gambit in the UFO disclosure game.

From loudwire.com (Dec.21): “[Musician Tom] DeLonge is currently working with former Pentagon official Luis Elizondo at To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science, which was founded by the ex-Blink guitarist.” This is a new UFO research and merchandising outfit.

DeLonge has taken it upon himself to expose the truth about UFOs. His new partner, Luis Elizondo, used to work for the Pentagon—and, boom, the mainstream press is suddenly telling us that Elizondo headed up a super-secret, $22 million a year Dept. of Defense UFO research group, from 2007 to 2012, the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program (AATIP).

According to the NY Times and The Independent, the program had, and still has, metal pieces from a UFO(s), has been studying the pieces, and doesn’t knew what they’re made of.

The press has also just released a 2004 Dept. of Defense jackpot video purporting to show a US fighter jet off the coast of San Diego encountering a UFO, which hovers in place, wiggles, dances around, and suddenly zooms away at a shocking velocity.

The Independent: “Commander David Fravor and Lieutenant Commander Jim Slaight were on a routine training mission 100 miles out into the Pacific when they were asked to investigate the object.”

“Commander Fravor told The New York Times the object was about 40ft long, had no plumes, wings or rotors, and outpaced their F-18s. It was big enough to churn the sea 50ft below it, he said.”

My, my. All these revelations, all of a sudden. Bingo, bango, bongo.

Years of, “We don’t have any information, we don’t have any comment on the subject,” and then, out of the blue, “Yes we do and here it is.”

Let all the WHY NOW? speculations begin.

I would point out that, if this is a test to gauge public reaction to: THERE IS LIFE ELSEWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE AND A FEW OF THEM SHOWED UP HERE—the result of the test appears to be, so far: “Are we having the beef stew again tonight?”

This is interesting. People aren’t crowding into the streets and going wild. There are no parades. Presidents of countries aren’t holding major press conferences. I did read a piece about Trump drinking water again and possibly having trouble sipping it.

HELLO? WE AREN’T ALONE IN THE COSMOS.

“That’s nice. Is this Blue Bloods a repeat? I think I saw it a few months ago.”

Another tidbit on the secret Pentagon program: it was brought into being by Nevada Senator Harry Reid. He and a couple of his senate pals managed to divert a little chunk of black budget Pentagon money to set it up. (More yawns from the public.)

Understand: In the press stories of the past few days, there are no leaks. The Pentagon is the source. They’re admitting it. They’re pushing the story. They’re permitting a pilot, who no doubt has been bound by non-disclosure agreements, to go public and talk to mainstream media.

As with all planned releases of this magnitude, there are always “after-analyses.” It’s standard. How did the public respond? What % of the press and the public appear to have bought the story? Are there serious doubters? Who are they? What are they saying?

In this case, the report might read: “Very few people seem to care.”

This in itself is informative. People are on overload. They’re in a trance state below the level where a claimed revelation about Life in the Universe stirs them from their basic hypnotic state. Also, alternatively, many people are so cynical they don’t believe what the government is telling them.

Now, if Robert Mueller can connect a UFO to the Russians, and then to Trump, and the election, more people might respond.

The Pentagon claims it shut down the UFO research program in 2012, because other priorities were more important. Really? They captured a UFO on film doing things in space no craft on Earth can do, and they have pieces of metal from a UFO (how did they acquire them?) which they can’t analyze and are most likely not from this Earth—and yet they shut down the program because it was inconsequential? Nonsense.

One of the point men for spreading the current UFO stories is Ralph Blumenthal of the NY Times.

The Independent: “’They [the Pentagon] have some material from these [UFO] objects that is being studied, so that scientists can try to figure out what accounts for their amazing properties,’ Ralph Blumenthal, one of the authors of the New York Times report, told MSNBC. Mr. Blumenthal said the DoD ‘do not know’ what the materials are made of. It’s some sort of compound they do not recognise,’ he added.”

I have a bit of personal experience with Mr. Blumenthal. In 1993, he wrote a shocking story for the Times about the first bombing attack on the Twin Towers in New York. It focused on an FBI asset and informant, Emad Salem, who asserted that he had been instrumental in putting together the bombing plot. His handlers at the FBI were supposed to supply him with fake bombing materials, so there would be no explosion—however, at the last moment, they gave him actual live material. At the subsequent trial of the defendants, Salem was absent. He didn’t testify.

I got in touch with reporter Blumenthal some years later and asked him what happened to Salem and why he wasn’t allow to tell his story in the courtroom. Blumenthal got angry with me. He told me I didn’t understand his article. And that was that. In my opinion, he was backing away from his own reporting.

So now, with his UFO revelations, I have a few doubts.

It’s likely that, as Tom DeLonge and his Pentagon partner, Luis Elizondo, move forward, promoting their To the Stars Academy (whatever that turns out to be—a movie production company, a school, a store for UFO merchandise), they will be releasing new info on the US government UFO discoveries. So far, no one at the Pentagon is explaining why they’ve decided to make their revelations public now.

The military is not in the habit of doing the public great favors that involve secret programs.

If what the Pentagon is handing over to the mainstream press is legitimate and true Disclosure, it is most certainly a limited hangout on what they really know. And they will to continue to release more info, to see how the public responds, at every step.

But they will also seek to own the story and shape it any way they want to. Through their media fronts, they’ll sculpt the conclusions that “should be made.”

For example, suppose they go as far as this: 50 years ago, they found an alien body at a UFO crash site in the desert. Here are photos. The anatomy of the corpse is definitely not human. Since then, no other alien bodies have been seen, located, or discovered.

True? False? Who would know? Because they are the source of the story. Which is the way they want it to be.

If someone wants us to look at the truth, they disclose all the data and they open up all the files, and they allow us to see the material evidence up close and personal, so independent analyses can be performed. What are the odds that this will happen? When has this ever happened?

If anything, positioning themselves as the central source of the UFO story pushes citizen research into the background. Which is never a good thing.

I fully understand there will be many explanations, offered by many people, about why the Pentagon is releasing this information now. Here is one possibility: the secret program was really a tiny research effort; the Dept. of Defense has actually spent extraordinary amounts of money in this effort, over a long period of time—some of it from the trillions of dollars in the budget “they can’t account for.” Thus, they admit to a $22 million program, as a limited hangout.

Again, THEY WANT TO OWN THE UFO STORY. Going directly to mainstream news with it, where naïve reporters and reporters who are their assets will cover it exactly as the Pentagon intends—this is a major part of what is going on.

The psyop aspect of the Pentagon revelations is all about testing and gauging public response. Imagine that the Dept. of Defense eventually states they did find an alien body decades ago—and then the majority reaction is: “That’s fantastic. Did you see my car keys? I can’t find them.”

Not only would that inform psyop professionals about the UFO reaction, it would also let them know their decades of work, on many fronts, aimed at deadening, overloading, distracting, and shortening public awareness has been an overall success.

The most astounding information barely causes a ripple.

“This is wonderful. In many cases, we don’t have to figure out whether the public believes or doesn’t believe what we tell them. They’re in a state of mind that is ‘lower than belief.’ The majority can’t form beliefs or non-beliefs. They’re firmly embedded in a passive, repetitive, Pavlovian zone…”

In this regard, I refer you to my years of research on the effects of medical drugs, and for starters, my September 13 article, “How many drug prescriptions do doctors write per year?”:

Medical News Today reports that, in 2011, there was a modest uptick in the number of prescriptions written in the US.

The increase brought the total to: 4.02 billion.

Yes, in 2011, doctors wrote 4.02 billion prescriptions for drugs in America.

The Medical News Today article concluded, “…the industry should be heartened by the growth of the number of prescriptions and spending.” Yes, I’m sure the drug industry is popping champagne corks.

We’re talking about prescriptions here. We’re not talking about the number of pills Americans took. We’re also not counting over-the-counter drugs or vaccine shots.

A population drugged to the gills is passive…


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 search for pure ideals in politics

The search for pure ideals in politics

by Jon Rappoport

December 18, 2017

Al Gore was pure. George W Bush was a monster. John Kerry was pure. Bush was still a monster. John McCain and Mitt Romney were monsters. Barack Obama was pure. Trump is pure. Hillary is a monster. Round and round it goes.

Reverse the labels, turn them upside down, inside out, and you arrive at the same dead-end alley at midnight: none of the big-time pols are pure. Far from it.

Yesterday I posted my article on some of the upsides and downsides of Trump. Today, let’s take just a brief small peek at Obama.

Obama was close to purity, “though some of his policies may have been wrong headed.” Really?

The leftist Guardian (1/9/17): “In 2016, US special [military] operators could be found in 70% of the world’s nations, 138 countries – a staggering jump of 130% since the days of the Bush administration.”

“…in 2016 alone, the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day.”

“As drone-warrior-in-chief, he [Obama] spread the use of drones outside the declared battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, mainly to Pakistan and Yemen. Obama authorized over 10 times more drone strikes than George W Bush, and automatically painted all males of military age in these regions as combatants, making them fair game for remote controlled killing.”

The champ of bombing. But “pure.”

In 1994, I ran for a seat in the US House of Representatives. Halfway through my campaign, I woke up one day and said, “What the hell am I doing?” I saw one possibility, in case I won. My team and I would go to Washington, rent large trucks, and slap very large posters on them, titled: CORRUPT CONGRESSMAN OF THE WEEK. We would show a photo of the target legislator, and list, in one column, his voting record, and in another column, the money he’d taken to cast those votes. Every week, we’d do that. We’d drive those big trucks around Washington streets, slowly, and in the heaviest traffic. And that’s pretty much all we would do during my term in office. Of course, I would get censured by the House in my first week, and probably booted out of that august body. But it would be fun. And the publicity could highlight the issue of non-purity.

I lost the primary election to a 20-year incumbent, Henry Waxman. So that was that.

The pressures and forces acting on a politician in Washington are numerous. His own Party leaders are telling him how to vote on bills. Lobbyists too numerous to mention are leaning on him for help. (For example, the mighty AIPAC, which is always on the alert re the interests of the state of Israel.) Businessmen from a Congressman’s home district want pork; federal funds for projects. Then there are murky and clandestine influences that come through cutouts for intelligence agencies and the military. The Congressman is spied on by the NSA and other such outfits. His own staff may contain watchdogs, who are secretly reporting his words, attitudes, and actions to these agencies. Outright bribes and offers of future employment in the private sector are quietly placed on the table. The social scene in Washington is seeded with denizens who have agendas and want to be “friends.” It never ends. Every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Mary knows that Washington is where the big money and status live. They come there to Get Some, if they can. Pure ideals? Never heard of them.

On top of all this, you have compromise. “Sir, you’ll never get this bill passed with the current wording. You’ll have to make significant changes. Ask yourself whether you want nothing or a piece of something. Because that’s the situation. And if you do compromise, you’ll be expected to support other people’s bills in the future, bills you won’t like…”

Washington is a giant barn that smells so bad no one in his right mind would want to put a foot in it.

“Giant” is a key word. The severely limited central government spelled out in the Constitution is but a faint memory of a “simpler time.”

The sheer number of crimes taking place in the barn are far too numerous to prosecute, even if the will were there to do it.

If you look up the hill from the barn, you’ll see the mansion where the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission, the inner core of the Council on Foreign Relations, a few Bilderberg agents, Rothschild men, Vatican reps, Chinese and Russian “observers,” EU Globalists, military industrial neocons, and assorted other power players arrive and depart. They monitor the activities in the barn and make sure the general tenor of decisions nudges America deeper into an interdependent web of “the new international order.”

There are several wild cards.

First, for better or worse, “the people.” The population of the nation. They aren’t all asleep. Many are waking up.

Second, independent media, which are exposing corruption and crimes at high levels.

Third, citizens who do have ideals that mirror the faded document called the Constitution, and are motivated to run for public office—who refuse to compromise, who are willing to flame out in Washington, while standing for what they believe in. If they are elected in the first place. A few hundred of these relentless individuals could have a dramatic effect.

The men in the mansion on the summit of the hill are relying on cynicism to carry the day. That’s what they want. They love cynics. And cynics love to say there are no answers and all is lost. That’s how cynics get their juice. They celebrate all political failures, which confirm their world view.

And this is where we come to the inner psychology of the individual. If cynicism reigns, a day of reckoning is on the way. For a while, rejoicing over doom is fashionable and exciting. But then the picnic turns sour. It rains, the food is spoiled, the earth is muddy, the landscape is gray and unforgiving. What then?

Finding lost ideals and charting a new course. Refusing to surrender. Accessing the North Star of imagination, which never dies—and from which limitless energy and unpredictable solutions flow.

THIS inner psychology is outside The System. Utilizing it allows you to re-enter the world with new ideas and answers of your own. Your own.

Newsflash: The game is afoot. It is never over.

As in: never…


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.

Does the push for mass vaccination point toward a staged bioterror event?

Does the push for mass vaccination point toward a staged bioterror event?

by Jon Rappoport

December 4, 2017

We’ve seen the signs. I’ve been highlighting them. The infamous childhood mandatory vaccination law in California. Other states that are considering similar bills. The lunatic push in Australia to outlaw medical exemptions from vaccination. The all-out campaign in the press, in various countries, to stigmatize people who defect from official “truth” about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

On a larger stage, over the past 20 years, we’ve seen the promotion of fake “pandemics” demanding universal vaccination to ward off “millions of deaths”: SARS, West Nile, Swine Flu, smallpox, etc. All duds.

Now we have the boggling case of the University of Massachusetts, where two supposed instances of meningitis have triggered an immediate campaign (video 1, video 2) to vaccinate all 20,000 students against meningococcal B meningitis.

It’s clear that the logistics of carrying out such an extensive program have been in place for some time. The University just needed an occasion for a test launch of the system. Now they have it.

Yet USA Today reports: “Sarah Van Orman, a physician and executive director of University Health Services at UW-Madison, said… the new [meningitis] B vaccine… may not be as effective as the routinely given vaccine against the four other major bacteria strains.”

“In a study of 499 Princeton University students who received the new B vaccine during an outbreak there, up to a third did not show a good immune response eight weeks after the second dose, Van Orman said.”

“Some research suggests the vaccine also may provide immunity only for six to 12 months, she said.”

But it’s full steam ahead for the U of Massachusetts. Other colleges have long been making preparations. For example, the University of Rochester, according to its Newscenter (September 19, 2014): “On Thursday, Oct. 30, University Health Service (UHS) staff will attempt to vaccinate 5,000 students, faculty and staff against this year’s flu virus [in one day]. The effort will doubly serve as a test of emergency preparedness to practice delivering mass quantities of vaccine or drug in response to an urgent public health concern. The effort is being coordinated by UHS, RC/MERT (University of Rochester River Campus Medical Emergency Response Team), University Environmental Health & Safety and the Monroe County Office of Emergency Preparedness…’We will have to give about 600 vaccinations an hour to meet our goal,’ said Ralph Manchester, MD, vice provost and UHS director.”

Understand: this was a test of a system, an emergency system. That was the primary goal of the operation.

Piece by piece, in the US—and undoubtedly in other countries—the groundwork is being laid for huge networks that can, at a moment’s notice, go live and mass-vaccinate extraordinary numbers of people.

And they would do exactly that—upon the announcement of a “new deadly pandemic that threatens the population.”

How would the “pandemic” occur—or rather, how could it be staged?

Obviously, the vaccine itself could be a carrier, since all sorts of new toxins could be covertly inserted, in addition to the more familiar toxic substances already present in vaccines.

But beyond that?

Here is backgrounder I wrote on the subject: How to Stage a Bioterror Event:

The germ is the cover story for chemical destruction.

In general, the primary fact is: no matter what kind of germ you’re talking about or where it came from, releasing it intentionally does not guarantee predictable results. Far from it.

For instance, people whose immune systems are at different levels of strength are going to react differently.

The perpetrators may find that far less than 1% of people exposed get sick.

Therefore: use a chemical and claim it is a germ.

In other words, there is no germ attack. It’s called a germ attack, but that’s a lie. The perps bring in researchers to the affected area, who go on to claim they have isolated a germ that is the cause of death and illness. It’s a sham. What really happened was the spread of a toxic chemical that can’t be detected, unless you’re looking for it.

The chemical has severe, deadly, and predictable effects for a week or two. Then it disperses and loses potency and the “epidemic” is done.

In some town, a fairly isolated community, the word goes out that people are suddenly falling ill and dying. The CDC and the Army are called in to cordon off the area and quarantine all citizens. A peremptory announcement is made, early on, that this is a biowar attack.

Major media are allowed outside the periphery. Network news anchors set up on-location and do their wall to wall broadcasts “from the scene.”

The entire nation, the entire world is riveted on the event, 24/7.

People inside the cordon fall ill and die. Reports emerge from the town:

The networks state that “heroic doctors are taking samples of blood and the blood is being analyzed to find the germ that is causing the epidemic.” The DoD confirms over and over that this is, indeed, a biowar attack.

Human interest stories pile up. This family lost three members, that family lost everybody. Tragedy, horror, and the desired empathic response from “the world community.”

It’s a soap opera, except real people are dying.

The medical cartel promotes fear of the germ.

All controlling entities get to obtain their piece of the terrorist pie.

Finally, the doctors announce they have isolated the germ causing death, and researchers are rushing to develop a vaccine (which they produce in record time).

Everyone everywhere must be vaccinated, now. No choice. Do it or be quarantined or jailed.

—Mass vaccination clinics emerge from the shadows, all over the nation. They are ready to go. The system is in place. Everyone must get the vaccine now.

In this declared martial law situation, the doctors are the heroes. The doctors and the Army. And the government, and even the media.

Then, after a few weeks, when the potency of the secret chemical has dispersed, it’s over.

When you think about it, this scenario is a rough approximation of what happens every day, all over the world, in doctors’ offices. The doctors are prescribing chemicals (drugs) whose effects are far more dangerous than germs that may (or may not) be causing patients to be ill.

In other words, a chem-war attack is being leveled at people all over the world all the time.

See Dr. Barbara Starfield (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health), July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association, “Is US health really the best in the world.” 106,000 people in America are killed every year by FDA-approved medical drugs. That’s a million people per decade.

In the wake of a staged “biowar” terror attack, new laws are enacted. The State clamps down harder on basic freedoms. The right to travel is curtailed. Criticizing the authorities is viewed as highly illegal. Freedom of assembly is limited.

“Citizens must cooperate. We’re all in this together.”

A new federal law mandating the CDC schedule of vaccines for every child and adult—no exceptions permitted—is rushed through the Congress and signed by the President.

It’s all based on a lie…in the same way that the disease theory of the medical cartel is based on a lie: the strength of an individual’s immune system is the basic determinant of health or illness, not germs considered in a vacuum.

There are people who are determined to inflate the dangers of germs. They trumpet every “new” germ as the end of humankind on the planet. They especially sound the alarm when researchers claim a germ may have mutated or jumped from animals to humans.

“This is it! We’re done for!”

However, if you check into actual confirmed cases of death from recent so-called epidemics, such as West Nile, SARS, bird flu (H5N1), Swine Flu (H1N1), and MERS, the numbers of deaths are incredibly low.

If political criminals, behind the scenes, wanted to stage a confined “biowar” event, they would choose a chemical, not a germ, and they would leverage such an event to curtail freedom.

Understand: researchers behind sealed doors in labs can claim, with unassailable ease, that they’ve found a germ that causes an outbreak. Almost no one challenges such an assertion.

This was the case, for example, with the vaunted SARS epidemic (a dud), in 2003, when 10 World Health Organization (WHO) labs, walled off from view, in communication with each other via closed circuit, announced they’d isolated a coronavirus as the culprit.

Later, in Canada, a WHO microbiologist, Frank Plummer, wandered off the reservation and told reporters he was puzzled by the fact that fewer and fewer SARS patients “had the coronavirus.” This was tantamount to confessing that the whole research effort had been a failure and a sham—but after a day or so of coverage, the press fell silent.

SARS was a nonsensical farce. Diagnosed patients had ordinary seasonal flu or a collection of familiar symptoms that could result from many different causes.

But the propaganda effort was a stunning success. Populations were frightened. The need for vaccines, in the public mind, was exacerbated.

Exacerbated; and prepared, for the “next one.”

…Until eventually—a chemical attack would be called a germ attack.

A staged reality.


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.

Boom: Michael Flynn pleads guilty

Boom: Michael Flynn pleads guilty to lying to the FBI; but an Obama aide went to Russia and huddled with Russian officials BEFORE Obama was even elected

by Jon Rappoport

December 3, 2017

Michael Flynn has pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversation with the Russian Ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak.

The conversation occurred AFTER Trump won the 2016 election and before he was inaugurated. The conversation involved US sanctions against Russia and a UN resolution concerning Israel.

Why did Flynn lie? There was nothing wrong with him speaking to the Ambassador during the presidential transition phase. Claims that he was undermining Obama’s policy toward Russia are nonsense. It’s common practice for an incoming president’s staff to speak with foreign officials, in order to set up future goals and policies.

The prosecution against Flynn is of the so-called “process” variety.

That means, in this case, he lied to federal officials about a matter that was itself inconsequential.

It’s probable the FBI was holding other charges over Flynn’s head—relating to his private-sector work on behalf of the Turkish government. A deal was struck: the FBI would forget all about that, if Flynn pled guilty to lying about his conversation with the Russian ambassador, and if he cooperated by rolling over on other members of the Trump team.

Michael Flynn is now (ridiculously) seen as having interfered with President Obama’s policy toward Russia during Obama’s last days in the White House, in 2016.

But what about CANDIDATE Obama interfering in President Bush’s policy toward Russia in the fall of 2008, BEFORE the election?

Geohistory.today has an article, dated October 27, 2008, a few days before Obama won the presidential election for the first time, titled, “US Elections Come to Moscow,” by Anna Wiesfieler:

“Last week [before the 2008 presidential election] saw the release of Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope, in Russian translation to Russian markets. One of his foreign policy advisors, Mike McFaul, also made a trip to Moscow to meet with various Russian officials and interest groups, speaking off the record and answering questions.”

“McFaul addressed how US relations with Ukraine and Georgia might affect US-Russia relations in the future [!]. Speaking at the Peking Hotel in Moscow at an event organized by Democrats Abroad Russia for Americans living in Russia, McFaul established that this is potentially a major campaign issue for Senator Obama. There are a large number of swing voters (several million) whose heritage comes from Eastern Europe or the Caucasus region. For these voters, US-Russia relations and relations with states in those regions has become a vital issue that could potentially swing votes to one candidate or the other.”

“The day before, at the Carnegie Endowment Center in Moscow, McFaul also fielded questions ranging from explanations of the primary and general election process to the August crisis in Georgia and Russia’s concerns about Ukraine and Georgia receiving NATO membership action plans.”

“Pointing to a number of Senator Obama’s statements, including one from April 2008 (before the crisis) where Senator Obama was concerned that violence may erupt in the southern part of the Republic of Georgia, McFaul conveyed concern about the situation in the Caucasus. Speaking to NATO enlargement, he noted, as have many others, that both US candidates for president support NATO expansion. However, Senator Obama has consistently referred to NATO rules whereby the people of a candidate state must support entry into NATO and that NATO rules state that not only must territorial disputes be resolved before entry into the Alliance, but that a member state cannot use violence against its own people.”

Talk about sticking fingers in the foreign policy of the US—and BEFORE Obama was elected!

Contrast Obama’s and McFaul’s 2008 actions to Mike Flynn’s in 2016.

Imagine what the press would be screaming now, if CANDIDATE Trump had sent Mike Flynn to Russia, BEFORE the 2016 election, to chat with officials about Trump’s future policy goals regarding Russia.

In 2008, the compliant US press, fawning over Obama, saw nothing that rose to the level of a scandal.

The current blow-up about Flynn is coming out of pretended media shock, playing to a naïve public encased in a television bubble. Since the American Revolution of 1776, US politicians, military men, business leaders, intelligence operatives, and financiers have been traveling to foreign countries, seeking and coercing front-door and back-door and side-door deals. To say George Washington’s warning about “entangling foreign alliances” has been ignored is a vast understatement. Mike Flynn’s recent conversation with the Russian ambassador is a sub-atomic ripple in the pond.

Police Captain Renault (“Casablanca,” 1942): “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!” A croupier hands Renault a pile of money. Croupier: “Your winnings, sir.”


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.