The Suppression Of Ideas & The Closing Out of Debate

CensorshipFreedom
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 18, 2017

Let’s start with an extreme case. A case that has been roiled in emotion for decades. A case that triggers people into making all sorts of comments.

At quora.com, there is an interesting Q and A. The subject is the Nazi holocaust.

The question is: Why is holocaust denial a crime in some countries?

One answer is offered by Olaf Simons, who states he is an “historian at the Gotha Research Centre.” Here is an excerpt:

“Anyone who tells you it [the holocaust] is ‘not real’ (because he has found something to support his doubt) is manipulating you with a political agenda.”

That’s quite a far-reaching assertion. It’s obvious that a) someone might come to the conclusion that the holocaust didn’t happen and b) he has no political agenda. Whether that person’s conclusion about the holocaust is true or false is beside the point. And even if that person did have a political agenda, why should his comments about the holocaust be suppressed?

Olaf Simons takes his argument further: “Holocaust denial is different. It is telling you that all the historical victims are actually cheating the public. It denies families the right to mourn the loss of grandmothers and grandfathers, mothers and fathers, friends and loved ones. It is an attempt to deny Jews the right to remember their collective history – and usually the right to have a Jewish state as a consequence of this, their history. All the Holocaust denier has to do is claim his right of free speech and tell the Jew, who has lost his family, that he is simply a liar. That is the point where we as societies must intervene…”

Doubting or denying the holocaust “denies families the right to mourn” their loss. I’m talking about a person who claims the holocaust didn’t exist. A person who would make an argument against the holocaust by presenting what he believes is evidence. This approach is against the law in Germany and other countries. I fail to see how such an argument denies victims the right to mourn.

Because you believe you are a victim, because you know you are a victim (use any formulation you want to), someone else who claims you’re not a victim actually prevents you from mourning your loss?

I think we can look at groups all over the world, down the long trail of history, who have been persecuted, and we’ll see that no one prevented them from mourning, even in the most dire of circumstances.

In fact, there were occasions where someone denying the persecution ever happened would have been the least of the victims’ worries—because the violence against them was continuing for decades. And still they mourned.

There is, of course, another reason given for banning holocaust deniers. Their speech, even if not intended to provoke, could incite others to commit crimes against the victims.

This is the “one thing leads to another” argument. On that basis, countries and organizations could ban all sorts of language. The slippery slope has no limit.

And on a lesser note, if, for example, I started a site based on the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, and that site became popular enough, a social media giant might ban me or lower my exposure, because I was spreading malicious gossip against the US government, and by implication, giving succor to terrorists. Or I was denying the families of people killed on 9/11 the right to mourn—the right to “mourn properly.”

There are all sorts of reasons for denying the right to free speech.

And there are all sorts of reasons for closing out reasonable debate.

Look at what has been happening on American college campuses. A group wants to bring in a controversial speaker, so students (and paid agitators) riot. College is supposed to be the place where all sides of an issue can be aired and analyzed. Instead, we get violence. What are these college students learning? What are they not learning?

They’re not learning the power of their own minds. If they were, why would they be angry? Why would they be afraid to listen to a person with whom they profoundly disagree?

If someone wants to stand at a podium in a college hall and say Donald Trump is the greatest president in the history of the United States, so what? If someone wants to say Hillary Clinton is a genius and Bernie Sanders is a fool, so what? If someone wants to say college students should stage a revolution by refusing to pay off their loans, so what? If someone wants to say all college freshmen should study Karl Marx and only Karl Marx, so what? Is the sky going to fall?

Suppose a professor tells his students, “You’re all assigned to go to the talk tonight and listen to a speaker who is going to argue that Donald Trump is exactly what American needs now. Take notes. Come to class tomorrow prepared to argue rationally, for or against. And I don’t want you spouting generalities. I want specifics. I want thought.”

Suddenly, many students are going to realize they can’t argue rationally. They don’t have the tools. And that makes them nervous. They move into the role of agitators, because they’ve got nothing else. Suddenly, they’re against free speech.

Instead of making people smarter and sharper, instead of bullet-proofing them against propaganda and anti-logic, instead of educating them so they’re immune to slogans and obvious fallacies, instead of educating them to live in a society where free speech is elevated beyond shouting matches, we are seeing myriad excuses for disallowing free speech.

There is no limit to the excuses. Tomorrow, someone is going to dream up a new one.

Numerous players these days are saying political content on the Internet has to be monitored. They have their covert agendas. But beyond that, there is no reason to monitor political speech. If people can’t deal with competing politics, they need to fortify their IQ. They need to become smarter. That’s the answer.

If we live in a sewer of propaganda, we need to climb out of the sewer.

I could go on with the topic of free speech for another 10,000 words, but I’ll end off, for the moment, with this. Look for the “special case” argument. The strategy: a group has been oppressed, and they deserve compensation and justice, AND part of justice is ensuring that language is never used to criticize the group, because they are special, owing to the amount of persecution that has been visited on them. This particular group is different. They must be served. They must never be discussed in terms that, even vaguely, could be construed as negative.

No free speech in that case.

But wait. There is another group, and it, too, is special.

And another group.

And pretty soon, free speech is walking around with canes and crutches and sitting in wheelchairs and tubes are hooked up to it.

Even worse, people are focused on the issue of free speech as if it consists of nothing more than nasty remarks; and the burning question is, who has a right to be nasty, and in what situations, and for what reasons?

Whereas, the intent and hope for free speech was that it would rise higher and elevate into conversation that actually sought the truth, and examined basic principles on which that truth would stand.

In a free society.

Where fear of an idea didn’t exist.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

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.

Facebook Shuts Down Pro Le Pen Posts As French Election Nears

FakeNews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 16, 2017

Well, sure. Wouldn’t you? The woman is running for the presidency of France. She wants to reverse the tide of immigration in her country, so she must be a racist, and whatever she says or whatever anyone else says in support of her is, automatically, fake news, mindless, evil, and the population must be protected from that infection. This is how free speech works. It’s free unless it could do harm, unless certain minds might be taken in by it, and apparently Facebook is stepping up to the plate. Mark Zuckerberg is long overdue for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Zero Hedge: “The first round of French elections will be held on April 23rd, prompting Facebook to shut down pro Le Pen accounts, which they deem to be ‘fake’.”

“In addition to outright bans, the company [Facebook], in conjunction with French media, are running ‘fact checking’ programs — designed to fight ‘fake news’, heightening their efforts around the elections — which spans from 4/23-5/7.”

France must be purified. Only then can media function.

Immigration, you have to understand, isn’t an issue. There is nothing to debate. Immigration is a fact, wholly beautiful, and anyone who wants to limit it is speaking against love, flowers, and the proposition that the sun rises every morning.

Facebook is providing a public service. Just as Mussolini made the trains run on time in Italy, FB is making the news run on time—the real news.

Fake news should be shut down. Free speech only concerns what isn’t fake. Yes, I’m beginning to see the light.

After fake news is purged, then we can have free speech.

Aha. Yes.

Somehow, I must have missed this when I studied the 1st Amendment. James Madison, who wrote it, made this note: “Except for fake news.”

The guiding principle should be: if you’re not sure whether an item or issue or report is fake, don’t talk about it, don’t write about it, don’t express an opinion about it, until the authorities have cleared things up, until they’ve decided whether it’s fake or real.

Mark Zuckerberg is providing us with an easy way to check. If he and his people censor a post, it’s fake. Ignore it. Remain silent.

And if you’re French, don’t vote for Le Pen, unless you want a faker as your president.

Things are basically simple. They really are. If you know how to follow the signs and the warnings and the people in charge.

For example, right now I can sense an errant thought creeping into my mind: a corporation based in the US is colluding with the French government to influence an election in France. But I reject that thought. I denounce it. I urge everyone to denounce it. Pretend I never uttered the thought.

Please. I beg of you.

It’s fake.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

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.

US Presidents Can Grant Immunity To Snooping Spies

Sharyl Attkisson reports on methods of covert surveillance

FakeNews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
April 16, 2017

Government agents can’t legally spy on a US citizen? Do the spying in a ship outside the three-mile limit, in international waters.

This is just one way of skirting the law.

Sharyl Attkisson, former CBS investigative reporter, recently spoke with “a small group of reliable, formerly high-placed intelligence officials.” They tipped her to surveillance tactics in the arsenal of intel agencies.

Attkisson: “U.S. Presidents have the power to issue secret presidential directives that can authorize otherwise illegal acts (theoretically in the country’s best interests). These directives may come with pre-planned cover stories to be used in the event the operation is exposed, and they come with indemnity for those involved, giving them permission to lie about the operation or their involvement without fear of prosecution… The public will rarely know about such presidential directives since most who see them must sign agreements that promise nondisclosure and consent to polygraphs.”

That’s a blockbuster revelation.

Guaranteed immunity for those involved in the spying/surveillance operation (and other types of operations).

Plus permission for agents to lie about being involved.

All in the interest of “national security.” Unless it isn’t. Unless a president wants to enact revenge on a personal enemy, or commit a financial crime, or win an election, or protect a friend, or serve his elite bosses, or advance a corporate goal, or…pretty much anything.

He can act like a king.

One of Attkisson’s intelligence sources told her the following: “If the work of targeting an individual cannot be accomplished by government intel officers, it can be contracted out to third parties or to foreign parties who aren’t bound by U.S. law.”

Here’s a complete shady five-step method for spying. Attkisson:

“1. Locate a foreign target already under CIA surveillance.”

“2. Have a government agent use the foreign target’s phone and/or computer to make it look like the foreigner contacted the U.S. citizen whose communications are sought. The contacts can be benign, but they establish a record that falsely implies a relationship exists between the U.S. citizen and the foreign target.”

“3. The government agent can also mimic a communication back from the U.S. citizen to the foreign target, creating an appearance that the U.S. citizen initiated contacts. This could be favorable to justifying a warrant on the U.S. citizen later.”

“4. The U.S. citizen is now tied to the foreign entity and is now an ‘incidental’ collection target that can be surveilled in a ‘masked’ format. Although ‘masked,’ the surveilling agency knows the U.S. citizen’s identity.”

“5. If the U.S. citizen does anything that can be construed as illegal or suspicious, it’s possible the intel agency can then receive approval to surveil him directly rather than only ‘incidentally’.”

All these crooked methods and approaches to spying on US citizens are, of course, accompanied by other legal methods. And permission to pursue even the legal avenues can be obtained by hoax and fraud and special favor. Then there is the NSA, which spies on Americans as if it were a natural law, like the sun rising and setting.

The war on terror? That’s just a pretext to allow universal surveillance.
Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

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.

Court Rules Facebook Can’t Challenge Demands for User Data (and Can’t Tell Users)

facebook-exposed
Source: TheDailyBell
April 14, 2017

Facebook is not exactly the champion of user privacy, but at least in one case, the company did go to bat for its users. Facebook took New York law enforcement to court over secret warrants that allowed authorities to collect user data.

Unfortunately, Facebook just lost their case in the New York courts. The court ruled that only users themselves, not facebook, can challenge law enforcement demands for their data.

The only problem is, the court orders usually come with a gag order as well. Facebook is not allowed to tell their users that law enforcement is taking their data. And Facebook is not allowed to challenge these orders on behalf of their users.

So in true kangaroo court fashion, the only people able to challenge the government are those forbidden from being told that the government is investigating them. Well isn’t that convenient for prosecutors.

How are gag orders even Constitutional? You would think things like free speech and the right to know your accuser might cover that. But again, the government plays by no rules.

While the Court of Appeals acknowledged that the case “undoubtedly implicates novel and important substantive issues regarding the constitutional rights of privacy and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure,” the majority found that they were constrained by the current law that bars appeals by third parties.

The court said the only remedy for Facebook users is to sue for invasion of privacy after the fact.

Once we are done with you, you can go ahead and sue us. That’s how justice works, right?

Read More at: TheDailyBell

Big Government Vs. The Free Individual

“Hence, the less government we have, the better, – the fewer laws, and the less confided power.  The antidote to this abuse of formal Government is, the influence of private character, the growth of the Individual.”
– Ralph Waldo Emerson

EmersonGovtIndividual

What if a mandatory penicillin vaccine were forced onto every child in America starting tomorrow?

Image: What if a mandatory penicillin vaccine were forced onto every child in America starting tomorrow?
Source: NaturalNews.com
S.D. Wells
April 10, 2017

Currently, the state of California requires all children to be force vaccinated with the entire schedule of CDC “recommended” vaccines in order to be able to exercise their right to attend public school and get an education. It doesn’t matter if any of those children are allergic to mercury, aluminum, polysorbate 80, African green monkey kidney cells, genetically modified bacteria, neomycin (an antibiotic), human serum albumin (other people’s blood), formaldehyde, monosodium glutamate (MSG), bovine extract, gelatin, calf serum, or sodium chloride. Every child must be injected with all of these ingredients, without being tested for allergies against them first, as they are all listed and contained in the CDC’s “excipient” list of vaccine ingredients, in case you have any doubts. How many other U.S. states will soon demand forced vaccination for all children?

Even though penicillin, an antibiotic about 5 to 10% of the U.S. population is allergic to, is not currently a vaccine ingredient, does it matter? Did you know many vaccines are made with a peanut oil extract, but it’s not listed because only “trace amounts” remain? Nearly 2 million U.S. children have severe peanut allergies. Coincidence? Are those trace amounts enough to cause severe allergic reactions? You bet they are, along with unnatural, violent immune system reactions to injecting human blood, monkey kidney cells, cow’s blood, chicken embryo and live viruses combined from different strains.

Extreme vaccine-induced allergic reactions occur when your immune system reacts to foreign proteins and chemicals lodged in muscle tissue or that cross the blood/brain barrier

Penicillin allergy occurs because certain children’s immune systems mistake the drug as a harmful substance, often because the drug is injected with several viruses, bacteria, chemical adjuvants, foreign proteins, human pooled blood samples, and other experimental excipients that have never been tested for safety, allergies or for their neurotoxic effects on humans. Children in America are guinea pigs, including infants and babies still in the womb. Mercury is toxic to humans at any level, even if only eaten or when it touches the skin. Imagine what’s happening when it’s shot directly into body tissue through a needle.

If the human body detects and identifies these chemicals, drugs, and foreign proteins as harmful substances, it develops antibodies to them, even if they are mixed with powerful antibiotics. The second and third time those same drugs and chemicals are injected into the child, the reaction can be violent, brain damaging, central nervous system damaging, and yes, sometimes lethal, just like with penicillin.

Why the massive autism epidemic in 2017? Do the math…

Since 5 to 10% of the U.S. population is allergic to penicillin, if you injected everyone today with a penicillin-loaded vaccine, millions of people would suffer a severe allergic reaction, and many would die. There are more than 300 million Americans. If just 2% had a lethal allergic reaction to a penicillin inoculation, that would equate to about 6 million deaths. That’s how many people were murdered in the Holocaust. Now if you injected 300 million Americans with mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80, MSG, and African green monkey kidney cells, and just 2% of those people had a severe allergic reaction where their immune systems went into shock and their brains were damaged by the neurotoxins, there would be about 6 million people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

A new government survey of parents suggests that 1 in every 45 children ages 3 through 17 have already been diagnosed with ASD. This number is much higher than the CDC estimate, and for good reason. There are approximately 80 million children in the U.S.A. now. That means there are about 2 million children diagnosed with some form of autism, and many, many others who are suffering from vaccine damage that’s not diagnosed as ASD. When will that number equal or surpass 6 million? Statistics show that every other child in America will have some form of autism by 2032 – that’s 40 million children and just 15 years from right now.

Nearly 4 million American kids today have either severe peanut allergies or autism–wonder why?

The next time those autistic children are injected with the same drugs and chemicals, including the mercury-loaded influenza vaccine, a.k.a. the “flu shot,” specific antibodies will flag the dangerous concoction once injected into muscle tissue and blood, and the chemicals released by this activity cause the signs and symptoms associated with severe and often lethal allergic reactions, just like with penicillin. Get it?

Signs and symptoms of allergic reactions to injecting vaccine ingredients like peanut oil, formaldehyde, MSG, sodium chloride, aluminum, human albumin, aborted fetal cells, monkey kidney cells, gelatin, neomycin and mercury include: skin rash, hives, itching, fever, swelling, shortness of breath, wheezing, anaphylaxis, central nervous system damage, brain damage, nausea, abdominal cramps, rapid pulse, drop in blood pressure, seizures, loss of consciousness, coma, and death. Some severe allergic reactions to vaccines occur days or weeks after the concoction is injected.

Ask your doctor if vaccines contain experimental excipients. Ask the nurse for the vaccine ingredients insert and read every ingredient aloud in front of the doctor and your child. You should be aware of the biggest medical fraud cover up in the history of medicine. Here’s what you can do right now to combat the insanity.

Watch the highly informative whistle-blowing interview with the directors of the controversial film VAXXED that exposes the CDC’s known link between vaccines (such as the MMR–measles, mumps, rubella combo jab) and autism:

Bombshell: How Far Did Obama Spying Go?

fakenews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 6, 2017

During the transition between election and inauguration, Trump associates have phone conversations with foreign leaders. Those conversations are recorded by US intelligence agencies and turned into secret intelligence reports…

Former Obama National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, is accused of “unmasking” the names of Trump team members contained in those US intelligence reports and illegally leaking their names to the press. Bloomberg reports: “One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.”

In other words, US intelligence agencies, under Obama, were spying on Trump associates—and Rice obtained the names of those associates, which are supposed to be kept confidential.

Leaking the names to the press, in the current political atmosphere, would result in the impression that Trump associates were having improper conversations with foreign leaders, or even “colluding” with them. Lots of innuendo here.

The Susan Rice spying scandal points to what? More. Other Americans the Obama team spied on. Other Americans who were opposed to the Obama agenda. Other Americans who were critical of the Obama administration. Other Americans who were exposing the Obama administration.

For example, former CBS star investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson—who has sued members of the Obama team and several federal agencies. That lawsuit has just been referred to another venue by the judge in the case. He could have dismissed the suit, but he didn’t. He wants it to proceed. He wants Attkisson to have her day in court.

You might remember Attkisson was uncovering highly embarrassing details about the gun-walking operation, Fast & Furious, and the attack on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi. She was making the Obama administration extremely uncomfortable.

But let me quote Judge Emet Sullivan’s recent order transferring Attkisson’s suit:

“In 2011——at the same time that Ms. Attkisson was conducting investigations and issuing certain of her high-profile news reports——the Attkissons ‘began to notice anomalies in numerous electronic devices at their home in Virginia.’ These anomalies included Ms. Attkisson’s work-issued laptop computer and a family desktop computer ‘turning on and off at night without input from anyone in the household,’ ‘the house alarm chirping daily at different times,’ and ‘television problems, including interference.’ All of these electronic devices used ‘the Verizon FiOS line installed in [the Attkissons’] home,’ but Verizon was unable to stanch the anomalous activity despite multiple attempts. In January 2012, the Attkissons’ residential internet service ‘began constantly dropping off’.”

“In February 2012, ‘sophisticated surveillance spyware’ was installed on Ms. Attkisson’s work-issued laptop computer. A later forensic computer analysis revealed that Ms. Attkisson’s laptop and the family’s desktop computer had been the ‘targets of unauthorized surveillance efforts.’ That same forensic analysis revealed that Ms. Attkisson’s mobile phone was also targeted for surveillance when it was connected to the family’s desktop computer. The infiltration of that computer and the extraction of information from it was ‘executed via an IP address owned, controlled, and operated by the United States Postal service.’ Additionally, based on the sophisticated nature of the software used to carry out the infiltration and software fingerprints indicating the use of the federal government’s proprietary software, the infiltration and surveillance appeared to be perpetrated by persons in the federal government.”

“An independent forensic computer analyst hired by CBS subsequently reported finding evidence on both Ms. Attkisson’s work-issued laptop computer and her family’s desktop computer of ‘a coordinated, highly-skilled series of actions and attacks directed at the operation of the computers.’ Computer forensic analysis also indicated that remote actions were taken in December 2012 to remove the evidence of the electronic infiltration and surveillance from Ms. Attkisson’s computers and other home electronic equipment.”

“As Ms. Attkisson’s investigations and reporting continued, in October 2012 the Attkissons noticed ‘an escalation of electronic problems at their personal residence, including interference in home and mobile phone lines, computer interference, and television interference.’ In November of that year, Ms. Attkisson’s mobile phones ‘experienced regular interruptions and interference, making telephone communications unreliable, and, at times, virtually impossible’.”

“Additionally, in December 2012, a person with government intelligence experience conducted an inspection of the exterior of the Attkissons’ Virginia home. That investigator discovered an extra Verizon FiOS fiber optics line. Soon thereafter, after a Verizon technician was instructed by Ms. Attkisson to leave the extra cable at the home, the cable disappeared, and the Attkissons were unable to determine what happened to it. In March 2013, the Attkissons’ desktop computer malfunctioned, and in September of that year, while Ms. Attkisson was working on a story at her home, she observed that her personal laptop computer was remotely accessed and controlled, resulting in data being deleted from it. On April 3, 2013, Ms. Attkisson filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. The Inspector General’s investigation was limited to an analysis of the compromised desktop computer, and the partially-released report that emerged from that investigation reported ‘no evidence of intrusion,’ although it did note ‘a great deal of advanced mode computer activity not attributable to Ms. Attkisson or anybody in her household’.”

“The Attkissons allege that the ‘cyber-attacks’ they ‘suffered in [their] home’ were perpetrated by ‘personnel working on behalf of the United States.’ Accordingly, they have asserted various claims against the United States and against former Attorney General Eric Holder, former Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe, and unknown agents of the Department of Justice, the United States Postal Service, and the United States, all in their individual capacities. Those claims include claims against the United States under the FTCA and claims against the individual federal officers for violations of constitutional rights under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)…”

Spying, surveillance, harassment, interference, attempts at intimidation.

Are you noticing any significant mainstream news coverage of this case? Of course not.

Ordinarily, mainstream reporters protect their own colleagues, but here there is silence.

Let’s call it what it is: PARTISAN POLITICAL SILENCE.

The silence is based on a principle they don’t teach at journalism schools:

“We omit the news that contradicts our agenda. Our agenda IS the news.”

Memo to the new Attorney General, Jeff Sessions: You could launch your own investigation into the Attkisson case. Bring it front and center. Uncover all the nasty details. Expose the perpetrators.

Now.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

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.

Please Somebody Play The Race Card: “Like White On (Susan) Rice”

fakenews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 5, 2017

CNN is already claiming the whole Susan Rice scandal is a tempest in a teapot, and the Trump team is exaggerating it to distract the public from…something. Fill in the blank yourself. For example: Trump isn’t actually the president, he cheated his way into the Oval Office, while acting as a secret agent for his handler, Vladimir Putin, who in turn was operating on behalf of aliens from Jupiter.

The Susan Rice scandal is out in the open. She, Obama’s national security advisor, led an effort to spy on legal phone calls the Trump team was making during the presidential campaign, in order to gain “intelligence on the enemy.”

The Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) spoke with “Col. (Ret.) James Waurishuk, an NSC [National Security Council] veteran and former deputy director for intelligence at the U.S. Central Command.” Waurishuk said: “…many hands had to be involved throughout the Obama administration to launch such a political spying program…It’s unbelievable of [sic] the level and degree of the [Obama] administration to look for information on Donald Trump and his associates, his campaign team and his transition team. This is really, really serious stuff’.”

“Michael Doran, former NSC [National Security Council] senior director, told The DCNF Monday that ‘somebody blew a hole in the wall between national security secrets and partisan politics’. This ‘was a stream of information that was supposed to be hermetically sealed from politics and the Obama administration found a way to blow a hole in that wall’, he said.”

Yes, serious stuff. A felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Obama, of course, will have plausible deniability if the Susan Rice scandal blows up into a Watergate. He didn’t know. He didn’t order the spying. He was playing golf that day. Or any day.

And if a Congressional investigation of Rice and her antics reaches a fever pitch, somebody can play the race card. That’s always an option.

“If Rice were white, this never would have happened to her.”

“The Trump people are all over her like white on Rice.”

Meanwhile, CNN, in alternating segments, can say a) Rice and her people never spied on anybody, and b) everybody spies on everybody all the time, it’s not a big deal…and then some on-air goofball will add, “In fact, we here at CNN are spying—”

And the TV screen will go blank, then display colored stripes, then come back and the goofball will be gone, and an anchor will say, “We had a technical problem for a moment.”

But under no circumstances will CNN or MSNBC admit that the swaggering shoot-from-the-hip cowboy in the Oval Office was right when he lashed out and claimed the Obama administration was spying on him. Even if a few Obama people come out in the open and confess to the spying, those networks will insist Trump made a lucky guess, that’s all. It was all a coincidence.

And anyway, he’s not the real president, he’s a spy ultimately working for aliens from Jupiter; and on Jupiter, everyone is a racist.

And that will settle that.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

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.

CA tries to legislate fake news with scary, Orwellian bill

Source: RT
April 3, 2017

A.B. 1104 read: “It is unlawful for a person to knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on an Internet Web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on an Internet Web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on either of the following: Any issue submitted to voters at an election, and Any candidate for election to public office.” Luckily, it just got killed. The Resident discusses.

Gang Of Thieves: DEA Stole $3.2 Billion In Cash From Innocent People In Only A Decade


Source: ActivistPost.com
Justin Gardner
March 30, 2017

A bombshell report from the Inspector General (IG) at the Department of Justice has exposed the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for the colossal thieves they are. According to the report, DEA seized more than $4 billion in cash from people since 2007, but $3.2 billion of the seizures were never connected to any criminal charges. That figure does not even include the seizure of cars and electronics.

This thievery is possible through the insidious practice of civil asset forfeiture (CAF), where law enforcement can seize cash and property on the mere suspicion of being involved in criminal activity. Originally developed in the 1980s to go after organized crime, CAF has mushroomed into a source of revenue for cops across the country – from local to state to federal – in what’s become known as Policing for Profit.

When an innocent person’s cash is stolen by DEA, that person must petition to get it back, meaning the burden of proof (and the burden of time and expense) is on the unlucky victim who never did anything wrong in the first place. In fact, “forfeiture proceedings start from the presumption of guilt.

It’s a clever scheme, and DEA knows it. The IG found that petitions were filed in only 20 percent of DEA cash seizures. As Reason Magazine points out, the IG report highlights just how arbitrary these seizures can be.

“We found that different task force officers made different decisions in similar situations when deciding whether to seize all of the cash discovered,” the Inspector General wrote. “These differences demonstrate how seizure decisions can appear arbitrary, which should be a concern for the Department, both because of potentially improper conduct and because even the appearance of arbitrary decision-making in asset seizure can fuel public perception that law enforcement is not using this authority legitimately, thereby undermining public confidence in law enforcement.”

The case of a man traveling at an airport with $27,000 is a prime example of how DEA can just take the cash on a whim, without even bothering to pretend it has to do with criminal activity.

When a task force officer explained that the U.S. currency in the bag was going to be seized pending further investigation, the passenger asked whether he could keep some of the currency to travel home. The passenger asserted that all of the currency in the bag was his, and the task force officers allowed him to retain $1,000. This seizure resulted in an administrative forfeiture of $27,000 to the U.S. government, and the DEA explained to the OIG that, other than the events surrounding the seizure, there was no subsequent investigative activity or additional law enforcement benefit.

Reason Magazine sums it up perfectly.

If the DEA task force agents thought that man’s cash was connected to drug activity, why allow him to keep some of it? If they weren’t sure, why take it in the first place? The answer, of course, is there is no logical or legal rationale for this sequence of events.

Indeed, most of the DEA’s cash seizures don’t relate to any criminal investigation, and 82 percent of the cases reviewed by the IG were settled without any judicial review. The DEA focuses on airports, train stations and bus terminals, relying on travel records and a host of confidential informants to target people they believe will have lots of cash.

DEA gives itself wide latitude to pin you as a suspect for detainment and search. Woe to those “traveling to or from a known source city for drug trafficking, purchasing a ticket within 24 hours of travel, purchasing a ticket for a long flight with an immediate return, purchasing a one-way ticket, and traveling without checked luggage.”

The IG concludes that DEA is posing great risks to civil liberties by continuing the practices highlighted in its report.

‘When seizure and administrative forfeitures do not ultimately advance an investigation or prosecution, law enforcement creates the appearance, and risks the reality, that it is more interested in seizing and forfeiting cash than advancing an investigation or prosecution.’

The IG states that “risks to civil liberties are particularly significant when seizures that do not advance or relate to an investigation are conducted without a court-issued seizure warrant, the presence of illicit narcotics, or subsequent judicial involvement prior to administrative forfeiture.”

The threat to civil liberties posed by CAF is being recognized more and more, as states continue to abolish the practice by requiring a criminal conviction before cash and assets can be seized. But the federal government is a primary reason why CAF still runs rampant, through the euphemistically named Equitable Sharing Fund where the stolen loot (amounting to $28 billion over the last decade) is shared by federal and state drug task forces.

These findings fundamentally undercut law enforcement’s claim that civil forfeiture is a vital crime-fighting tool. Americans are already outraged at the Justice Department’s aggressive use of civil forfeiture, which has mushroomed into a multibillion dollar program in the last decade. This report only further confirms what we have been saying all along: Forfeiture laws create perverse financial incentives to seize property without judicial oversight and violate due process.

This report is one more illustration that the only solution to resolving these issues is to end the use of civil forfeiture once and for all. – The Institute for Justice

Read More At: ActivistPost.com

Justin Gardner writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared.