Why Taxation is Slavery: Words From Frederick Douglass

douglass
Source: TheDailyBell.com
March 27, 2017

What do you call it when someone takes 100% of your labor by force? Slavery.

Slavery is being forced to work against your will for the benefit of your master, your owner. The only reason they own the products of your labor is because they own you. If you had exclusive control over what is done to and with your body, the most basic right of self-ownership, you would not owe anybody your labor.

So then a lesser percentage of forced labor is also slavery, though to an obviously lesser degree.

Whether a cent or a million dollars is taken without consent, it is theft. And if someone forces you to work for them 1% of the time, or 100% of a time, that is still slavery.

Frederick Douglass was a slave, by any reckoning. So it is interesting to read his own words, on having his rightfully earned wages taken by force. In his book My Bondage and My Freedom, Douglass laments the state of his servitude, that all his hard work is confiscated from him.

Besides, I was now getting—as I have said—a dollar and fifty cents per day. I contracted for it, worked for it, earned it, collected it; it was paid to me, and it was rightfully my own; and yet, upon every returning Saturday night, this money—my own hard earnings, every cent of it—was demanded of me, and taken from me by Master Hugh. He did not earn it; he had no hand in earning it; why, then, should he have it? I owed him nothing. He had given me no schooling, and I had received from him only my food and raiment; and for these, my services were supposed to pay, from the first. The right to take my earnings, was the right of the robber. He had the power to compel me to give him the fruits of my labor, and this power was his only right in the case. I became more and more dissatisfied with this state of things…

Frederick Douglass sees correctly that the only “right” the government has to take your money, is the right of the robber. Yes, they have enough power to force you to give them money, and that is the only thing that makes it “legitimate”. Certainly no one argues that his slavery was justified by the food and shelter his master provided him.

Douglass then muses about what conditions make slave-masters able to keep men enslaved.

To make a contented slave, you must make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken his moral and mental vision, and, as far as possible, to annihilate his power of reason. He must be able to detect no inconsistencies in slavery. The man that takes his earnings, must be able to convince him that he has a perfect right to do so. It must not depend upon mere force; the slave must know no Higher Law than his master’s will. The whole relationship must not only demonstrate, to his mind, its necessity, but its absolute rightfulness. If there be one crevice through which a single drop can fall, it will certainly rust off the slave’s chain.

And this is the same reason people accept taxation. We revere authority and accept government as necessary, and believe we get some benefit out of our slavery.

How often do you hear people support something because “it is the law.”Is there no higher law than that which the government makes up for its own benefit, and then exerts through force? The force of government is the highest law we know.

Is there no higher law than that which the government makes up for its own benefit, and then exerts through force? The force of government is the highest law we know.

But as soon as we realize that it is never okay to be robbed, no matter how small, the injustice is a potent demonstration that we are at the mercy of a thieving gang who has convinced most people that somehow, in this case, theft and slavery are acceptable.

In case you are hung up on the percentage of stolen labor: it is interesting to note that Frederick Douglass did not always have 100% of his wages stolen from him by his masters.

I could see no reason why I should, at the end of each week, pour the reward of my toil into the purse of my master. When I carried to him my weekly wages, he would, after counting the money, look me in the face with a robber-like fierceness, and ask, “Is this all?” He was satisfied with nothing less than the last cent. He would, however, when I made him six dollars, sometimes give me six cents, to encourage me. It had the opposite effect. I regarded it as a sort of admission of my right to the whole. The fact that he gave me any part of my wages was proof, to my mind, that he believed me entitled to the whole of them. I always felt worse for having received any thing; for I feared that the giving me a few cents would ease his conscience, and make him feel himself to be a pretty honorable sort of robber.

How often do people squeal that the rich need to pay their “fair share”? It doesn’t matter how much any person earns, the government always wants to steal more. And somehow they have convinced millions of people that the thieves are the good guys, and the wage earners deserve to be enslaved and robbed.

We also shouldn’t feel excited when we get out tax refunds, we should be all the more infuriated. The government knows and admits that it is our money, that we earned, to which they have no right. Yet they still take it, and we still stand by as helpless slaves while being robbed.

The worst part is, that the robber undoubtedly thinks he is honorable! Welfare, roads, a military to “keep us safe”: our robbers, our slave masters, want us to thank them for giving back cents on the stolen dollar!

But I won’t accept it. I won’t pretend with the rest of the slaves that it is just. Yes, I will give up my wages at the point of a gun, but that is the only right the government has over me, the right of the robber.

He exhorted me to content myself, and be obedient. He told me, if I would be happy, I must lay out no plans for the future. He said, if I behaved myself properly, he would take care of me. Indeed, he advised me to complete thoughtlessness of the future, and taught me to depend solely upon him for happiness. He seemed to see fully the pressing necessity of setting aside my intellectual nature, in order to contentment in slavery. But in spite of him, and even in spite of myself, I continued to think, and to think about the injustice of my enslavement, and the means of escape.

That passage strikes an eery tone because anyone can see the government has the exact same advice for us, as Frederick Douglass’ master had for him. Just pay your taxes, vote, pay into social security, it will all be fine! Don’t worry, you don’t need anything but a government safety net to be happy and content.

If people feel dependent on the government, they are terrified to be free! The government will take care of you, just as long as you abandon your intellect, and push away any thoughts of influencing your future. Leave your fate in the hands of the government.

Frederick Douglass had incredible insight into the true nature of slavery. He was the self-aware slave that every master fears. Frederick Douglass was at times even placed in the same type of slavery we find ourselves in today, where we have the appearance of freedom. But it is really the worst of both worlds.

I was to be allowed all my time, make all contracts with those for whom I worked, and find my own employment; and, in return for this liberty, I was to pay him three dollars at the end of each week; find myself in calking tools, and in board and clothing. My board was two dollars and a half per week. This, with the wear and tear of clothing and calking tools, made my regular expenses about six dollars per week. This amount I was compelled to make up, or relinquish the privilege of hiring my time. Rain or shine, work or no work, at the end of each week the money must be forthcoming, or I must give up my privilege. This arrangement, it will be perceived, was decidedly in my master’s favor. It relieved him of all need of looking after me. His money was sure. He received all the benefits of slaveholding without its evils; while I endured all the evils of a slave, and suffered all the care and anxiety of a freeman. 

Precisely. We are “free”! Just so long as you give the government protection money at the end of each work week. If you can’t find work, you still need to buy healthcare, you still need to pay your property taxes, you still need to pay sales tax, and so on and so forth. We have all the stress of free men, without the benefit! And the government has all the benefits of a slave-holder, without all the intricacies of owning slaves.

The criticisms that Frederick Douglass expresses of his masters are perfectly interchangeable with all the criticisms of the government. Heed his words. Douglass was 100% a slave at times, 99% a slave at other times, and even at a point 50% a slave, according to how much of his labor was confiscated.

But he was still a slave. Don’t let the masters keep you a thoughtless slave.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

In a Police State, Be Careful Trying to Sell Souvenirs

astronaut-space-nasa
Source: TheDailyBell.com
April 24, 2017

You know what a good use of law enforcement resources is? Detaining old women for attempting to sell moon rocks and space shuttle pieces.

Of course, NASA is one of the many federal agencies with their own police force. One thing they decided to use this police force for was setting up a sting to catch a woman selling a piece of a space shuttle and moon rock she had received from her deceased husband.

NASA claims ownership over all space shuttle pieces, and therefore assumed the woman was selling stolen federal property. But her husband used to be an engineer for NASA and had received the space souvenirs from his employers.

NASA didn’t have to work hard to catch this 75-year-old widow. She contacted them! But rather than politely inform the woman what she was doing may be illegal, agents set up a sting to meet the woman in a parking lot and exchange the contraband.

Six armed agents detained her for two hours in the busy parking lot, during which time she wet her pants, presumably because she was afraid.

NASA declined to press charges; they are so forgiving. The woman was selling the items in an attempt to raise money for the medical car for her sick son, who has since died.

Her youngest daughter also died, and Joann took responsibility for her grandchildren.

She decided to try to sell the paperweights and contacted auction houses without success. She finally emailed NASA for help in finding a buyer for what she called “rare Apollo 11 space artifacts.” She explained how her late husband had received them.

An appeals court will allow the woman to sue NASA. Because of sovereign immunity, the government can actually decide whether or not to allow people to sue them.

Of course what will likely happen is she will waste money and time in court, and still not get justice for the way she was treated.

This just makes you wonder what is going on in the minds of these government agents. Who was seriously concerned about specs of a space shuttle and moon rock trying to be sold? Who thought it was appropriate to pursue a sting of a woman who contacted them!

This is what happens in bureaucracy. There is no sanity, no thinking feeling human being behind the actions of government. And if they will do something like this automatically, it makes you wonder just what else they will do, how far they will go to do their duty to enforce the laws of the United States government.

Read More at: TheDailyBell.com

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.

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.