Or at a higher level, editors decide to abandon the piece. Too much work, too hard to find facts.

Or the publisher intervenes and kills the story.

The controlled press can be controlled from many perches.

The result is, a limited and contradictory and insane and senseless reality is shaped for the public.

A case in point. Here is a statement I recently came across. It was made by the secretary of defense, William Cohen, in 1997, and included in a DOD news briefing:

“Others [terrorists] are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves…So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations…it’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our [counterterrorism] efforts.”

Talk about something to chew on.

Assuming the weather interests everybody---look at the coverage of hurricanes and tornados and earthquakes, to say nothing of the recent heatwave in Europe---you would imagine a fleet of reporters would have jumped on this remark with both feet.

Didn’t really happen.

Doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if Cohen was being serious, the US military was and is up to its own ears in climate control.

And electromagnetic waves? That phrase alone should have set off alarm bells from one end of the US media establishment to the other. It had long been speculated that this was the frontier of WMDs…and here was a sitting secretary of defense asserting that these weapons were real and were being deployed.

Hello?

Follow-up, anyone?

It’s “a story of the century” just sitting there.

Plenty of disasters one could ask questions about. Including the recent blackout in the US.

I spoke, off the record, with several reporters from major US papers. They all said, basically, “It’s too hard to find more facts.”

That’s it?

That’s it---from their tired point of view.

You might punch in “Tom Bearden” on a search engine, or “weather control.” You’ll find a lot more.

Of course, there is no overwhelming public demand for more info, because the story has been squelched from the beginning. And the public tends to think, “If it wasn’t on TV, then whoever is talking about it must be a nutcase.”

Think about a few more implications of Cohen’s remarks. If electromagnetic waves are on the table as workable WMDs, we have to admit that the technology we know about is only a fraction of what exists. What else is out there we don’t know about?

Now, if you were the CIA or some other clandestine office of lies, wouldn’t you want to insert plants in various groups for the purpose of telling wild lies about futuristic technology? To muddy the waters? To make people think ALL such talk is fomented by crazy people?

Of course you would.

I recently did a radio interview on a small station in California. We spoke about the blackout. And I was asked for some reason to believe that electromagnetic weapons could have taken down the northeastern grid in August. I cite the above remark by Cohen. There is a reason. The technology exists.

Of course, for national security reasons, the Pentagon maintains we don’t have a right to know anything. Even though CLIMATE and WEATHER are everywhere all the time.

That’s like saying, “You don’t have a right to know what’s in the water.”

“You don’t have a right to know what we’re spraying from planes and why.”

The last president who challenged the Pentagon was Eisenhower. However, his famous warning about the military-industrial complex was uttered as he went out the door of the White House into private life. Pathetic, really.

Now, you might think that Cohen, in 1997, was just making up a non-existent threat to justify a bigger Pentagon budget. But before you hop on that bandwagon, consider this: of all the statements he could have released, for the same purpose, why go there? Why discuss what most people would ordinarily consider a wacky subject? Why let that particular cat out of the bag?

One effect of 9/11 has been the curtailment of a lot of anti-Pentagon sentiment. The Pentagon---who, against all rules of procedure, did not scramble jets to go up and take a look at the hijacked airliners---made out VERY well from 9/11.

If the controlled press never made a big deal about no scrambled jets, you can imagine how much interest it has in weapons that control the weather and instigate “natural” disasters.

What about academia? If you want to have some fun, start checking out large universities, and where many of their most prized research contracts come from. The Pentagon (not big football programs) is responsible for the swelling of college infrastructures.

Your federal government at work, day in and day out.

If you really think that the outcome of the next presidential election is going to affect any of this, you need a brain transplant.

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------