Bilderberg Update: Day 3 — Italian PM Condemns Bilderberg; Danish Editor Sought

By Mark Anderson —

COPENHAGEN, Denmark— As Day 1 of Bilderberg 2014 subsided and Day 2 came along, things got rather interesting—involving an Italian parliament member and a Danish editor.

Consider this: our illustrious members of Congress in Washington, D.C. may want to borrow a page from that Italian Parliament member, Carlo Sibilia.

He arrived later on Day 1, May 29, outside the 2014 Bilderberg meeting to present a written proposal to the insulated Bilderberg members huddled inside the Marriott Hotel in Copenhagen, Denmark.


Buy Video Button


Sibilia also noted that he has asked to be allowed inside the Bilderberg Meetings, this year and in prior years. But he’s been turned away every time.

As we’ve reported, Bilderberg is the infamous annual gathering behind closed doors of major corporate heads, big bankers, media moguls, royalty—and elected and appointed public officials. The Denmark meeting runs through June 1.

The above-noted proposal was brought from Rome to Copenhagen by Sibilia and several fellow Italian legislators. They’re calling on Bilderberg to no longer allow elected officials into the highly secretive meetings.

Sibilia also is stressing that even those government officials from any nation who simply hold appointed positions should not be accepted by the Bilderberg Group.

That’s because appointed officials have to answer to elected officials. Furthermore, Sibilia insists that anyone with any degree of public trust, whatsoever, should be barred from this global planning summit.

He believes this move would boost Bilderberg’s transparency. But Sibilia also feels barring those who are supposed to uphold the public trust from attending these collusive meetings would deflate the back-room influence of the meetings.

While Sibilia stopped short of explicitly saying whether such a change could lead to the end of the Bilderberg Meetings, this writer called for the end of the meetings during about 10 video interviews for various independent news outlets and videographers—stressing, for instance, the liability of U.S. officials from intelligence and military agencies, or legislators who are privy to sensitive matters, purposely or inadvertently divulging such information to foreign intelligence or government officials who attend Bilderberg.

Sibilia feels his proposal is the least Bilderberg members can do to come clean about their mysterious meetings, which are in their 60th year for the stealth advancement of unaccountable global government—controlled by the super-rich at the expense of accountable national government and of the vast majority of humankind.

Former senator and current United States Secretary of State John Kerry certainly could draw a lesson from this development. As a sitting U.S. senator from Massachusetts, he attended the 2012 Bilderberg Meeting in Virginia. As Secretary of State, he also slipped into the Trilateral Commission plenary meeting in late-April 2014, inside sources say, to speak about containing Russia and other matters high on the Bilderberg-Trilateral agendas.

Russia, with its new Eurasian Union announced during Bilderberg 2014, represents a distinct obstacle to North Atlantic Treaty Organization-European Union eastward expansion, with such expansion being sought by Bilderberg, the “Trilaterals” and the Atlantic Council. This newspaper’s Bilderberg coverage has been globally unique in fully exploring and exposing the larger picture involving not only Bilderberg—but also Bilderberg’s connections to these other globalist groups.

Sibilia also says that influential Italian politicians have risen through the ranks apparently due to their Bilderberg attendance. So it’s fair to ask: Is that, in any way, how Senator Kerry became Secretary of State?

Kerry announced early on May 29, 2014 that former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden gets no clemency from the U.S. if he returns home, since he is accused of leaking touchy U.S. secrets and spying for Russia.

Maybe it’s Kerry who should come clean about his Bilderberg and Trilateral attendance and explain what sensitive U.S. matters could potentially be divulged to foreign powerbrokers at the secretive gatherings of these well-connected groups.

Yet if Sibila’s proposal is ever heeded, then elected and appointed public officials could be subtracted from the Bilderberg equation and all related risks could be abated. That could seriously deflate the power of the Bilderberg Group itself.

Donate to us


In another noted development, this one on May 30, or Day 2, this reporter contacted the office of Bo Lidegaard, executive editor of Politiken, perhaps the leading Danish newspaper.

He’s on the 60-member executive committee of the Trilateral Commission (TC) and the only media member on that committee. The TC, which has over 400 members in all, was founded in 1973 by longtime Bilderberger David Rockefeller.

Lidegaard’s secretary stopped short of saying whether he attended Bilderberg 2014 as of May 30, but a reliable source said Lidegaard’s predecessor at Politiken, Mr. Toger Seidenfaten, was with Bilderberg for many years.

So Lidegaard’s absence from his office on May 30 and his TC connection suggest he’s likely been invited to meet with Bilderberg this year. He’ll be contacted again, soon.

Politiken’s Bilderberg coverage did feature a respectable online article right after Day 1, but the more widely-read hard copy version of the broadsheet newspaper did not carry a word about Bilderberg after the first day.

AFP Newpaper Banner

Mark Anderson is roving editor for AMERICAN FREE PRESS. He will be in Denmark this year to cover the Bilderberg Meeting. Call 202-544-5977,  Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, to see how you can help.

Bilderberg Update: Day 2 — Audio Interview with Italian Parliament Member


Podcast Play Button

Buy Video Button

Mark Anderson, at this year’s Bilderberg meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, caught up with Carlo Sibilia, an Italian parliament member on the Foreign Affairs Commission, who came to stand against Bilderberg, along with parliament colleagues.


Mark spoke with Carlo in this informative interview (15:52).


AFP Newpaper Banner

Mark Anderson is roving editor for AMERICAN FREE PRESS. He will be in Denmark this year to cover the Bilderberg Meeting. Call 202-544-5977,  Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, to see how you can help.

Bilderberg Update: Day 1 — AFP First Media on Scene

By Mark Anderson —

COPENHAGEN, Denmark— The Copenhagen Marriott Hotel is under total lockdown for the meeting of the infamous secret society known as Bilderberg. AMERICAN FREE PRESS was the first media on the scene and the only established media surveying the scene even up until the morning of May 29—the first day of this year’s Bilderberg meeting.

The 2014 meeting marks the elite confab’s 62nd gathering in 60 years and the third in Denmark. It runs through June 1.



What’s disturbing as of the morning of Bilderberg’s first day is that one is hard pressed to find any news on the reclusive group in any European print media.

This striking lack of advance news about Bilderberg in the European papers is rather unusual—since European media have traditionally afforded Bilderberg heavy coverage, especially compared to the virtual blackout by U.S. media.

So, this AFP writer took to the streets to distribute copies of AFP’s front-page story from edition # 21, dated May 26. The “Bilderberg Meeting Site Confirmed” story was placed at Copenhagen’s busy Central Train Station less than a mile from the Bilderberg gathering at the Marriott.

Copies of that and other AFP stories are being distributed at various hotels, among other places, throughout Bilderberg 2014.

This writer, having seen about 12 blue Danish state police vans arrive before 7 a.m. Wednesday morning, was told by the lieutenant in charge that 300 Danish officers will work over the weekend. He confirmed Danish taxpayers would foot the bill to supplement Bilderberg’s own armed private security.

When informed that Bilderberg consists of billionaires who perhaps should foot their own bill, the officer smiled and accepted copies of AFP’s May 26 article to pass around among his officers. Meanwhile, high, temporary fencing now rings the normally open hotel, with even the main sidewalk on the hotel’s side of the wide street closed off. Bicyclists, in a city awash in bike riders, cannot even pause in front of the hotel.

But beyond the confines of this “lockdown” is the forced “lockdown” against Europe that founding Bilderberg members helped launch in the 1950s—an increasingly suffocating merger of formerly independent nations that has many Europeans crying “tyranny.”

It’s gotten so bad that voters across Europe in just-concluded elections sent pro-European Union politicians packing and replaced them with nationalist-populists in scores of European parliament and local offices.

A European citizen on area TV remarked, “All our laws are coming from the EU rather than our own parliament. We want our own monetary system.” The man added that he’s a fan of UKIP—the United Kingdom Independent Party.

Yet one also is hard-pressed to find comments about the 2014 Bilderberg Meeting from UKIP’s colorful leader Nigel Farage, from French National Party leader Marie Le Pen and from other nationalist winners in the late-May elections. This is the case despite the fact that the sweeping election results—which put both left wing and right wing anti-establishment candidates into office—gives a black eye to Bilderberg.

And Bilderberg is notorious for constantly advancing EU centralization in Brussels, Belgium—the very process that’s angering and riling voters.

As this story was put to bed, AFP had reached out to Farage thru Facebook and other means. The same goes for Ms. Le Pen. Neither had yet responded as this story was finished early on May 29 on the eve of Bilderberg.

AFP reached out to regular Bilderberg media participant Martin Wolf of The Financial Times. Asked whether Bilderberg members shared his view that sometimes governments need to stop protecting banks and pushing bankers’ financial gambling onto taxpayers, Wolf replied:

“I have no idea what ‘BB’ members think of the financial risk matters. They have no collective view. This is not a policy-making group, whatever people might fantasise about it. I will be unable to meet you. Sorry.”

Wolf was not asked if Bilderberg had a collective view. He was simply asked if any, or some, Bilderberg attendees shared his personal view. And like most attendees, he misses the point that Bilderberg members share a common worldview toward consolidation of power, with only minor exceptions—differences on details notwithstanding.

Donate to us

When this writer first visited the Copenhagen Marriott Hotel upon arriving on Monday, May 26, preparatory security measures already were being taken inside—three days before a summit that the general press is forbidden to cover in terms of inside access.

The hotel’s staff members were screened as well, as one of them told AFP in confidence.

As this writer got to know some staff and surveyed the hotel May 26, the managers had even closed off the main stairwell up to the conference wing of this waterfront 5-star facility—well before any Bilderbergers showed up. By the afternoon of May 28, the hotel’s regular guests had to leave, as none were allowed to book a room between that date and June 1.

Since 1954, the Bilderberg Meetings have involved closing off an entire high-dollar hotel for three days of insider global planning.

Bilderberg attendees include past and present legislators, prime ministers, finance ministers, royalty, central bankers, oil barons, think-tank policy fellows—as well as select editors and reporters who attend by don’t report.

Top corporate captains such as Microsoft’s Bill Gates have frequently attended as well.

Furthermore, big-media owners such as new Washington Post owner and, Inc. founder Jeff Bezos, have attended. Bezos may have been spotted early at the Marriott before this year’s Bilderberg meeting, but that was unconfirmed as this first AFP Bilderberg dispatch was written.

Bezos’ predecessor at the post, Donald Graham, attended Bilderberg for decades but kept the Post’s news pages silent.

The Post mildly broke its Bilderberg silence in 2012 when this summit of 140 influential jet-setters from North America and Europe huddled in Chantilly, Virginia near Washington.

AFP, coming out of its world-exclusive coverage of the Trilateral Commission (TC) meeting in late April in Washington, filed this story as the very first media on the scene at Bilderberg 2014—among any media, anywhere—despite the vast resources that most media possess, especially Bilderberg-connected media.

A Danish citizen told AFP Wednesday morning, on the eve of this year’s summit, that most Danes don’t have a clue what Bilderberg is, nor are most Danish people even aware that Bilderberg is meeting in their historic city.

Anti-Bilderberg activists and citizen journalists are expected to soon gather across from the Marriott. And there is unconfirmed word of some kind of festival or other public gathering 1.5 miles from the Marriott. And the usual significant European media coverage is expected, but clearly not assured. European media so far do not seem to be in a hurry to give advance notice of Bilderberg.

It cannot be overstated that this is rather strange, considering that scores of anti-EU populist parties just upset the pro-EU establishment by winning a number of European Parliament and local government seats. And considering that key Bilderberg members from the secret society’s early days founded the Common Market that evolved into the EU, the relevance of Bilderberg is greater than ever.

For it is Bilderberg that has helped fuel the European centralization of power that now has many European citizens crying “tyranny” and voting for nationalist parties. But core Bilderberg members and their TC brethren, relatively minor differences aside, evidently want to tighten the screws even further through even more economic controls.

That includes:

  • A U.S.-EU free trade deal, which likely would a job-killer like the North American Free Trade Agreement accord. That accord is called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
  • And a contemplated fiscal union, in which each EU member nation would surrender its national taxing and budgeting and hand all of that power over to the European central regime in Brussels.

 AFP Newpaper Banner

Mark Anderson is roving editor for AMERICAN FREE PRESS. He will be in Denmark this year to cover the Bilderberg Meeting. Call 202-544-5977,  Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, to see how you can help.

Police State Canada

SPLC ultimately behind arrest, harassment of pro-family, anti-sodomy Christian activist.

By Ronald L. Ray —

Peter LaBarbera is a married, 51-yearold father of five children from Illinois. He is also the president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), one of the few single-issue organizations fighting to expose the homosexual lobby agenda. On April 10, the respectful but impassioned speaker was arrested and harassed for over three hours by border police at the airport in Regina, Saskatchewan. He was arrested again on April 14, during a peaceful protest at the University of Regina. Both events provoke disturbing considerations here in the United States.


LaBarbera, a long time national advocate for traditional marriage and family, was invited to speak to the Saskatchewan Pro-Life Association. But upon deplaning in Regina, officials detained him past 1 a.m., demanding to know how much of his planned presentation would be about homosexuality, while seemingly unconcerned about the portion against abortion. Treating him like a criminal, they seized his passport, searched his luggage, cellphone and laptop and viewed a DVD of a previous talk.

Canada Border Services agent Darren Banick refused LaBarbera entry to the country, claiming that he “may commit acts which would be against the criminal code of Canada,” which forbids “public incitement of hatred . . . against any identifiable group [that] is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.” But LaBarbera was able finally to give his conference to a grateful audience, thanks to an appeal obtained through conservative Canadian members of Parliament.

A few days later, however, LaBarbera was again arrested at the University of Regina for “mischief,” that is, handing out leaflets about the grave health risks associated with homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual behavior. For example, 95% of human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, cases in boys and young men result from homosexual activity. University provost Thomas Chase claimed the materials “could harm members of this campus community.” A May 26 court hearing is scheduled.

Donate to us

The AFTAH president’s troubles were instigated by Chris Brookes and his wife Bailey of the Facebook-based hate group Intolerance Free Weyburn (IFW). Based on information they obtained from the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) online “hate map,” the Brookeses demanded that officials keep LaBarbera out of Canada. Reminiscent of last year’s murderous attack on the Family Research Council by an SPLC hate map-motivated homosexual, IFW ironically appears itself guilty of incitement of hatred against pro-life, pro-family Christians. By contrast, the pro-lifers allowed protestors near their conference.

In an April 28 interview, this reporter asked LaBarbera for his thoughts on these events. He joked, “It was like going to North Korea.”

He sees frightening parallels occurring in the U.S., as well. He and his organization, like many Christians, are subjected to frequent demonization and dehumanizing attacks by leftists, who seek to deprive those with traditional values of a human face in order to more easily silence them.

The mainstream media collude in this culture war against the Christian faith, whose “vanguard” is the homosexual lobby, according to AFTAH’s president. After a recent AFTAH talk to students of Sinclair Community College in Ohio, Salon magazine misrepresented events and even invented statements they falsely ascribed to LaBarbera. But he believes the SPLC does the “most hateful work of all” in attacking Christians and their moral views.

While the U.S. technically still protects more free speech rights than Canada, LaBarbera observes that we have descended into an unfree condition, subject to a police state. He calls attention to a recent unanimous New Mexico Supreme Court decision, which requires businesses to provide goods and services to homosexuals, even against the owners’ professed religious convictions. Jon and Elaine Huguenin were fined $6,000 for refusing to photograph a lesbian “wedding.” The U.S. Supreme Court allowed this injustice to stand.

AFP Newpaper Banner

Ronald L. Ray is a freelance author and an assistant editor of THE BARNES REVIEW. He is a descendant of several patriots of the American War for Independence.

Putin Stymies Globalists

• Russia challenging “international system,” leaving one-worlders out in the cold.

By Mark Anderson —

In the wake of the late-April meeting of the Trilateral Commission (TC)—and with the 2014 Bilderberg meeting dead ahead in Denmark—globalists are fuming over Russia’s moves in the Crimea and its nationalist economic and energy initiatives.

Russia’s strong nationalist stance and its push for a “multi-polar” world system—rather than one dominated by the United States—suggest that Russian President Vladimir Putin is seeking a more decentralized world order. That may be embodied in Putin’s moves to negotiate trade and energy deals directly with Asian-Pacific nations, including Japan and South Korea, leaving the internationalists out in the cold. It is also reflected in Putin’s overtures to China.


Although it’s too early to forecast outcomes, a Russia that asserts itself independently on the world stage, with minimal linkages to Western power structures, means a world that could avoid having a singular source of ultimate authority.

This is why Secretary of State John Kerry told the Atlantic Council at a gathering in late April that Putin must be opposed simply because he is challenging “the international system.”

Donate to us

Western global expansionists lament that Putin refused to join the World Trade Organization. And various Western think tank policy papers show that Putin may be intent on forming a formal confederation, comprised of Russia and former Soviet states that are now in the loosely knit Commonwealth of Independent States. A confederation is a less centralized arrangement, comparable to Switzerland. The European Union is a federation, with a singular authority located in Brussels.

In contrast, Western corporate and banking interests support world government, an ultimate “unipolar” world with one super-concentrated central authority—a difficult goal that requires patient gradualism forged by the TC, the Bilderberg group and related secretive and semi-secretive Zionist-controlled outfits.

This is what is behind the Trilateralists’ support for a “Europe 2020” rubric consisting of a “fiscal union” among the 28 EU member nations. That means member states would have to completely surrender their autonomy to collect taxes and use the receipts for national public expenditures. Under a fiscal union such matters would be centralized, giving the EU direct control over taxation and spending power in direct contrast to state sovereignty where countries define their own fiscal policies.

The above fiscal item appears to harmonize with remarks this AMERICAN FREE PRESS writer chronicled at an April 2013 Brookings Institution meeting at which a Federal Reserve-style central bank for Europe was an announced goal.

AFP Newpaper Banner

Mark Anderson is roving editor for AMERICAN FREE PRESS. He will be in Denmark this year to cover the Bilderberg Meeting. Call 202-544-5977,  Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, to see how you can help.

Mideast Manipulators Destroying Democracy

• Saudi Arabia, Israel, United States pour weed killer on Arab spring.

• Mideast “Big Three” realize democracy is a bad thing for hegemony.

By Richard Walker —

When it comes to democracy, the only kind of free and fair elections the West backs are those guaranteed to side with the United States and Israel. This explains why Egypt’s newest dictator, recently retired Army Chief Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, knows there is no one standing in the way of his military court sentencing to death 700 of his regime’s opponents. He is confident he has the backing of President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Saudi royals and British Prime Minister David Cameron.


El-Sisi, who plotted and managed the overthrow of former university professor Dr. Mohamed Morsi in July 2013, the country’s first democratically elected president, is positioned to win the presidency of the country in planned elections that will undoubtedly be held against a backdrop of military oppression.

Criticism of the military, which suspended Egypt’s constitution and kicked out a government dominated by Muslims in July 2013, after a one-year democratic experiment, has been sparse. In contrast, there have been calls in Washington, London, Tel Aviv and Riyadh to give el-Sisi and his generals all the moral, military and financial support they need to crush their opponents.

In Washington, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has been a lone voice in calling for the U.S. to suspend financial and military aid to the Egyptian government while it behaves in a fashion that is more akin to a totalitarian state. But Leahy’s position stands in sharp contrast to the fact that Washington has given Egypt $100 billion in the form of foreign assistance and military aid since the 1980s, because it has been Israel’s favorite dictatorship in the region.

The bottom line is Israel has never wanted a Muslim democracy on its borders, preferring instead to deal with thugs, like el-Sisi, who can be bribed and controlled by Washington. The Saudis feel likewise, fearing democracy could jeopardize their kingdom that allegedly gave us the 9-11 hijackers and has been sponsoring terrorists ever since then.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Famhy recently pointed out there should be no reluctance on Washington’s part to withhold financial aid to his country or to deny it a gift of Apache attack helicopters because Egypt had upheld its 35-year peace deal with Israel.

Donate to us

In the wake of the removal of Morsi after he had been Egypt’s president for a mere 12 months, the Egyptian generals, with support from Israel and the Saudis, began a vicious campaign to crush the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt where it was founded and from where its power base reached out to the region. Israel moved quickly to influence Washington on the matter. According to Israeli writer Yossi Melman, within six weeks of Morsi’s overthrow and arrest:

“Israel has been secretly maneuvering via friendly nations, deploying heavy diplomatic leverage to stop Western governments, first and foremost the United States, from denouncing the overthrow by the Egyptian security forces, deterring them from calling it a ‘massacre.’”

Melman also claimed Israel persuaded its allies in the West not to call the murder of 1,700 civilians in 2013 by the Egyptian military a massacre.

With the help of Washington, and the Western mainstream media, Israel has effectively demonized the Muslim Brotherhood in the same way it demonized the Palestinian group Hamas. As a result, Obama and other Western leaders have been reluctant to condemn the Egyptian military’s vicious crackdown on the Brotherhood, preferring to accept the Israeli-Saudi claim that the Brotherhood is a terrorist organization.

From the moment the Brotherhood became the dominant political power in Egypt, following the overthrow of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, the Saudis set about undermining it and wiping out any vestiges of the Arab Spring Obama had once heralded as a flowering of democracy in the Arab world.

Well-known British journalist Patrick Cockburn has described as “demented” claims by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair that the Brotherhood promoted intolerance. Cockburn suggested Blair might have been better pointing a finger at the Saudi monarchy for its intolerance and support of terrorism.

Commentators in Europe have attacked Blair’s successor, Cameron, for ordering an investigation of the Brotherhood at the behest of the Egyptian military. The purported aim of the investigation is to examine Brotherhood links to a terror attack in Egypt in February 2014. Some observers detected the cunning hand of the Saudis in Cameron’s decision since the person he appointed to lead the investigation was Sir John Jenkins, the British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, who happened to be a friend of the Saudi royal family.

Mass trials in Egypt are expected to continue with not only Muslim Brotherhood members sentenced to death but also journalists and academics since many of them have been portrayed as enemies of the dictatorship.

Richard Walker is the pen name of a former N.Y. news producer.

Economic Vultures Target Ukraine

By Richard Walker —

While Ukraine teeters on the edge of a political abyss it is the target of economic vultures that include the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the biggest Western oil and gas giants.

Ukrainian pensions could be halved and gas subsidies needed to keep families alive this coming winter are only a few of the dire outcomes likely to flow from an austerity package imposed by the bankers at the IMF.


When the IMF announced its Ukraine bailout in March 2014, the deal should have come with a warning label.

As a rule, when the IMF offers to help a debt-ridden country, it demands austerity measures that have little to do with resurrecting a nation’s economic fortunes and more to do with bailing out bankers and strangling its economy. With its loans come large bills for the dispersal and monitoring of the money it lends. In the case of Ukraine, a loan of $21 billion has a $6.2 billion charge for “debt servicing.”

Author and commentator Dr. Jack Rasmus fears the IMF’s loan will be used by Ukraine’s central bank to stabilize its currency reserves. Billions of dollars will be shared with businesses that will hoard them. He has a stark warning for those, who mistakenly believe the bankers and multinationals of the Eurozone will pay Ukraine’s bills. In his view, bringing Ukraine into the Eurozone will be akin to “adding another Greece or Spain to the mix.”

“Those who will pay will be the Ukrainian people,” warned Rasmus. “That is the essential and repeated history and legacy of IMF deals globally for the last three decades.”

Donate to us

One way Ukrainians will undoubtedly pay is through the high cost of imports from the Eurozone that will be made even more expensive by the fact that Russian companies will be denied offering their goods to Ukraine at competitive prices.

What might startle many people looking at Ukraine is the fact it has large, untapped deposits of gas and oil. In November 2013, the Ukrainian government gave Chevron Corporation a 50-year lease to tap oil and gas reserves in the west of the country. Royal Dutch Shell signed a similar agreement. United States Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz told the Christian Science Monitor in April 2014 the State Department would be “working with private companies to facilitate the development of shale gas.” He revealed that part of a $50 million White House aid package would be used to facilitate energy development in Ukraine for private companies in the West.

But there is a bigger energy picture worth noting. Western energy corporations have had their eyes on Ukraine’s reserves for decades. That was clear from a December 19, 1996 report from The Moscow Times, in which Canadian geologist Mike Monea expressed surprise at the amount of untapped energy in Ukraine. He conceded it had been a well-kept secret.

“I’m a geologist and was very surprised at the extent of oil deposits,” he said. “They’re numerous. The information has never been published in geological circles. They never let it be known.”

Ukraine is incapable of developing its own natural resources. Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to force Ukraine to pay in advance for deliveries of natural gas.

Now, with the push to move Ukraine closer to Europe, its untapped energy resources will be exploited by the very people claiming to come to its aid at the expense of Ukrainian citizens.

Richard Walker is the pen name of a former N.Y. news producer.

Bilderberg Meeting Site Confirmed

• Protesters to be quarantined; censorship zones established; international elites shielded.

By Mark Anderson —

AMERICAN FREE PRESS has confirmed that the “scene of the crime” for Bilderberg 2014 will be the Copenhagen Marriott Hotel.

The Bilderbergers are embarking on their 62nd meeting in 60 years to continue their shadowy deal-making and global planning. This is their third meeting in Denmark.

Bilderberg involves 140 or so top bankers—especially central bankers—and corporate captains, royalty, think-tank fellows, media owners, prime ministers and other elected and appointed government officials. Select reporters and editors, such as Martin Wolf of The Financial Times and John Micklethwait, editor-in-chief of The Economist, often participate but don’t report a peep about a conference that involves closing off an entire 5-star hotel and ringing it with heavily armed guards.


AFP’s Danish and Swedish contacts have quizzed police to understand the laws governing photography and public demonstrations. In the process, the police provided a “protest zone,” much like the “free speech zones” which authorities often create in order to sequester free speech. This is a nearly universal concept in a world micromanaged by elite corporatists in collusion with their government water boys, as typified by Bilderberg.

It appears that the protest zone will be reasonably close to the hotel’s main entrance, at least compared to last year’s Bilderberg gathering in Watford, England. There, all media and activists were herded into a grassy area on the outer edge of The Grove hotel’s expansive property. The physical hotel entrance was a mile away.

While this Danish vantage point may be an improvement, one important question is whether the European media’s usual practice of covering Bilderberg—versus a media blackout in America for decades (except for AMERICAN FREE PRESS)—will involve a more serious look at Bilderberg. In the UK last year, most mainstream media treated Bilderberg as a mere curiosity and scoffed at thousands of citizens who declared that Bilderberg represents private, unelected government.

Donate to us

As AFP goes to press, this writer is inviting scores of mainstream media in Europe and America to cover Bilderberg as a serious news item, regardless of what the media may think of protestors. Danish activists also are working with area media.

Meanwhile, AFP is closely watching Bo Lidegaard, editor-in-chief of the influential Politiken newspaper and website. In this AFP writer’s world-exclusive coverage of last month’s Trilateral Commission (TC) plenary session in Washington, Lidegaard’s name surfaced on a list of the TC’s Executive Committee. Only 60 of the 400-plus TC members are on that committee, and Lidegaard is apparently the committee’s only media representative.

And because the “Trilats” are kissing cousins with the Bilderbergers and share many of the same members, the question is whether Lidegaard will cover Bilderberg objectively in the public interest, or ignore it, or take part in it—in abuse of the public trust.

The Danish people may want to know whether their Minister of Finance Bjarne Corydon, who was at Bilderberg 2013, will return this year. He was one of three Danes at Watford, the other two being from private industry.

Notably, TC deliberations in Washington last month delved into a return to “containing” Russia, much like the West did during the Cold War. Yet, in various ways, Russian President Vladimir Putin is frustrating the eastward thrust of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the EU to control or absorb Ukraine and surround and isolate Russia—even while Western neo-liberal capitalists evidently seek to mire Ukraine in International Monetary Fund austerity measures that will drain the money supply through high interest payments.

Western energy magnates also have been eyeing Ukraine for its natural gas and other rich natural resources, in another pending round of vulture capitalism—the same exploitation that has nearly brought traditional Greece to its knees.

As for what could be called the TC-Bilderberg agenda, key things to watch include, but aren’t limited to: the creation of a European standing army, a European “fiscal union” to do away with national taxing and budgeting; the creation of a full-fledged European central bank, and finalizing two key trade deals: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The second of the two is a United States-European Union pact.

The late AFP Bilderberg hound Jim Tucker foresaw such items when he noted in his Bilderberg Diary book (comes with a FREE 1-YEAR DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTION to AMERICAN FREE PRESS) that in 2003, “Another issue high on the Bilderberg agenda was the proposed European Union army independent of NATO.” That idea is circulating in elite circles to this day. Tucker also noted about 10 years ago that an “Asian-Pacific Union” was favored by Bilderberg, which apparently is manifesting itself as the TTP.

AFP Newpaper Banner

Mark Anderson is roving editor for AMERICAN FREE PRESS. He will be in Denmark this year to cover the Bilderberg Meeting. Call 202-544-5977,  Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, to see how you can help.

INTERVIEW: Gutsy Nevada Rancher Speaks to AFP

On April 12, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and thousands of his supporters forced hundreds of federal agents from the Bureau of Land Management to back down after a tense standoff involving seized cattle and disputed grazing fees.

This victory for those opposing an ever-growing federal government made national headlines and turned Bundy into a heroic David vs. Goliath figure.

On April 23, AMERICAN FREE PRESS had the opportunity to speak with Bundy.

By Victor Thorn

It’s been two weeks since a thousand supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy forced Bureau of Land Management (BLM) officials to give up trying to seize Bundy’s cattle and retreat. This reporter recently had the opportunity to speak with Bundy about his impressions of this seminal event.

“I learned that I’m not the last man standing,” said Bundy. “Lots of courageous people who want liberty and justice also joined me. Americans are tired of centralized government acting tyrannically and with unlimited power. They realize that the Constitution doesn’t allow for such behavior.”

Bundy continued: “Our Founding Fathers fought a war against the British for this same reason, and today people are saying, ‘We’ve had enough of these abuses of power.’ Out here in Nevada, to a large extent the feds control our land, state laws, state regulators, the county sheriff, not to mention leasing power over how we use our resources. It’s time for us to exercise our conscience, and freedom was the key component of how we expressed ourselves against the feds. Up until this point, many Americans felt depressed and anxious. Now they see that we have a chance against big government.”

Senator Harry Mason Reid (D-Nev.) recently called Bundy’s supporters “domestic terrorists.”

This is what the Nevada rancher had to say about that: “I agree with Harry Reid that we’re fed up with our government. Yes, we are willing to stand up against them. We’re not going to put up with guns being pointed at us. From my perspective, Reid seems to be calling for civil war by stirring the pot.”

Bundy next addressed one of his biggest points of contention. “The federal government owns no land here in Nevada,” he said. “According to the Constitution, the United States [government] is very limited in how much land they can own. The biggest question we must ask right now is: Does the federal government own this land, or does the state of Nevada? Sadly, Nevada citizens and our local leaders have let this happen. They’ve all been brainwashed. But there is no way, according to the Constitution, this can be federal land. It’s our land. It’s sovereign land.”

Dispelling some erroneous reporting in the mainstream media, Bundy told AFP, “This standoff didn’t result directly from BLM officials refusing to release my cattle. Rather, we demanded that our sheriff disarm 200 BLM bureaucrats and place their guns under a flag. We gave them a one-hour deadline, and after one hour and 20 minutes, we headed toward where my cattle were. You also need to know that less than 1% of my supporters had weapons, and mostly only sidearms. This was against 200 BLM agents possessing high-powered military rifles.”

Bringing our conversation to a close, Bundy stated: “The climax of this situation resulted when everyday citizens—we the people—stood against the U.S. Army with courage and determination. People on the front lines were determined not to back down. I’m happy to say that Americans now have a chance for some freedom. But before that happens, county sheriffs across America must take the guns away from these bureaucrats when they step on somebody’s land that is rightfully owned. They don’t need guns to serve papers to the public. It’s time now for government to be smaller and closer to the people. That’s what our Founding Fathers gave us in the Constitution.”


“Dirty” Harry Reid: Financial Terrorist

By Victor Thorn

Senator Harry Reid—the man who had the audacity to call Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy a “domestic terrorist,” earns an annual salary of $193,400 and ranks as one of the political elite’s wealthiest fat cats with a net worth of approximately $10 million. So is it Bundy or Reid who is the real terrorist here? This reporter has done some fact checking on this very question.

The truth is that Reid has attained his vast riches by using Capitol Hill more as a turnstile for influence peddlers and illegal campaign contributions, and not as a home base to serve the people. Bolstering Reid’s status as President Barack Obama’s personal pit bull on the Senate floor are reassurances from Eric Holder’s Department of Justice (DoJ) that they’ll shield him from any corruption probes.

Recently, Utah prosecutors teamed up with Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials to investigate dirty money coming into Reid’s coffers. That was until Holder’s DoJ impeded this case from moving forward. That meant FBI lawmen were prevented from convening a grand jury or issuing subpoenas to witnesses.

Reid’s list of indiscretions reads like a who’s who of political graft at its worst. Reid and his oldest son, Rory, have sold their souls to the Chinese energy company ENN Energy Holdings Limited to construct a solar power plant in Nevada. In addition, there was also a profitable $700,000 land deal rumored to involve organized crime mobsters.

Worse, even though Nevada touts an unemployment rate double the national average, Reid directed over $47 million in pork-barrel spending to firms that enjoyed direct ties with his son. Reid’s nepotism surfaced when he funneled $31,249 to his granddaughter, whose jewelry outlet made fancy gifts for high-dollar donors.

Reid’s most influential moneyman, Frederick Harvey Whittemore, called “one of Nevada’s most powerful men,” was found guilty of illegal campaign contributions and sentenced to two years in prison. Allegations still surround Utah Attorney General John Swallow’s involvement with Reid in burying a federal investigation into charges that Swallow bribed Reid to quash a federal probe into business fraud.

And for good measure, current BLM Director Neil Kornze, who oversaw the Bundy ranch assault, once served as a senior advisor to Reid.

Mainstream Tries to Smear Cliven Bundy

By Victor Thorn

In a political atmosphere suffocated by hyper-political correctness, Cliven Bundy’s April 19 remarks, whereupon he discussed controversial racial matters, was distorted and heavily edited by The New York Times, among other national news outlets. To its credit, AFP has been the only national newspaper courageous enough to tackle these hot-button issues.

Bundy spoke some bitter truths when wondering if “Negroes,” as he called them, were actually better served today being enslaved under a system of generational government welfare.

In previous articles, AFP has interviewed numerous black leaders who’ve conveyed similar sentiments—that the real slave-owners exist in our federal government, and they control their chattel via welfare and food-stamp handouts. Because of race-pimping hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the black family has been decimated.

To his credit, Bundy stated: “I’m wondering if they’re better off under government subsidies. Their young women are having abortions, and their young men are in jail and their older women and their children are sitting out on the cement porch without nothing to do.”

He offered more insights. “I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidies? They didn’t get no more freedom, they got less freedom.”

In essence, Bundy made it clear that the federal government has conceived and perpetuated a system that’s made life far worse for black people, and other races because of black crime, than it was when they were attempting to be productive members of society, even though in forced servitude.

On April 24, in the aftermath of a mean-spirited backlash orchestrated by the Times that turned public sentiment against this iconic figure, this reporter spoke with Cliven’s wife, Carol.

“A lot of people in the black community agree with my husband,” said Mrs. Bundy.

“Clive isn’t at all racist. His main focus involves getting us back to the Constitution. He wants people to become the government again and get rid of government overreach. But the media went crazy. I want your readers to know that Cliven feels for these people that he spoke about.”

Jason Bullock, a black man, agrees. A a six-year U.S. Army veteran and bodyguard to Bundy, Bullock insisted on April 25: “Mr. Bundy is not a racist. Ever since I’ve been here, he’s treated me with nothing but hospitality. He’s treated me just like his own family. I would take a bullet for that man.”


Private Land Ownership Dead in Nevada?

By Victor Thorn

On April 23 this reporter spoke with two Nevada activists about recent news that BLM land-grabbers were intending to confiscate 90,000 acres of farmland in the Red River Valley of Texas. The first, Janine Hansen, state president of Nevada Families for Freedom, illustrated the extent of this problem.

“The BLM are supposed to be managers,” Ms. Hansen told this newspaper, “yet they put 52 other ranchers in Clark County out of business, [all] except Cliven Bundy. They’re using a phony endangered species claim to destroy property rights and usurp control over the land. The only reason Bundy is still on his ranch is because he refused to be put out of business by BLM.”

According to Ms. Hansen, the situation is far more troublesome, though.

“Nevada is the worst state when it comes to federal domination,” she said. “It’s so serious that between 87% and 91% of all land here is owned by the federal government. Only 1% of Lincoln County is privately-owned. There’s no economic base there to even live.”

Layout 1

John Wagner, state chairman of Nevada’s Independent American Party, provided these details to AFP. “It’s about time Nevada became a full state instead of a partial state. But federal ownership of land also stretches into Utah. Look at a map sometime. BLM owns almost everything west of the Mississippi. They’re claiming everything that’s not nailed down.”

Ms. Hansen got to the root of this situation when she told AFP: “Bureaucrats such as BLM, DHS and the IRS are combining forces. Government no longer acts as a servant of the people. They now view us as simply being serfs on the land. During the Bundy protests, look at how people were forced into so-called free speech zones. They were telling these individuals where they could and could not speak. Plus, federal agents erected roadblocks to keep outside people from coming in. That’s why Harry Reid called Bundy’s supporters ‘domestic terrorists.’ He sees them the same way that King George viewed our Founding Fathers.”

As for the massive demonstrations at Bundy’s ranch, Hansen asked: “Do you know why so many people rallied to Cliven’s aid? It’s because they know they’re next on the list, whether by the IRS, DHS, DoJ or BLM.”

Victor Thorn

Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and author of over 50 books.

Congress Wants Feds to Police Internet

By Mark Anderson —

Senator Edward John Ed Markey (D-Mass.) appears intent on undermining free speech on the flimsy, worn-out “hate crimes” pretense. His Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014, or S. 2219, would empower the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to keep tabs on any Internet, radio and/or television content that allegedly advocates or encourages so-called “hate crimes.”


A number of critics, including even the Boston Herald’s editorial board, see the bill as a danger to free speech.

The House companion bill is H.R. 3878 ans its chief sponsor is Representative Hakeem Sekou Jeffries (D-N.Y.) He believes the bill will target “hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of First Amendment protection,” whatever that means.

According to the Library of Congress, on April 8, S. 2219 was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, of which Markey is a member. As of April 27 it had zero cosponsors. H.R. 3878 was introduced back in mid-January and now has 29 cosponsors. It was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerces Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.

Donate to us

Markey’s official press release announcing this legislation, dated April 16, noted: “The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 would create an updated comprehensive report examining the role of the Internet and other telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and create recommendations to address such crimes.”

Markey’s release also stated: “Over 20 years have passed since I first directed the NTIA to review the role that telecommunications play in encouraging hate crimes. My legislation would require the agency to update this critical report for the 21st century.”

An April 24, 2014 editorial in the Boston Herald labeled the initiative a “frankly chilling proposition” and warned that this legislation will encourage the NTIA to “begin scouring the Internet, TV and radio for speech it finds threatening.”

Quoting parts of the legislation, the Herald noted: “The spookily-named National Telecommunications and Information Administration . . . would be required to submit a report to Congress on the use of telecommunications ‘to advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.’ ”

The NTIA would use its own judgment to determine what qualifies as forbidden speech. The NTIA would then recommend what the legislation calls “appropriate and necessary” steps for Congress to take.

Civil liberties attorney Harvey A. Silvergate was quoted as saying: “This proposed legislation is worse than merely silly. It is dangerous. It is not up to Senator Markey, nor to the federal government, to define for a free people what [kind of] speech is . . . acceptable.”

Markey’s bill is surfacing not long after “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson won a free-speech battle regarding his candid religious remarks against homosexuality. Those remarks had been labeled “hate speech” by many on the political left.

From Markey’s viewpoint, this legislation is more about Frazier Glenn Cross, Jr., the Federal Bureau of Investigation informant who opened fire outside a Jewish community center and retirement home near Kansas City, Kansas on April 13, 2014. Markey remarked: “We have recently seen in Kansas the deadly destruction and loss of life that hate speech can fuel in the United States.”

However, the late author George Orwell likely framed the matter best when he said, “Freedom of speech is the freedom to tell people what they don’t want to hear.” And plenty of state and federal laws are already on the books to punish people if ideas evolve into tangible crimes.

AFP Newpaper Banner

Mark Anderson is roving editor for AMERICAN FREE PRESS. He will be in Denmark this year to cover the Bilderberg Meeting. Call 202-544-5977,  Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, to see how you can help.

‘Gray Lady’ Exposed Faking News; Kerry ‘Wants’ Ukraine

From 9-11 to Iraq to Syria to Ukraine, New York Times caught faking, distorting the news to sway public opinion for the benefit of its policymaking handlers in U.S. government.

By Pete Papaherakles —

The blatant disinformation and misrepresentation by the United States news media of what is really happening in Ukraine has been brought into focus by the Ukrainian “crisis.” Perhaps no news outlet has been lying and covering up for the U.S. in Ukraine more than the “Gray Lady,” the cornerstone and champion of disinformation known as The New York Times.

The Times seeks to conceal the West’s underhanded role in taking the country away from Russia’s sphere of influence and bringing it under the control of European Union (EU), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the International Monetary Fund and Western banking and corporate interests by portraying Putin as the aggressor and invader and the West as a champion of democracy and human rights.

Times Square, the most bustling block in New York City, was named after the newspaper when it moved its headquarters to the newly built Times Tower there in 1904. The Times is the oldest newspaper in America uninterruptedly published since 1851. It was bought by Jewish publisher Adolph Ochs in 1896 whose daughter married into the Sulzberger family which owns it to this day.

Although its slogan since 1897 has been “All the news that’s fit to print,” in reality it means all the news the Times sees fit to fake to satisfy its cultural communist masters.

When it comes to Ukraine, the Times has a record of playing fast and loose with the facts, fabricating information and ignoring hugely important news while spinning events to suit the political and corporate interests it represents.

Walter Duranty, Moscow bureau chief of the Times from 1932 to 1936, won a Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for a series of stories on the Soviet Union. Yet he completely ignored the Holodomor, the mass starvation of 10 million Ukrainians by Stalin, taking place at that time. Years later there were calls to revoke Duranty’s Pulitzer, and the Times acknowledged his articles constituted “some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper.” What the Times didn’t acknowledge, however, was that it had an agenda to portray mega-mass-murderer Stalin as a great statesman while demonizing German leader Adolf Hitler.

Today, Hitler has been replaced by Vladimir Putin in the Times mythology since he is the one standing in the way of Zionist globalism. Hillary Clinton compared Putin’s intentions in Crimea with “what Hitler did back in the 1930s.”


This Hitler meme of “let’s learn from history and never again appease Hitler-style aggressors” has been used to justify American intervention in many wars going back to Vietnam.

Lyndon B. Johnson said in a speech in 1965 that he sought to escalate the Vietnam War. “Nor would surrender in Vietnam bring peace, because we learned from Hitler at Munich that success only feeds the appetite of aggression,” he said.

Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Yugoslavia’s Slobodan Milosevic, Libya’s Muammar Qadaffi and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad would also be portrayed as Hitlers by successive U.S. presidents looking to justify invasions of those countries. Always ready to set the stage for these wars of aggression by providing the necessary disinformation is the Times.

In an April 22 article, the Times reported that Russian forces were inside east Ukraine and were behind the Ukrainian government opposition movement seizing Ukrainian government buildings. As proof they showed several photographs provided by Kiev including a blurry picture of a heavily bearded Russian special forces soldier from Georgia in 2008 and a bearded soldier in the recent Ukrainian uprising, claiming it was the same person. A close inspection of the two individuals, however, revealed significant differences in body size, facial features and beard color, which were even pointed out by the BBC.

In a laughable display of yellow journalism, another pair of pictures showed a Russian soldier in Crimea and another in east Ukraine with the Times claiming they are one and the same. The funny thing was that both men were wearing black ski masks, making identification totally impossible.

The photographs were also given to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry for use at a meeting in Geneva with representatives from the EU, Russia and Ukraine. The Times had to issue a retraction after the State Department was forced to announce that the photographs were misrepresented.

The Times was also instrumental in promoting the myth that Assad was behind the August 21 sarin gas attack near Damascus in a front-page exclusive where it used a “vector analysis” to pin the blame on the Syrian government. Washington treated the assertion as “slam dunk” proof that Assad gassed his own people and came just two days away from a full-force military strike against Syria.

As Seymour Hersh recently revealed, forensic analysis by British military intelligence had proof that samples of the sarin used did not match any in Assad’s possession, and all evidence pointed to Turkey.

The Times has refused to write about concrete evidence backed up by documents that the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department along with eBay billionaire chief Pierre Omidyar and Western non-governmental organizations backed up the Ukrainian uprising that illegally ousted the elected Yanukovych government.

The Times was also instrumental in getting the U.S. to invade Iraq in 2003. Investigative journalist Judith Miller published bogus information from a known liar about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, which served as an excuse to invade Iraq. Ms. Miller was also the first recipient of a fake anthrax letter after 9-11, which led to the anthrax panic. Many of these stories later turned out to have been based upon obviously flimsy evidence. But that matters not to The New York Times and its publishers and editors.

Donate to us

Pete Papaherakles is a writer and political cartoonist for AFP and is also AFP’s outreach director. Pete is interested in getting AFP writers and editors on the podium at patriotic events. Call him at 202-544-5977 if you know of an event you think AFP should attend.

Secretary of State ‘Wants’ Ukraine

John Kerry lays out plan to bring Ukraine under West’s thumb

By Mark Anderson

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Summarizing this newspaper’s exclusive national coverage of two key globalist groups that recently wrapped up conferences in Washington, AMERICAN FREE PRESS can report that United States Secretary of State John Kerry sees Russia’s military presence in Crimea as an existential threat to the entire “international system.”

That’s what he said April 29 as keynote speaker at the Atlantic Council’s (AC) conference at their D.C. headquarters, “Toward a Europe Whole and Free.”

Kerry may have spoken over the previous weekend to the much more exclusive Trilateral Commission (TC) at Washington’s Mandarin Oriental Hotel. TC co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski reportedly praised Kerry for his handling of difficult issues, especially the Ukraine “crisis.”

In his AC address Kerry called the crisis, “The most serious challenge to the international system since the Cold War.”

Kerry, assorted AC policy wonks and others at the event characterized Russian President Vladimir Putin as a Josef Stalin retread who’ll rekindle the reign of that dictator’s evil Soviet Empire—unless the valiant North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance intervenes.

NATO is currently celebrating its 65th year and its past expansions while looking at a continual enlargement of the alliance—with an eye toward expanding the West’s dominant monopoly-capitalist, free-trade imperium.

The AC/TC globalists see this as a critical undertaking in light of Russia’s moves to sidestep their global system and go its own way.

It’s basically Russian nationalism versus U.S.-EU-NATO internationalism. And Kerry’s AC speech showed that the U.S. is helping draw the line in the sand.

Kerry told the AC: “This is a defining moment in our transatlantic alliance. . . . Our strength corresponds with our unity.”


It appears that Kerry used both the Trilateral and Atlantic Council meetings to extol what he sees as the boundless virtues of the NATO alliance and to condemn what he characterized as the endless sins of Putin’s Russia.

He also claimed that the West has tried to integrate Russia into the “transatlantic community.” Yet that vague concept has never been clearly defined.

Kerry clarified that Russia had the nerve to decline joining the World Trade Organization (WTO), though he was silent on how joining the WTO would benefit Russia. The WTO requires member nations to phase out tariffs, thereby undermining national autonomy and real prosperity.

The secretary of state called for “a sovereign and free Ukraine” to coincide with the AC’s conference theme. The implication is that NATO would like to annex Ukraine, which currently is a non-EU and non-NATO member.

That means that NATO and the West simply want to remove any sovereign claim Russia believes it has over Ukraine and replace that claim with Western control. But to hear Kerry tell it, you’d think the U.S.-EU-NATO alliance is the new holy trinity whose footprint can only mean peace and prosperity for all. Apparently the world is supposed to forget NATO’s naked aggression in 2011 in Libya and in Yugoslavia in 1999.

Kerry believes that “democracy, prosperity and security” have been the fruits of NATO “getting new members” since its 1949 birth. He added that any Russia incursion into an existing NATO member’s territory will be met by force.

He added that “an open trading mechanism” is needed—“360 degrees . . . all around Ukraine.”

In that vein, Kerry declared:

• NATO alliance defense budgets of member states must not go below 2% of each state’s gross domestic product;

• European Union and NATO member-nations must reduce their dependence on Russia for energy and diversify their energy sources; and

• U.S.-EU economic ties must be expanded, with the crowning achievement being the completion of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

The TTIP free-trade pact is under development. It’s the same U.S.-EU trade pact that globalist policy groups have been batting around for over a year. All indications are that this trade pact and the even larger Trans-Pacific Partnership are Bilderberg Group-approved goals, with apparent support from TC and AC.

The hyper-exclusive Bilderberg annual global-planning confab takes place in Denmark, apparently May 29 thru June 1 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Tellingly, Kerry also told the AC, “Our entire model of global leadership is at stake.” He said that justifies “a strong call for further NATO enlargement.”

So, from the TC and AC vantage point, their sacred monopoly-capitalism and trade models now in place must expand—even though the record shows these models have hurt or impoverished many more nations than they’ve helped.

Credible critics see today’s capitalism and trade models as degenerate—since they vastly differ from genuine free enterprise, enrich the privileged few at the expense of everyone else and set the stage for more war.

Donate to us

Mark Anderson is roving editor for AMERICAN FREE PRESS. He will be in Denmark this year to cover the Bilderberg Meeting. Call 202-544-5977,  Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET, to see how you can help.

Georgia Comes Out Shooting

• State follows national trend in easing overly restrictive gun laws.

By Keith Johnson —

Georgia has become the latest state to claim a major victory in the ongoing struggle to preserve our cherished constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

On April 23, Republican Governor Nathan Deal signed H.B. 60, otherwise know as the Safe Carry Protection Act, which allows licensed gun owners to carry their firearms almost anywhere in the state, including government buildings like schools and even some portions of public airports and courthouses.


“Our nation’s founders put the right to bear arms on par with freedom of speech and freedom of religion,” Governor Deal stated in a press release. “Georgians cherish their Second Amendment rights, and this law embodies those values.”

The bill has been widely applauded by Second Amendment groups throughout the country, including the National Rifle Association, which describes it as the “the most comprehensive pro-gun reform legislation introduced in recent state history” and GeorgiaCarry.Org, whose executive director, Jerry Henry, recently stated that the bill will “restore our right to carry and be allowed to protect ourselves anywhere we go.”

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, also spoke highly of the bill.

“It’s a good step forward,” he said during a recent interview with this AMERICAN FREE PRESS reporter. “This is certainly not the end of the game but it does show that we’re making progress.”

Although Pratt believes Georgia’s new law is indicative of a nationwide trend in favor of gun rights, he warns that a rarely discussed threat on
the horizon could spell disaster for gun owners in the years to come.

“Overall, the direction has been positive for the Second Amendment,” Pratt said. “But the biggest challenge facing the Second Amendment right now is the Republican leadership in both houses of Congress. They have no fundamental understanding of the Constitution they took an oath to uphold.”

When asked to elaborate, Pratt replied: “They’re pushing immigration legislation—presumably as a pathway to amnesty—that will bring in a flood of new anti-Second Amendment voters. I attend a predominantly Hispanic congregation and I know how many of them think. They come from countries where there’s no concept of standing up and taking control of their government. This mindset is completely inconsistent with American principles.”

Donate to us

To counter this emerging threat, Pratt encourages United States citizens to implore their state representatives to make pro-gun legislation a top priority and to follow the examples of those who already have.

“We need more laws on the books like the one in Kansas, where a federal official can [potentially] wind up in jail if he tries to enforce federal gun laws,” Pratt said. “We’ve found that once decisions on gun rights have been made at the state and local level, it’s very hard for the federal government to overturn them.”

SB 102, or the Second Amendment Protection Act, excludes from federal regulation any personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Kansas, prevents any federal agent or contracted employee, any state employee, or any local authority from enforcing any federal regulation or law governing any personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Kansas,  allows a county or district attorney or the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief in court to enjoin certain federal officials from enforcing federal law regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas.

Pratt continued: “It’s also essential to have a county sheriff who is loyal to the Constitution. He’s the top cop in your community and has more authority than the Secret Service or any other law enforcement agency. What he says goes.”

As an example, Pratt pointed to Clark County, Nevada Sheriff Douglas C. Gillespie, who recently found himself at the center of a standoff between the federal government and local rancher Cliven Bundy, whose cattle were stolen by the feds in a dispute over grazing rights.

Though at first reluctant to exercise his authority, “the sheriff finally decided that he had to uphold the Constitution and told the Bureau of Land Management to leave,” Pratt said. “And they left, right away.”

Elsewhere on the Second Amendment front, as some states continue to take steps forward in protecting the rights of gun owners, others have either taken a step back or continue to run in place.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R), for instance, recently tarnished her image as a staunch defender of the Second Amendment when she vetoed two promising pro-gun bills. One was similar to Georgia’s, which would have allowed gun owners to carry firearms into some public buildings, and the other would have punished local governments that adopt gun-control measures that are stricter than state laws.

In a bittersweet victory, Missouri legislators just approved a measure that nullifies past, present and future federal gun laws deemed unconstitutional by the state. Unfortunately, the final version of the bill stripped away an earlier provision that would have put federal agents behind bars for up to one year if they attempted to enforce those laws in the Show Me state.

War is still being waged against the gun-grabbers in the Rocky Mountain state. Last year, AFP reported on two Colorado state senators who were recalled by angry voters after enacting strict gun-control legislation, which included extending background checks to private sales and limiting magazine capacity. Since then, their replacements have been struggling to rollback the measures but have been blocked at every turn by a Democrat-controlled legislature.

On the bright side, according to The New York Times, state governments in 2013 passed 70 laws that loosened gun restrictions as opposed to 39 laws that were enacted to tighten them.

Of course, that’s no consolation to citizens in places like Connecticut, where a new draconian law has made felons out of gun owners who legally purchased so-called “assault weapons” in the past but have yet to register them with the state. For them, the fight to protect the Second Amendment is far from over.

In fact, it’s only just begun.

Keith Johnson in an investigative journalist and creator of the Revolt of the Plebs.

High Court Rules: Affirmative Action Dead in Michigan

Landmark Supreme Court decision upholds will of the people of Michigan; seen as victory for states, defeat for federal government.

By John Friend —

In a landmark 6-2 Supreme Court decision on April 22, the nation’s highest court handed a victory to the people of Michigan who voted in 2006 to amend the state constitution to ban the consideration of race or sex in public employment or education. The Court’s decision upheld the decision by the voters of Michigan to essentially ban “affirmative action.”


The ruling is sure to rehash the often divisive, heated debates over affirmative action, which gives preferential treatment to minorities in university admissions and hiring practices primarily, and may even spark similar ballot initiatives across the nation.

Legal analysts viewed the recent Supreme Court ruling as a victory for states’ rights and a blow to the federal government’s increasing overreach in virtually all aspects of public policy.

Vikram Amar, a professor and associate dean for academic affairs at the University of California-Davis School of Law, told The Washington Times, “The big message here is that [the] U.S. Constitution does not prohibit states from considering affirmative action, but neither does it hamper states that want to cut back on that experiment.”

Professor Scott Moss, who specializes in constitutional law at the University of Colorado Law School, added, “I think the states’ rights trend has been in place since the 1990s and the court has been expanding states’ rights since then.”

The majority made it clear that this decision was not about the merits of affirmative action, but rather who had the authority to formulate and implement such laws.

“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his prevailing opinion on behalf of the majority. “There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.”

Donate to us

Ironically, those who protest the systematic discrimination against and displacement of the traditional racial and ethnic population of America, those of European heritage who founded, built and developed this nation, are hysterically demonized and slandered as “racists” and “bigots.”

Prominent pro-white advocates and defenders of white civil rights, including Dr. David Duke, have long argued that affirmative action amounts to officially codified discrimination against white Americans.

Dr. Duke’s popular YouTube video entitled Affirmative Action is Racist “exposes the massive racial discrimination against white Americans in hiring, promotions, scholarships and college admissions,” according to the video description.

Indeed, affirmative action must correctly be viewed as state-sanctioned discrimination against the white ethnic European majority in America—a traditional majority that is rapidly decreasing due to massive immigration, both legal and illegal, and other social, cultural and economic factors.

Affirmative action was designed to elevate and promote ethnic minorities regardless of merit, talent or higher qualifications over the white majority in America in order to advance Marxist, entirely illegitimate concepts such as “equality.”

Every individual has a unique and distinct genetic makeup, which endowed upon them certain traits, characteristics, dispositions, talents and limitations. There is no such thing as equality in nature; inequality is an iron law of nature which the cultural Marxist social engineers behind the promotion of affirmative action reject.

Expecting or assuming all individuals to have the same potential and intellectual and physical capacities is a fantasy. The Marxist belief in equality—which has been officially adopted by the state, educational and cultural establishment and much of mainstream society—is, in fact, holding people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds back from realizing their innate potential, especially white European people in America today.

Policies that discriminate against whites in America are widespread and, coupled with an extremely hostile, vitriolic anti-white historical and cultural narrative—a storyline that has in many cases been deceitfully manufactured and advanced by openly anti-white intellectuals, activists and radicals—has led to a crisis amongst the white population in America and the wider Western world.

No one should be granted special treatment in America, a nation founded upon the ideals of individual initiative, merit and skill. Granting special privileges to minorities for perceived or real historical injustices in an effort to level the playing field, combat alleged “white privilege” and ensure equality is simply unjustifiable given our unique political traditions.

AFP Newpaper Banner

John Friend is a writer who maintains a blog and hosts “The Realist Report” on the AFP Radio Network.

Covering Up War Crimes

 Federal torturers erasing history of their misdeeds.

By Richard Walker —

While the focus on the torture program under President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney remains fixed on the failure to come clean to Congress, it should be noted that those who carried out these terrible deeds spent a decade erasing evidence of their war crimes and destroying the lives of suspects who could testify against them, or to even acknowledge how many black sites were being run or how many people died under torture while in the custody of its operatives, medical professionals and contractors.

As far back as 2006, the United States advocacy group Human Rights First produced a report stating that over 100 suspects died “while in the hands of U.S. officials in the global war on terror.”


That figure did not tell the whole story nor did it speak to the organized and widespread torture that saw an unknown number of prisoners moved through black sites as far afield as Lithuania, Morocco, Poland and Thailand, to name but a few countries that cooperated with the U.S.

One of the critical pieces of the torture strategy was to fold up a site and destroy the evidence of its existence, including video evidence, once its existence had been compromised. But that was not the only reason detainees were flown at a moment’s notice to far-flung, secret facilities. The aim was to transform them into so-called “ghost detainees,” who did not exist on paper.

A primary reason for hiding prisoners was to ensure they would not be available to testify against their torturers. Evidence was often fabricated to keep them in custody, beyond the reach of the media and the Red Cross. Eventually, some were moved to Guantanamo Bay; torture was used there, too.

Donate to us

It has been overlooked that in 2004, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Inspector General John Helgerson shockingly admitted the following: “The agency has, like the military, an interest in the disposition of detainees, and a particular interest in those who, if not kept in isolation, would likely divulge information about the circumstances of their detention.”

In other words, it was better to keep detainees in isolation than apply the accepted rules of law for prisoners of war.

The CIA went one step further. A detainee in Afghanistan who died under torture was buried in an unmarked grave near the site where he was murdered. To this day, his name is not known, and he may not have been the only detainee disposed of in that way because there was no oversight. The failure of the U.S. to prosecute its torturers means we may never know how many people were brutally murdered through torture.

U.S. government officials have never been asked to account for the massive sums of money that were spent on the torture program. For example, prisoners were transported on more than 11,000 flights on a total of 122 U.S. registered aircraft. All of these were reportedly paid for in cash that was moved through U.S. embassies in diplomatic pouches in order to hide the source of the money. In the winter of 2003, two CIA officers carried $15 million in cash out of the U.S. embassy in Warsaw to use in setting up a torture site there, after one had been compromised and shut down in Thailand.

When that Polish site closed, its prisoners were moved to at least five other sites in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. No one knows how much cash was used in the torture program and whether some of it, like the massive amounts of taxpayer dollars that vanished after being flown into Iraq, found its way into the pockets of CIA operatives and contractors. Certainly a lot of it was used to bribe corrupt officials in countries where torture took place.

Missing in the congressional debate about the CIA is the true ugliness of the torture program and the human tragedy it generated.

According to one shocking report, Iraqi General Abed Hamed Mowhoush’s young son was dragged before him while he was being tortured. The general was told they were prepared to kill the boy. The boy was then taken to another room and subjected to a mock execution. He was hit and he bled. An interrogator showed his father the blood and told him, “I have just killed your son.”

Two of Mowhoush’s other sons were being held in custody at that time.

Over several days, Mowhoush was beaten with sledgehammer handles and rubber hoses until his heart gave out. Soldiers involved in his death were given what amounted to a slap on the wrist, and his CIA interrogators walked free.

Richard Walker is the pen name of a former N.Y. news producer.

Proof: Markets Rigged

High frequency trading, dark pools and one company’s solution.

By Ronald L. Ray —

From its inception, the United States stock market has tried to separate the masses from their money, transferring it over time to the plutocrats. Industries of “experts” exist to convince the little guy that he can “goose” the system and become wealthy through less than hard work. But the system, like a mobster’s casino, has been “gamed” by its owners, and few can win against the house. Modern computer networks have made it a virtual certainty. Hope, nevertheless, for honest and just trading recently has been reborn in the efforts of six-month-old Investors Exchange (IEX)—and even Goldman Sachs, immortalized by Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi as the “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money,” may become a believer in the new market morality.


Deception, distrust and dirty tricks are the long-standing rules governing many traders’ efforts to beat the other guy out of a buck. And in the past decade or more, developing technology has raised the practice of cheating to an art form. Foremost in the field is Goldman, which controls as much as 70% of stock market activity.

“High frequency trading” is one method by which the big boys attempt to bury competition, not only from individuals, but even brokerages and some large investment firms. It has gained recent notoriety from a new book, Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt, by Michael Lewis.

In today’s investment world, speed is supreme. The faster someone can place his order, the better his chance of paying the desired price for stocks and making his fortune. Entire corporations fight for milliseconds, microseconds, nanoseconds—tiny fractions of the blink of an eye. Those with the wherewithal pay huge sums for faster connections and hardware closer to the point of actual trading on the exchange, where money is now made by complex computer algorithms and brief, repeated trades occurring in less than a moment.

Donate to us

For years, though, brokers and institutional investors have noticed that the market does not function as formerly. One enters a large block trade, and, instead of going through, it disappears in cyberspace, and the stock price jumps. This has introduced greater instability in markets and reluctance by brokers to commit cash.

Thanks to the research of Brad Katsuyama and associates, founders of IEX, we now know that the largest banks and investment houses like Goldman have been cheating. In theory, everyone has an equal shot at a purchase or sale. In reality, those physically closest to the action can see the other orders coming and jump in ahead—the ultimate insider trading. If huge companies like investment firm T. Rowe Price can get ripped off, imagine how little chance the workingman has to multiply his meager savings.

Worse, much of this conniving happens in “dark pools”—barely regulated, massive, secretive pools of money designed to fuel greater trading and thus the pool owners’ own profits with complete anonymity of the players. Here almost anything can happen, because it is unseen. The dark pools’ managers are free even to trade against their own clients or to route trades differently than requested. Ethical restraint seems not to exist. The leading dark pool is Goldman Sachs Group’s SIGMA X.

Against this background, IEX began in October 2013 as a new stock exchange, combining honesty and simplicity. No investors may be owners of IEX. The owners must place trades through brokers like everyone else, and there are only three types of trades. Most importantly, a level playing field is created by actually slowing down the speed of trades through the low-tech solution of 38 miles of fiber-optic cable coiled in a box. No one gets a jump on the other guy.

Results? Many small- and medium-size traders climbed in immediately, surpassing expectations. But the top firms still fight to keep their secret advantages.

Things began to change in December, however, when Goldman Sachs finally placed a significant trade, pushing volume past AMEX in hours. JPMorgan and others followed, and IEX is growing rapidly, with Goldman’s surprising blessing.

Honesty, bred by IEX’s intentional fairness, is becoming a popular commodity and has a chance to change stock market operations for everyone’s betterment.

Goldman has announced both potential closure of its profitable SIGMA X and further moves toward IEX. Maybe their new-found morality is motivated more by a fear of lynching, if their dark pool activities become known. Regardless, it is a positive change, to which we say, “Thank you, IEX.”

AFP Newpaper Banner

Ronald L. Ray is a freelance author and an assistant editor of THE BARNES REVIEW. He is a descendant of several patriots of the American War for Independence.