Israeli Teen Arrested for Making Bomb Threats to Jewish Centers
According to reports, a 19-year-old Jewish Israeli man has been arrested in Israel and is being charged with making “most” of the bomb threat calls to Jewish institutions since Jan. 1.
By John Tiffany
Since Jan. 1, over 100 bomb threats have been made against Jewish institutions, such as schools and community centers, around the world, including in the United States, New Zealand, and Australia. The establishment immediately insinuated that “hateful Trump supporters” were terrorizing the Jewish community. Now, it turns out a 19-year-old Jewish man living in Israel, who holds dual citizenship in America and the Middle Eastern state, stands accused of making most of the threats.
The “cyberattack unit” of Israel’s fraud squad arrested the teenager March 23, it was reported in Ha’aretz, an Israeli newspaper. The arrest was based on information received from the FBI and other non-Israeli law enforcement agencies.
The motives of the crime are as yet unknown, said an Israeli police spokesman.
Israeli cops seized computers and other equipment the “primary suspect” allegedly used to make it hard for police to track the culprit to his lair. The suspect will remain in custody for at least the next seven days while the investigation continues.
Israeli Judge Amit Michles said, “. . . reasonable suspicion already exists at this stage that convincingly links the suspect to the calls that have been attributed to him . . . to different institutions around the world . . . some of which have led to panic.”
It is looking as if something like an insanity defense is contemplated.
The prisoner’s lawyer, Galit Bash, said: “This is a young man without a criminal record who from a young age suffers from severe medical problems. There is concern that his medical condition affects his cognitive functioning. Therefore, we asked the court to order that the young man be referred to a medical examination. The court accepted our claims and instructed the police to examine the young man’s medical condition.”
The 19-year-old was never enlisted in Israel’s usually mandatory army service because he was determined to be unfit to serve.
The waves of bomb threats all turned out to be hoaxes.
In “at least three” instances, bomb threats were also reportedly accompanied by destruction at Jewish cemeteries, including one in which more than 500 headstones were broken or toppled in Philadelphia. However, in one case in Brooklyn, vandals never toppled gravestones. Instead, dozens of grave stones fell due to neglect and the fact that no one was taking care of them.
In a related case, a former Chicago reporter named Juan Thompson, 31, was arrested recently for his “role” in a number of bomb threats against Jewish centers. Allegedly, he did this “as part of an ongoing attempt to shame his former girlfriend,” Ha’aretz reported. It is not known at this time whether the two suspects are linked in some way other than coincidence.
Thompson was charged with making at least eight threats against Jewish institutions in the United States, and a bomb threat to New York’s so-called Anti-Defamation League.
John Tiffany writes exclusively for AMERICAN FREE PRESS.
Congress’s Probe Into Possible Trump-Russia Ties Fizzles
Yesterday the directors of the FBI and the National Security Agency testified before a congressional committee about a U.S. investigation into allegations of ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. Bizarrely, citing no evidence of aggression, congressmen and top U.S. officials claimed Russia continues to be a threat to the United States.
By Mark Anderson
The first day of the House Select Committee on Intelligence’s highly anticipated probe into alleged Russian involvement in influencing U.S. elections and policy saw FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency chief Mike Rogers testify in a spotty manner, going into often-speculative details and yet refusing to elaborate most of the time, under cover of “objectivity.”
Considering the conspiracy theories being pushed by most Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans that Trump administration appointees and allies privately met with Russian officials for the purpose of molding U.S.-Russian relations “off the grid,” you’d expect some kind of evidence. Instead, it was all speculation, but none of that matters for those who just assume that Russia is a dangerous arch-enemy of the United States.
It helps to sit back and take an objective look at the world stage. Russia’s entire western front consists of NATO member-nations or would-be NATO states, which, if they don’t proceed willingly, are prodded into joining NATO.
Montenegro recently became NATO’s latest member, as the U.S.-led alliance pushes ever eastward toward Russia while conducting periodic large-scale military exercises, right at the Russian border in many cases.
Imagine if Russian forces, complete with tanks and columns of soldiers, were in Canada along the U.S. border.
Members of Congress before and during the March 20 committee meeting continued to repeat the timeworn story that Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula, when “the other side of the story,” backed up by several AFP reports over the last three years, is that, in a public referendum, Crimean residents voted to align with Russia—right when a U.S.-backed overthrow of Ukraine’s leadership took place.
High-level State Department official Victoria Nuland was involved in serious on-the-ground collusion in Ukraine, far beyond what the Trump White House or campaign is accused of. This helped to foster the overthrow of Russian ally Viktor Yanukovich as Ukraine president and the installation of Western stooge Petro Poroshenko.
Today, Poroshenko stands accused of launching brutal military strikes against east Ukrainians, who traditionally have been allied with Russia.
This all means that Russia reacted to aggression by the West. And when outgoing President Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats in late December, Russian leader Vladimir Putin kept a cool head and did not respond in kind. That’s the mark of a true statesman.
You’d think that such perspectives—blotted out by the mainstream press—would at least be briefly considered at the committee hearing, if only in the interest of thoroughness.
Yet committee members singled out Russia Today (“RT.com”) as a highly untrustworthy government-linked news source that’s allegedly trying to influence Western opinion subversively.
However, all Comey and Rogers had done is concede that there is an investigation into Russia-Trump “ties.” But the overall “story” peddled to the American people is that this Russian matter is potentially so serious that the FBI and NSA are setting aside protocol and “breaking their silence” about the existence of the probe.
While addressing the committee, the two meandered through questions on whether Putin and the Russian state are really evil and whether Russia truly sought to keep Hillary Clinton from becoming president and helped catapult Trump into the White House.
While Comey and Rogers dodged many if not most questions—saying they did not find it proper to speculate on the cusp of their probe—they both claimed that Russia is indeed a foe of the U.S. And both said, yes, Russia sought to undermine U.S. “democracy” during the 2016 elections—all of which is highly biased when you consider that the two had already said that speculation is a bad thing at this juncture.
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) opined during the hearing that Russia’s election hacking was like a shot over America’s bow.
“I actually think that their engagement was an act of war, an act of hybrid warfare,” Speier stated.
In response, Comey declined to choose the word “war” to describe Russia’s supposed interference in the election. But he did say, “I think they engaged in a multi-faceted campaign of active measures to undermine our democracy and hurt one of the candidates and hope to help one of the other candidates.”
Rogers agreed with Comey’s allegation, larded as it was with the words “I think.”
So much for avoiding speculation at such a pivotal time for the FBI and its presumably objective view of Russia’s actions with regard to the U.S. election and policy.
Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.
Billionaire NWO Leader David Rockefeller Dead at 101
The noted scion of an elite banking family passed away quietly on March 20, leaving behind a legacy of globalist machinations to form a one-world government. Known for helping establish the infamous Bilderberg group, David Rockefeller has been absent from the annual gathering of late, but early predictions have this year’s Bilderberg likely taking place in Virginia.
By Mark Anderson
When David Rockefeller passed away March 20 at the age of 101, the last of the five grandsons of oil titan John D. Rockefeller—besides David, they were John D. III, Winthrop, Lawrence and Nelson—left behind a “new world order,” something that this oil-and-banking dynastic family labored so heavily to build.
It’s instructive to keep in mind that Rockefeller, whose NWO efforts were partly done through his longtime presidency of Chase Manhattan Bank, was instrumental in solidifying the influence of the infamous Bilderberg Group.
Bilderberg is a highly secretive deep-state clique. It was formed in Holland in 1954 and meets annually in the most exclusive resorts, bringing together former and current government finance ministers, former and current NATO and other military heads, high-technology gurus, futurists, select royalty, top corporate titans, “think-tankers,” central bankers, and current and former legislators. It also includes carefully vetted media that participate in the Bilderberg meetings but honor their pledge not to report on the proceedings.
The meetings are surrounded by heavily armed private security guards and police forces. No other think tank or private consortium behaves in this manner.
Notably, there’s preliminary evidence that Bilderberg will return to the U.S. this year, possibly in Virginia, as it did in 2012. But as of this writing, that was not confirmed.
Rockefeller died the very day that the House Select Committee on Intelligence began probing whether Trump campaign officials and appointees and sundry allies colluded with Russian officials. The committee is seeking to confirm whether Russia indirectly hacked the Democratic National Committee’s emails as well as those of John Podesta when he headed up Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president.
The apparent end-goal is to prove that Donald Trump would not have won the 2016 presidential election without Russia hacking emails and using the information to discredit Hillary Clinton and help ensure her loss.
Most of the committee’s members—gathering the spotty testimony of FBI Director James Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers—are alleging that private citizens (such as former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, longtime Republican strategist Roger Stone, and several others) in some manner colluded with Russia to discredit Mrs. Clinton and to influence U.S. policy toward Russia prior to Trump’s Jan. 20 inauguration.
Ironically, the Bilderberg meetings, which the late Rockefeller was so instrumental in advancing, have for the last 63 years provided a perfect platform for U.S. citizens and U.S. government officials to curry favor, make deals, and share information with various current and former foreign government officials, central bankers, and high-level corporate heads from several nations—behind closed doors.
Interestingly, the Logan Act, a 1798 U.S. law that prohibits U.S. citizens from engaging in private deal-making and diplomacy with foreign officials, has been dusted off by intelligence committee members, who claim that some Trump allies have broken that law.
As AFP has established after decades following Bilderberg, it’d be much safer to say that the Bilderberg consortium has routinely skirted or broken the Logan Act. But when AFP contacted the FBI, CIA, and other federal agencies in writing four years ago about Bilderberg’s intrigues, and to find out whether U.S. tax dollars helped U.S. officials attend Bilderberg meetings, rather cryptic replies, professing utter denial of Bilderberg’s significance, arrived in AFP’s mailbox—even though the CIA itself played a role in Bilderberg’s formation.
Rockefeller was clearly aware that key media outlets involved in Bilderberg’s deep-state matrix—outlets that today are out for blood regarding the Trump White House—have long aided and abetted international intrigue and private collusion via their connection to the powerful global group.
Indeed, long before claims about “fake news” surfaced, Rockefeller, during the 1991 Bilderberg meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany, was reported to have said: “We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march toward a world government.”
While Rockefeller presided over the Bilderberg-connected Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) think tank in the 70s and 80s, and while he remained a highly honored and influential CFR apparatchik for the rest of his life, this and other admissions of his showed that the real collusion—the kind that the FBI and NSA should truly take an interest in—has been happening in an ongoing fashion among globalist cliques and is hardly limited to whoever’s in the White House.
As Rockefeller later wrote in his dull tome, Memoirs: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.
Federal Courts Say Foreigners, Not Citizens, Entitled To Due Process
How is it that federal courts in the U.S. can block an executive order on foreign immigration issued by the president because it’s unconstitutional, but they are unwilling to grant the same rulings when it comes to Americans’ rights?
Paul Craig Roberts
The Constitution applies to U.S. citizens, and the amendments known as the Bill of Rights guarantee due process as a protection of U.S. citizens’ civil liberties. That’s the theory but not the practice.
Trump’s travel ban applies to non-U.S. citizens, primarily to refugees from the Bush/Obama bombings of numerous Muslim countries. Some of these refugees, whose families and countries were destroyed by American troops, could harbor feelings of revenge against Americans. The Ninth Circuit Panel’s injunction against Trump’s executive order gives the Constitution’s protection of U.S. citizens to non-citizens, apparently on the basis of due process and religious discrimination arguments. The panel of judges said that Trump’s executive order “runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.”
So too does bombing numerous Muslim countries over the course of the past 16 years, about which nothing has been done. One would think that, with the Democratic Party’s merger with Identity Politics and with the liberal/progressive/left leaning of the Ninth Circuit, more of a stink would have been raised about bombing Muslims gratuitously than on placing a mere ban on their entry into the U.S. But it all depends on who does the bombing and who does the ban. Identity politics requires “America’s first black president” to be supported at all costs, and Trump, a white, heterosexual, male billionaire, to be hated at all costs.
Dear readers, note that the U.S. federal courts roll out the Constitution in order to protect non-citizens from a president’s executive order preventing their entry into the U.S., but refused to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens from arbitrary indefinite detention and execution without due process.
The fact that constitutional rights no longer apply to citizens, only to non-citizens, has evoked no comment from the liberal-progressive left, from the Democratic Party, from Harvard Law School, from the American Bar Association, or from the Federalist Society. Not from anyone, and for my reward for telling the truth Harvard University Library has published a large list of “False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and Satirical ‘News’ Sources” on which paulcraigroberts.org is included.
Harvard’s library does not say where the list came from or why the list is credible. I am on the list for “bias” and “conspiracy.” The “bias” means that I do not accept the ruling establishment’s self-serving explanations, and “conspiracy” means that I report on the findings of the 3,000 high-rise architects and structural engineers who comprise A&E for 9/11 Truth, the Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and the Scientists for 9/11 Truth, all of whom are far more knowledgeable about 9/11 than the Harvard librarian or the Harvard faculty.
Americans, and apparently Harvard’s library, are unaware that hardly any of the experts who have chosen to speak out about the official 9/11 story, including those first responders inside the two towers, believe a word of the official story. Harvard’s librarians are apparently so ill-read that they are unfamiliar with books by the 9/11 Commission’s chairman, vice chairman, and legal counsel, who wrote that information was withheld from the 9/11 Commission and that the commission was “set up to fail.” Harvard’s librarian is apparently unfamiliar with the testimony of demolition experts that the buildings came down as a result of controlled demolition. Harvard’s librarian is apparently ignorant of the panel of scientists headed by a University of Copenhagen nano-chemist who reported finding both reacted and unreacted nano-thermite in the dust of the twin towers and who offered their samples for confirmation by other scientists.
Harvard University has no interest in truth. Harvard’s sole interest is to remain a member of the ruling establishment. As that requires telling lies, Harvard will tell lies. Lies bring Harvard riches, making Harvard so rich that, as Ron Unz argues, Harvard does not need to charge tuition and does so only out of greed.
Decades ago my University of California, Berkeley economics professor became dean of arts and sciences at Harvard. My term paper for the course had been published in the prestigious journal Classica et Medievalia. Years later, when he learned that my book, The Supply-Side Revolution, had passed the peer-review process of Harvard University Press and was slated for publication, he sent for me.
He said that he wanted to have me appointed to the Harvard economics faculty, because the university’s belief in econometrics had proven false and the economics faculty needed a broad-based person such as myself to bring the subject back to life in the real world. I wished him good luck and wondered how a dean this naive had survived at Harvard.
For the dean at Harvard, my work was a strong point. I was the first to explain the Soviet economy both as an organizational system and in terms of the original Marxist aspirations. I had reformulated the Pirenne Thesis, and my reformulation had been included into reading texts used in courses in medieval history and urban economics. I had produced new insights into economic policy and had identified regulation as a factor of production. My macroeconomic contributions had corrected the Keynesian deficiencies and extended the role of relative prices into macroeconomics. This seminal work had passed the peer-review process of Harvard University Press and resulted in the publication of my book, The Supply-Side Revolution, recently republished in the Chinese language in China, but still derided by American ignoramuses as “trickle-down economics.”
Harvard University Press kept The Supply-Side Revolution in print for decades. Despite this fact, even people I highly respect, such as Michael Hudson and Lewis Lapham, have no idea what supply-side economics is about and misrepresent it as some kind of preferment for the rich, which shows the power of the establishment to control the understanding of even highly intelligent people.
To get back to the story, my appointment to Harvard’s economic faculty was blocked by the economics department’s resistance on the basis that I was too disruptive of the orthodoxy. Me and Michael Hudson.
The orthodoxy has a large investment in human capital in protecting the rights of the 1% to plunder the rest of us. Those academics who support this plunder are the ones who prosper in the American academy, just as the presstitutes who lie for a living do in the American media.
So here I am, a peer-reviewed and published Harvard University Press author and peer-reviewed Oxford University Press author, whose books are now available in Chinese, Russian, German, Czech, Turkish, French, Spanish, and Korean, a person who has held the highest security clearances and once had subpoena power over the CIA, who has the French Legion of Honor, who has the U.S. Treasury’s Silver Medal, who has letters of thanks from President Reagan for my contributions to U.S. economic policy, who is asked to speak all over the world, who was Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University for decades, the William E. Simon Chair of Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University for 12 years, assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury, associate editor of The Wall Street Journal, columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service, etc., and so on, and some dumbshit at the Harvard library posts a list that says I am a suspect source of information.
This is the world we live in.
Even the most prestigious institutions are utterly corrupt. No one is there for the American people or for truth, or for anything or anyone except the 1%. Americans are shot down in the streets, whites along with blacks, by militarized police trained to see the people who pay their salaries as enemies. Muslims are bombed into the Stone Age. Reformist Latin American governments are routinely overthrown. European countries are intimidated, bribed, and reduced to vassal status. Aggression is displayed toward Russia, China, and Iran. America has become a great collection of evil. The good in the country is voiceless and without power. Evil rules us.
This is why this site is important. If you do not support it, you are bringing about your own demise.
I don’t have to write. My writing brings me insults from narcissistic, ignorant egomaniacs, puts me on black lists, makes overseas travel difficult, and possibly negatively impacts my relatives. The United States has devolved into a police state where truth is “the enemy of the state,” which makes me suspect. Why should I write without your support? If you aren’t willing to support the fight, for whom am I writing?
NOTE: The Harvard Library website, perhaps in response to my criticism, has now identified Melissa Zimdars as an assistant professor of communication at Merrimack College. The library still has a link to Zimdars’ list of fake news websites, but the link opens to something else.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury under President Ronald Reagan and was associate editor and columnist at The Wall Street Journal. He has been a professor of economics in six universities, and is the author of numerous books available in American Free Press‘s Bookstore.
Trump Needs to Jettison Iran Hawks Circling White House
A recent conference in Tehran attended by AFP underlined the global support for Palestine—and challenged President Donald Trump to stand up for the oppressed.
By Kevin Barrett
TEHRAN, Iran—The expression “Tehran conference” usually refers to the historic meeting of Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin in November 1943. But a more recent Tehran conference—the Sixth International Conference on the Palestinian Intifada—held Feb. 21 and 22, may turn out to be just as historic.
Nearly 1,000 people from roughly 80 nations around the world, including heads of parliament and other high-level dignitaries, met in Tehran to vow all-out support for the Palestinian liberation struggle. And although all of Iran’s highest officials participated, including President Hassan Rouhani, Parliament Speaker Ali Laranjani, military chiefs Mohammed Bagheri and Mohammad Ali Jafari, and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, it was Supreme Leader Sayyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei’s eloquent voice and long-term commitment to the Palestinian cause that carried the most weight.
This author was one of nine Americans participating as part of a non-governmental-organization sponsored sub-delegation of about 50 pro-Palestine alternative writers and intellectuals from around the world. The U.S. contingent spanned the ideological spectrum from the left (Sander Hicks) to the right (E. Michael Jones) with most falling somewhere in between.
Many of the U.S. participants have been marginalized in their own country for voicing strong anti-Zionist positions, including critiques of Jewish tribal power that are taboo in the West. People like E. Michael Jones of Culture Wars magazine, Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review, and Mark Glenn of Crescent and Cross are vilified and banned from mainstream discourse in the West, yet welcomed and appreciated in Iranian intellectual circles. Jones calls Tehran “the capital of the free world.”
Likewise, two anti-Zionist Naturei Karta rabbis, Yisroel Dovid Weiss and Ahron Cohen (whose car was destroyed in a 2014 arson attack), are despised and excluded from the American and British Jewish communities, yet wildly popular in Iran.
Khamenei opened the conference by laying out the problem in no uncertain terms: “[Israel’s] entity and identity are dependent on the gradual destruction of the entity and identity of Palestine.” In other words, Zionism equals genocide. Khamenei termed Zionism a “cancerous tumor” and said the cure is fearless resistance, which will, in stages, gradually put Israel into an untenable situation, leading to a peaceful ending of the Zionist experiment in aggression, wholesale theft of land and resources, and Jewish-superiority apartheid. All of the leading Palestinian resistance groups sent high-level representatives to the conference. These included Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
All of those sometimes feuding groups have managed to get on the same page during the past few months, thanks in part to the Iranian commitment to bringing together all the main currents of Palestinian freedom fighters. Hezbollah, the Lebanese group fighting Israeli occupation and ISIS, was also represented.
Iran’s commitment to unifying the world’s pro-Palestine forces is especially heroic given current political realities. In recent years, Israel has succeeded in consolidating its power not only in America and the West, but also in the backward, dictatorial portion of the Arab world. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf oil sheikhdoms are now openly allied with the Zionists.
Against this background, President Donald Trump and some of his advisors have taken extreme anti-Iran positions that conflict with the U.S. national interest. Two weeks after his inauguration, Trump called Iran “the world’s leading terrorist state.” Yet, in reality, Iran and its ally Hezbollah are the world’s leading fighters against the only two “Islamic” militant groups that target the West: al Qaeda and ISIS.
So why does Trump think Iran sponsors terrorism? Because his good friend Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and his Zionist son-in-law Jared Kushner tell him so. The Zionists consider anti-Israel resistance groups “terrorists.”
Iran supports them. That is why the Zionist-dominated United States has gone along with Israeli efforts to label Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad “terrorists.”
The U.S. is shooting itself in the foot by siding with the Zionists against the people of the Middle East and the world. A Chinese delegate at the conference expressed shock when I told her I was from the United States.
“What?” she asked me. “You are from America? Why do the Iranians let you in?”
While American businesses are basically banned by their own Zionist-run government from trading with Tehran, other nations, led by the Chinese, are making money by dominating global trade with the Iranians, the most productive, technologically sophisticated people in the Middle East.
Will the Trump administration ultimately let go of its Iran hawks, like former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, and decide to pursue America’s interests rather than those of Israel?
If that day ever comes, a whole lot more Americans—businessmen and tourists, not just dissident writers like this one—will be borrowing the book title from Flynt and Hillary Leverett and Going to Tehran.
Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., is an Arabist-Islamologist scholar and one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. From 1991 through 2006, Dr. Barrett taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin. In 2006, however, he was attacked by Republican state legislators who called for him to be fired from his job at the University of Wisconsin-Madison due to his political opinions. Since 2007, Dr. Barrett has been informally blacklisted from teaching in American colleges and universities. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, public speaker, author, and talk radio host. He lives in rural western Wisconsin.
Isis Is Us
Did the “Islamic State” spring full-blown into spontaneous being as the fanatical scourge of the Middle East, or was it helped along by state sponsors?
There are uncanny parallels with Iran-Contra. In the 1980s, the Reagan team wanted to topple the government of Nicaragua, using mercenaries, or death squads, based in Honduras. But Congress passed a law against it. So they went around by financing the Contras via Iran.
Thirty years later, the hawks in Washington wanted to topple the elected governments of Libya and Syria, crush the popular resistance in Iraq, and split up those countries on ethnic lines. Once again, they wanted to do this using death squads. So they got around Congress by having Qatar and the Saudis finance it.
To set up the Sunni and Shiite death squads to fight each other in Iraq, they sent John Negroponte as ambassador to Baghdad in 2004. The same guy they sent to Honduras as ambassador from 1981 to 1985. Then in 2011 they sent some of those killers from Iraq to Libya to overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, with NATO air cover. From Libya, they were sent to Syria to start the killing there.
The U.S.embedded media perversely pinned these killings on Libyan leader Bashar al-Assad, following the script for another NATO invasion. Only Russia’s UN veto spared Syria. So the sheikhs kept financing the “rebels” – and the U.S. pretended to fight them – until they grew into the ISIS terror army. They and their backers have still not quit.
Even Fox News is saying the U.S. coalition against ISIS is a myth.
In a recent U.S. poll, just 18% think we have the upper hand in the “war on terror.” In a Syrian poll, 82% of respondents there said the U.S. and its allies created ISIS.
The wave of refugees, attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and early reception to this book, indicate that people want an end to the “war on terror,” and they want to know what’s really going on.
European efforts to subjugate the Middle East go back to the British, Napoleon, the Crusades, the Romans, and Alexander the Great. The British knew the best way to permanently hold a territory was to settle it. This is how they beat the French in North America. The Old World was already well-settled, though. So to capture the Near East prize, England joined forces with Herzl’s Zionists. In 1917, their Balfour Declaration announced the plan for Jewish settlement in Palestine.
Another way to hold vast domains is divide and sow chaos, to smash them up into quarreling fiefdoms. And the cheapest way to get people to fight each other is with religion. British, French, Israeli and American strategists have all written plans to rule the Muslim world by breaking up all the Arab states along sectarian lines. That goal is what “ethnic cleansing,” Al Qaida, ISIS death squads, “Islamic jihad” terrorism, the Bushes’ wars on Iraq and even 9/11 are really all about.
Softcover, 270 pages
Ecology, Ideology and Power
This book warns against the effort to sell a reactionary economic, political, and social agenda dressed up as concern for and protection of the environment. The author is in no way opposed to any genuine ecological concerns, but this work demonstrates that what we call “environmentalism” is primarily an expression of the world view of segments of the world’s upper class. When they talk to us about pollution, resource scarcity, and overpopulation, they are actually talking about their own fears and hatreds of the common people, and their ambitions for themselves. Whatever label we affix to today’s environmentalism, it is certain that it carries over into the 21st century the same kinds of reactionary, aristocratic, and elitist tendencies evident two centuries ago in England and Germany. Such tendencies also emerged in a significant way in the late 1800s in the United States, involving Malthusianism, social Darwinism, and the eugenics movement.
The New World Order in Action, Vol. 1
This is the first of a three-volume major project which aims to cover all aspects of the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal globalization, with its effort at full integration of every country in the world into this new order. The phasing out of economic and national sovereignty implied by this process has led to a global popular movement for sovereignty, i.e. self-determination and against globalization.
The rise of the NWO and the role of the Transnational Elite, that is, the network of the economic and political elites which administers it, are examined in the first volume. Furthermore, the mythology used by the elites as well as by the globalist “Left” is examined.
It was the full integration of the Left into the new order, which has led to its political bankruptcy and the rise of a neo-nationalist movement, embraced by most of the victims of globalization and particularly the working class that used to support the Left. The need for a struggle for national as well as social liberation has become imperative today.
In the following volumes it will be shown how the use of economic and military violence in the Middle East and Europe was successfully used for the full integration into the NWO of Iraq, Libya, Syria, as well as Ukraine and Greece.
Softcover, 354 pages
Amazon Bows to Pressure After Blitzkrieg Against Freedom of Speech
In early March, to the shock and dismay of free speech advocates around the world, Internet retail giant Amazon caved to pressure from special interest groups and mainstream news outlets and quietly pulled at least 100 political and historical books from its website. Read the report below to see which books were targeted.
By Paul Angel
“Who controls the past, controls the future,” or so said George Orwell in his prescient book 1984. He also warned that, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” Today, it seems the global thought censors are taking Mr. Orwell literally. As this week’s American Free Press went to press, we received word that, so far, hundreds of history books and e-publications have been removed in one fell swoop from the largest and most lucrative vending website in the world—Amazon.com, owned and run by Jeff Bezos (currently worth at least $73.4 billion, according to Forbes Magazine). Note that Amazon by itself accounted for 31% of all online sales on Cyber Weekend 2016 and 61% of all online sales growth in 2015, far surpassing all others.
Most of the books removed from Amazon deal with alternative views of World War II history, including hundreds of scholarly tomes by chemists, scientists, researchers, and philosophers who question taboo details about WWII that are illegal to discuss in a dozen or more European nations. Obviously, Bezos did not want to deal with this growing public relations nightmare. Revisionist historian Germar Rudolf, one of the world’s most reputable revisionist scholars, informed us that Castle Hill Publishers had 68 print books and 72 e-books removed for sale from Amazon.
Anti-Zionist Jewish philosopher Gerard Menuhin saw his book Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil—a book about Zionist power—removed from Amazon in the blink of an eye. The Bad War: The Truth Never Taught About World War II by Michael King, a book touching on the role of the Rothschild in fomenting unrest in Europe before WWII, was also banned. Peter Winter’s The Six Million: Fact or Fiction, was specifically singled out by Yad Vashem, Israel’s official Holocaust museum, as particularly onerous. We expect more book burnings to come in the very near future.
So how does one so efficiently carry out the biggest book banning since 60,000 titles were removed from the shelves of German libraries after World War II by the victorious powers? Who holds such power over companies like Amazon and Google and YouTube, who represent, together, net worths of somewhere approaching a trillion dollars?
Among other groups concerned about maintaining political correctness on the Internet, a group called the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BDBJ) takes partial credit, along with Yad Vashem and the World Jewish Congress. According to BDBJ VP Marie van der Zyl, “It is very welcome that Amazon has listened and removed the offending titles from their website. These are not works of historical integrity. They are an anti-Semitic attempt to exonerate the Nazis of their crimes and to stoke the fires of hatred.”
Historian Rudolf had this to say: “The sweeping mass ban enforced within hours, and the senseless aimlessness and random nature with which it was implemented, clearly show that these books were not pulled because their content was checked and found impermissible, but because someone (probably Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial Museum) had sent [Bezos] a list of items to ban, and Amazon simply complied by checking off all the items on that list.”
Stay tuned and start receiving AFP’s electronic newsletters via email by signing up at American FreePress.net. The issue of Internet censorship is evolving so rapidly, it’s the only way you’ll be able to keep up with the coming reportage we’ll be bringing you on this important story.
Paul Angel is a writer, graphic designer, and publisher and lives in Virginia.
Why Is McCain Hijacking Trump’s America First Foreign Policy?
What has happened to the foreign policy that Americans voted for on Nov. 8 with the election of Donald Trump, to include peace with Russia, an end to U.S. wars in the Middle East, and having rich allies pay for the cost of their own defense?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
“The senator from Kentucky,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), speaking of his colleague Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), “is working for Vladimir Putin . . . and I do not say that lightly.” What did Paul do to deserve being called a hireling of Putin? He declined to support McCain’s call for a unanimous Senate vote to bring Montenegro into NATO as the 29th member of a Cold War alliance President Donald Trump has called “obsolete.”
Bordered by Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania, tiny Montenegro has a population roughly that of D.C., and sits on the western coast of the most volatile peninsula in Europe.
What strategic benefit would accrue from having Montenegro as an ally that would justify the risk of our having to go to war should some neighbor breach Montenegro’s borders?
Historically, the Balkans have been an incubator of war. In the 19th century, Otto von Bismarck predicted that when the Great War came, it would come out of “some damn fool thing in the Balkans.” And so it did when the Austrian archduke was assassinated in Sarajevo June 28, 1914 by Serbian ethnonationalist Gavrilo Princip.
Aflame with ethnic, civil, and sectarian war in the 1990s, the western Balkans are again in political turmoil. Milo Djukanovic, the longtime Montenegrin prime minister who resigned on election day in October, claims that he was targeted for assassination by Russia to prevent Montenegro’s accession to NATO.
Russia denies it. But on the Senate floor, McCain raged at Rand Paul: “You are achieving the objectives of Vladimir Putin . . . trying to dismember this small country which has already been the subject of an attempted coup.”
But if Montenegro, awash in corruption and crime, is on the verge of an uprising or coup, why would the U.S. issue a war guarantee that could vault us into a confrontation with Russia—without a full Senate debate?
The vote that needs explaining here is not Paul’s.
It is the votes of those senators who are handing out U.S.-NATO war guarantees to countries most Americans could not find on a map.
Is no one besides Paul asking the relevant questions here?
What vital U.S. interest is imperiled in who comes to power in Podgorica, Montenegro? Why cannot Europe handle this problem in its own back yard?
Has Trump given McCain, who wanted President George W. Bush to intervene in a Russia-Georgia war—over South Ossetia—carte blanche to hand out war guarantees to unstable Balkan states?
Did Trump approve the expansion of NATO into all the successor states born of the bloody breakup of Yugoslavia?
Or is McCain hijacking U.S. foreign policy on NATO and Russia?
Trump should tell the Senate: No more admissions to NATO, no more U.S. war guarantees, unless I have recommended or approved them. Foreign policy is made in the White House, not on the Senate floor.
Indeed, what happened to the foreign policy America voted for—rapprochement with Russia, an end to U.S. wars in the Middle East, and having rich allies share more of the cost of their own defense?
It is U.S., not NATO defense spending that is rising to more than $50 billion this year. And today we learn the Pentagon has drawn up plans for the insertion of 1,000 more U.S. troops into Syria. While the ISIS caliphate seems doomed, this six-year Syrian war is far from over.
An al-Qaida subsidiary, the Nusra Front, has become the most formidable rebel fighting group. Syria’s army, with the backing of Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and Shiite militias from across the Middle East, has carved out most of the territory it needs.
The Turkish army is now in Syria, beside its rebel allies. Their main enemy: Syria’s Kurds, who are America’s allies.
From our longest war, Afghanistan, comes word from U.S. Gen. John Nicholson that we and our Afghan allies are in a “stalemate” with the Taliban, and he will need a “few thousand” more U.S. troops—to augment the 8,500 President Barack Obama left behind when he left office.
Some 5,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq, helping to liberate Mosul from ISIS. In Kabul, Baghdad, and Damascus, terrorist bombings are a weekly, if not a daily, occurrence.
Then there is the U.S. troop buildup in Poland and the Baltic, the U.S. deployment of a missile defense to South Korea after multiple missile tests in the North, and Russia and China talking of upgrading their nuclear arsenals to counter U.S. missile defenses in Poland, Romania, and South Korea.
In and around the waters of the Persian Gulf, United States warships are harassed by Iranian patrol boats, as Tehran test-fires anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles to send the Americans a message: Attack us and it will not be a cakewalk war.
With the death of Communism, the end of the Cold War, and the collapse of the Bushite New World Order, America needs a new grand strategy, built upon the solid foundation of America first.
Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?
COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM
Did Chinese Regime-Change Plot Lead to Assassination?
According to reports, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un may have found out about a planned coup to replace him with his brother, Kim Jong Nam, that was being orchestrated by the Chinese and ordered the murder of his brother.
By Richard Walker
The meticulously planned assassination in a Malaysian airport of Kim Jong Nam, the older half-brother of North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, was like the plot of a spy novel, but missing from much of the coverage was the hidden hand of China.
Nam was casually making his way through Kuala Lumpur international airport on Feb. 13 to fly back to his home in Macau, a small Chinese territory best known for its gambling and high rollers, when his life came to an abrupt end within a span of 15 minutes. Two young local women, in what onlookers assumed was a prank, came up behind him, rubbed a cloth against his face and fled. Within minutes he was suffering from breathlessness, blurred vision, and nausea. Security staff moved him to a medical room where he collapsed and died. It was as if he had been bitten by one of the world’s deadliest snakes, but the substance that killed him was instead a highly toxic chemical weapon known as VX.
A colorless liquid, VX can only be weaponized in a miniature form by a highly sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory like those run by the major powers and a few nations like Israel and North Korea. There is no means of detecting it, making it easy to transport across national boundaries. There is also no known antidote.
Once it touches the skin or eyes, as it did in this case, death comes in minutes. VX can be used by the military in a gas form dispersed in missiles. A small quantity will kill an entire city’s population. Assassins have to be specially trained to transfer even a microscopic quantity to a cloth, as occurred in this case.
The two female assassins were patsies, who had been coached for their role. One claimed she was paid $90 and believed she was participating in a television prank. The two were quickly apprehended, but not the two four-man teams of North Korean intelligence operatives lurking nearby. One team left on a flight to North Korea shortly after the killing, and the one that stayed behind tried, but failed, to steal Nam’s corpse from the local coroner’s office.
Two hit teams would have been standard procedure of a kind frequently used by Mossad assassins.
One team would have remained close to the action, with the other ready at the last moment to deliver a lethal VX dose to Nam if the first attempt had failed.
The killing had echoes of Mossad’s botched attempt to kill Hamas leader Khaled Meschaal in 1977 in Amman, Jordan with a syringe filled with a chemical weapon, as well as the 2006 murder of defector Alexander Litvinenko in London. It is believed that Russian assassins slipped Litvinenko a miniscule dose of weaponized polonium 210—an atomic element—by putting it in his tea at a meeting in a London hotel.
So how did Kim Jong Un come to order the murder of his older half-brother, who had once been their late father Kim Jong Il’s choice to succeed him? First, one has to examine the Kim family history. Nam fell out of favor with his father after he tried to leave the country with his family for a trip to Disneyland, using bogus Portuguese passports. The matter became an international scandal, and in 2001 he was forced into exile.
While he traveled a lot, Nam had a wife and children in Macau under the watchful eyes of its Chinese overlords. While he had a reputation for gambling, it was exaggerated in the mass media.
In fact, he was well read and became openly critical of the dynastic rule of his half-brother. He spent most of his life in top hotels in Macau, but his family remained in a seaside villa.
He was aware his opposition to the North Korean regime might result in assassins being sent to eliminate him. Friends say he pleaded with his brother to leave him and his family alone. He was often accompanied by two female bodyguards and was advised not to stray far from Macau where the Chinese could watch him. He believed that since rich North Koreans gambled in Macau, hid money in its banks, and bought Western goods there, his half-brother would not jeopardize that arrangement by killing him there.
According to a British intelligence source who spoke to this writer on condition of anonymity, in the past year China became so concerned about Un’s erratic behavior and missile launches that it began to imagine a North Korea without him. It was convinced North Koreans would accept Nam as a dynastic replacement.
While China ruminated about how to get rid of Un, it is believed that his spies discovered what they were up to. The story is Un decided to outsmart the Chinese and strike first. By killing his potential successor in Malaysia, and not on Chinese territory, he ensured that China had no grounds to retaliate diplomatically by closing off Macau to North Koreans.
Richard Walker is the pen name of a former television producer who now writes exclusively for AMERICAN FREE PRESS.
Wikileaks Opens ‘Vault 7’ Exposing CIA Hacking, Cyber Spy Tools
Earlier this month, the international whistleblowing organization, Wikileaks, released information that it had been handed millions of lines of code that the CIA uses to spy on governments, individuals, and organizations around the world.
By John Friend
In early March, WikiLeaks—the notorious international non-profit organization that works with whistleblowers, hackers, and other anonymous individuals to expose secret and classified information detailing government corruption and malfeasance—published the first installment of what has been described as the largest ever collection of secret government and intelligence files, all of which pertain to the CIA, America’s top spy agency.
The data dump, code-named “Vault 7” by WikiLeaks, includes thousands of secret CIA documents detailing a rogue agency that has focused much of its attention and resources on hacking, spying, and cyber-warfare but failed to secure and protect their capabilities. The initial release of secret documents, totaling 8,761 files originating from “an isolated, high-security network situated inside the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley, Va.,” is known as “Year Zero,” and exposes a variety of arguably illegal and certainly concerning CIA activities, according to a press release published by WikiLeaks.
“‘Year Zero’ introduces the scope and direction of the CIA’s global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of ‘zero day’ weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products, including Apple’s iPhone, Google’s Android and Microsoft’s Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones,” WikiLeaks’ press release describing its latest data dump states. “Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized ‘zero day’ exploits, malware remote control systems, and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA. The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.”
In a press conference announcing and highlighting the findings of the initial publication of the documents associated with “Vault 7,” WikiLeaks founder and chief spokesman Julian Assange charged the CIA with “devastating incompetence” for failing to protect and secure their hacking secrets, and pledged to work with various technology companies to address the vulnerabilities.
“This is a historic act of devastating incompetence, to have created such an arsenal and then stored it all in one place,” Assanged averred. “It is impossible to keep effective control of cyber weapons. . . If you build them, eventually you will lose them.”
Assange went on to note that his organization possessed “a lot more information” about the CIA’s cyber warfare operations, which include its hacking and surveillance capabilities, malware systems, and viruses, and vowed to wait to release the information until technology companies and manufacturers had been consulted.
“We have decided to work with them [tech companies] to give them some exclusive access to the additional technical details we have so fixes can be developed and then pushed out,” Assange stated. “Once this material is effectively disarmed by us we will publish additional details about what has been occurring.”
Of particular importance in the recent WikiLeaks disclosures is the fact that the CIA, especially since 9/11, has developed “its own substantial fleet of hackers,” according to the press release published by WikiLeaks announcing the initial release of “Vault 7.”
“The agency’s hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA’s hacking capacities,” the press release states. “By the end of 2016, the CIA’s hacking division, which formally falls under the agency’s Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over 5,000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other ‘weaponized’ malware. Such is the scale of the CIA’s undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than that used to run Facebook. The CIA had created, in effect, its ‘own NSA’ with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified.”
Glenn Greenwald, a journalist close to Assange who worked with Edward Snowden to expose a variety of shady and illegal U.S. government spying operations, recently appeared on the BBC to weigh in on the latest revelations by WikiLeaks.
“One very significant revelation is that the CIA actively encourages and at times even pays various companies and organizations to preserve vulnerabilities that they are able to exploit in a lot of these software programs, which means that not only they can go through these ‘backdoors’ that they make sure exist, but so can hacker groups or terrorist organizations or other nation states and it shows the CIA, like the NSA, is making the Internet more unsafe for everyone, and I think that’s very disturbing,” Greenwald noted.
WikiLeaks’ primary source for the secret CIA documents that have and will be released argues these issues “urgently need to be debated in public,” and aims “to initiate a public debate about the security, creation, use, proliferation, and democratic control of cyberweapons.”
Given the secrecy surrounding the CIA and the power it has amassed since its creation, getting to the bottom of all of this will no doubt prove to be a major challenge. Do not expect the CIA and other deep state actors to willingly cooperate with WikiLeaks.
John Friend is a writer and lives in California.
Convicted for Self Defense Against BLM Thugs
A conservative video journalist and blogger, who drew his legal handgun to scare off a rampaging crowd during a recent protest in Portland, has been convicted of felony charges.
By John Friend
A recent court decision involving a political activist’s attendance at a Black Lives Matter (BLM) protest last summer demonstrates just how tyrannical America has become in an era of political correctness, hostility toward the Second Amendment, and a glorification of minorities and leftist activists.
In Portland, Ore., Michael Strickland, a 37-yearold conservative blogger, journalist, and activist who maintains the popular YouTube channel “LaughingAtLiberals,” was recently found guilty of 21 felony and misdemeanor charges stemming from his presence at a BLM protest in early July of last year.
Strickland, known for his coverage of radical leftist events, was filming a BLM protest in downtown Portland on the evening of July 7 when he was confronted by a large group of hostile BLM protesters, some of whom were masked, armed with flag poles, and making threats against Strickland while advancing toward the citizen-journalist.
It must be noted that radical leftist protesters, often masked, violently assaulted their political opponents—and even innocent bystanders—repeatedly throughout the 2016 election season, causing personal injury and private property damage on numerous occasions. Additionally, BLM protests often devolve into riots, where violence, looting, and destruction take place on a massive scale.
Fearing for his safety and being completely outnumbered, Strickland briefly drew his Glock semiautomatic handgun to ward off the hostile crowd that was hounding him. Amateur video footage of the protest and confrontation shows Strickland retreating while being pursued by a group of BLM protesters before eventually brandishing his firearm, for which he had a legal concealed carry permit, only to quickly reholster his weapon after the situation was de-escalated and the crowd backed off.
“What happened was there were about 10 or 12 people that surrounded me,” Strickland explained at the time. “They started pushing and shoving me. They were using their flag staffs as weapons. I’m backing up, they kept coming toward me. . . . That’s why I drew. . . . I was outnumbered, they were pushing and shoving me. . . . I feared for my life, because I was outnumbered, and they had weapons.”
Video of Michael Strickland Drawing His Legal Firearm
Shortly after the confrontation, a SWAT team arrived and Strickland was apprehended and taken into custody, charged with menacing and disorderly conduct.
At Strickland’s recent trial, Judge Thomas Ryan found the conservative activist guilty of 10 counts of unlawful use of a weapon, 10 counts of menacing, and one count of second-degree disorderly conduct for brandishing his legally concealed firearm at protesters that fateful evening.
While Strickland argued he was acting in self-defense, prosecutors contended he did not have a legitimate fear of being in imminent danger or of being physically hurt.
Strickland is scheduled to be sentenced in May.
The reaction to Strickland’s conviction from Second Amendment and free speech activists has been justifiable outrage.
“Given all the violence that we’ve seen at Black Lives Matter and other leftist demonstrations, Strickland clearly had cause to fear for his life,” Chris Cantwell, a leading libertarian and gun rights activist, writer, and host of “The Radical Agenda,” a popular podcast, recently explained to AFP in an email exchange.
“He displayed his weapon in its holster and warned the demonstrators as he walked backward, and they continued to pursue him as he retreated, so he pulled out his gun and pointed it at his assailants without firing a shot. He showed extraordinary restraint, and if the self defense laws of Portland, Ore. do not allow for this kind of measured defensive posturing, then they will certainly—and almost certainly already have—gotten people killed. If a gun owner has to wait until his assailants are on top of him to draw his weapon, then at that point he has little choice but to fire. George Zimmerman comes to mind. Strickland may have saved a lot of lives that day, not least of all his own.”
Unfortunately, Strickland’s case has received little mainstream coverage, a fact recently pointed out by Mark Walters of “AmmoLand.com,” a pro-Second Amendment website.
This is a clear-cut case of “self-defense, so compelling that the nation needs to see and hear it, yet it is blatantly and intentionally neglected by the ‘dominant’ and failing ‘mainstream media,’” Walters recently wrote.
After reviewing the footage of the confrontation, an objective viewer would have to find Strickland’s actions were entirely justifiable given the circumstances in which he was operating.
As readers of this newspaper know all too well, BLM protests are often violent, and those viewed as hostile or unsympathetic to the movement are regularly targeted by radical leftist activists. Strickland was one such example.
Cantwell believes Strickland should be praised, not condemned, for his actions that day. “He shouldn’t just be set free; he should be praised for his courage and his restraint,” Cantwell told AFP.
John Friend is a writer who lives in California.
The Controllers: Secret Rulers of the World
Throughout history, there have always been powerful people who work secretly behind the scenes to advance their own objectives, often to the detriment of the public as a whole. President Woodrow Wilson said in 1913, “Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the fields of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
Twenty years later, FDR said in a private letter, “A financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the United States since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
Andrew Jackson himself said, “I weep for the liberty of my country when I see at this early day of its successful experiment that corruption has been imputed to many members of the House of Representatives, and the rights of the people have been bartered for promises of office.”
In the mid-1900s, President Dwight Eisenhower added this, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
And shortly before his assassination, President John F. Kennedy added this: “The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings.”
The situation is no different today. A few thousand wealthy and influential people and societies who operate mostly behind the scenes, and keep their objectives secret from the public, largely control the world. This book identifies them, exposes some of their past activities, and sets forth ways of dealing with them.
A system of global control, referred to as the “New World Order,” by President George H.W. Bush in many of his speeches, is in effect today. Insiders are promoting a one-world government, a one-world economy and a one-world religion, with themselves in charge of everything.
A growing number of people are becoming aware of what is going on behind the scenes, and are becoming increasingly resistant to a global socialistic dictatorship. This book seeks to add to that awareness so that freedom can be maintained without violence.
Softcover, 505 pages