Guess What? Crying Girl Story Is Fake News

By AFP Staff

By now most people have seen the heartbreaking story of the young Honduran girl crying while peering up at her mother, who is surrounded and being patted down by Border Patrol agents. The assumption here was that the mother and her daughter were about to be torn apart as the child is sent to a children’s facility while her mother faces charges for illegally entering the U.S.

 

Ruling Elite
Get one year of AFP Online, the digital edition of American Free Press, FREE when you buy “The Ruling Elite: A Study in Imperialism, Genocide and Emancipation.” Add both items to your cart and use coupon code “Fake News.”

While the photograph being promoted by the mainstream media conveys the immediate terror of the young girl, it turns out the high drama being pushed by special interest groups and the mainstream media is fake. Of course, it fails to tell you what actually happened next to the woman and her child.

UK tabloid The Daily Mail reportedly tracked down the father, Denis Javier Varela Hernandez, in Honduras. According to their report, the mother and daughter, Sandra, 32, and her two-year-old daughter Yanela Denise, have not been separated. Instead, the two were sent—together—to a family facility near the U.S. border.

More importantly, the narrative that the two were fleeing the horrors of Honduras is also patently false.

The father said that the mother and child made the dangerous journey without talking to him first. The couple has three other children, son Wesly, 14, and daughters Cindy, 11, and Brianna, six, yet the mother chose only to bring the youngest child.

“I didn’t support it,” he said. “I asked her, why? Why would she want to put our little girl through that? But it was her decision at the end of the day.”

While the father conceded that it is hard to find a decent job in the Central American country, he said he actually has a good one.

“I wouldn’t risk my life [to be smuggled across the border],” he said. “It’s hard to find a good job here and that’s why many people choose to leave. But I thank God that I have a good job here. And I would never risk my life making that journey.”

He added that he is not angry at his wife for taking his daughter away and paying human smugglers $6,000 to sneak them across the U.S. border.

“I don’t have any resentment for my wife, but I do think it was irresponsible of her to take the baby with her in her arms because we don’t know what could happen,” he said.

The mother and daughter were arrested by Border Patrol as they, along with a larger group of illegal immigrants, attempted to cross the Rio Grande River in the middle of the night on makeshift rafts.

“You can imagine how I felt when I saw that photo of my daughter,” concluded the father. “It broke my heart. It’s difficult as a father to see that, but I know now that they are not in danger. They are safer now than when they were making that journey to the border.”




Has the West the Will to Survive?

In a speech earlier this week, President Donald Trump rightfully said countries that do not have the strength to do the difficult things it needs to do to survive will cease to exist. Is this our future?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“If you’re . . . pathetically weak, the country is going to be overrun with millions of people, and if you’re strong, then you don’t have any heart, that’s a tough dilemma. . . . I’d rather be strong.”

So said President Donald Trump, on issuing his order halting the separation of children from parents caught breaking into the country. Trump’s enemies are celebrating a victory. Yet the issue remains.

Under U.S. law, teenagers and tots cannot be detained for more than 20 days and must be held in the least-restrictive facilities. But if the children cannot be separated from the parents as they await trial, both will have to be released to keep families together.

We are back to “catch and release.”

When that welcome news hits Central America, the migrant stream moving north will become a river that never ceases to flow.

Kingdom Identity

The questions America and the West face might thus be framed:

Is there a liberal, progressive, Christian way to seal a 2,000-mile border, halt millions of migrants from crossing it illegally, and send intruders back whence they came? Or does the preservation of Western nations and peoples require measures from which liberal societies today reflexively recoil?

Does the survival of the West as a civilization require a ruthlessness the West no longer possesses?

Consider what our fathers did to build this country.

The English settlers brought in 600,000 slaves, ethnically cleansed the Indians, joined their cousins in a war to expel the French, then revolted and threw out those cousins to claim all the land to the Mississippi for ourselves.

Jefferson grabbed the vast Louisiana Territory for $15 million from Napoleon, who had no right to sell it. Andrew Jackson drove the Spanish out of Florida, sent the Cherokee packing on the Trail of Tears, and told a dissenting Chief Justice John Marshall where he could go.

Sam Houston tore Texas away from Mexico. “Jimmy” Polk took the Southwest and California in a war Ulysses Grant called “the most unjust ever fought.” When the South declared independence, Lincoln sent a million-man army to march them back in a war that cost 600,000 lives.

William McKinley sent armies and warships to seize Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines. The indigenous peoples were not consulted. “God told me to take the Philippines,” said McKinley.

The conquest and colonization of the New World and the creation of the United States and its rise to world power required acts of aggression and war of which many among our elites are ashamed. They exhibit their guilt by tearing down the statues of the men who perpetrated the “crimes” that created America. But of these elites, it may be fairly said: They could never have built a nation like ours.

Which brings us again to the larger questions.

While our forefathers would have not hesitated to do what was needed to secure our borders and expel intruders, it is not a settled matter as to whether this generation has the will to preserve the West.

Buchanan - Suicide of a Superpower book - AFP Online Store
“Will America Survive to 2025?” On sale now at the AFP Online Store

Progressives may parade their moral superiority as they cheer the defeat of the “zero tolerance” policy. But they have no solution to the crisis. Indeed, many do not even see it as a crisis because they do not see themselves as belonging to a separate tribe, nation or people threatened by an epochal invasion from the Third World.

They see themselves as belonging to an ideological nation, a nation of ideas, whose mission is to go forth and preach and teach all peoples the gospel of democracy, diversity, and equality.

And this is why the establishment was repudiated in 2016. It was perceived as too elite, too liberal, too weak to secure the borders and repel the invaders.

“If you’re really, really pathetically weak, the country is going to be overrun with millions of people,” said Trump Wednesday. Is he wrong?

Since the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has grown apparent that the existential threat to the West comes not from Czar Vladimir’s Russian divisions returning to the Elbe.

The existential threat came from the south.

Half a century ago, Houari Boumedienne, the leader of a poor but militant Algeria, allegedly proclaimed at the United Nations:

“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”

This is the existential crisis of the West.

Thus, Trump seeks to build a wall, turn back the intruders, and bring Vladimir Putin back into the Western camp, where Russia belongs. Thus the new populist regime in Rome blocks boats of refugees from landing in Italy. Thus Angela Merkel looks like yesterday, and Viktor Orban like tomorrow.

Patrick 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 2018 CREATORS.COM



Why Can’t We Sue the TSA for Assault?

It was reported recently that the TSA has created a list to track so-called “troublesome passengers.” If this is true, why can’t American citizens do the same or even sue TSA agents, who are especially troublesome, like the ones who harass kids and little old ladies in airport security lines? 

By Dr. Ron Paul

When I was in Congress and had to regularly fly between D.C. and Texas, I was routinely subjected to invasive “pat-downs” (physical assaults) by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). One time, exasperated with the constant insults to my privacy and dignity, I asked a TSA agent if he was proud to assault innocent Americans for a living.

I thought of this incident after learning that the TSA has been compiling a “troublesome passengers” list. The list includes those who have engaged in conduct judged to be “offensive and without legal justification” or disruptive of the “safe and effective completion of screening.” Libertarian journalist James Bovard recently pointed out that any woman who pushed a screener’s hands away from her breasts could be accused of disrupting the “safe and effective completion of screening.” Passengers like me who have expressed offense at TSA screeners are likely on the troublesome passengers list.

Perhaps airline passengers should start keeping a list of troublesome TSA agents. The list could include those who forced nursing mothers to drink their own breast milk, those who forced sick passengers to dispose of cough medicine, and those who forced women they found attractive to go through a body scanner multiple times. The list would certainly include the agents who confiscated a wheelchair-bound three-year-old’s beloved stuffed lamb at an airport and threatened to subject her to a pat-down. The girl, who was at the airport with her family to take a trip to Disney World, was filmed crying that she no longer wanted to go to Disney World.

The TSA is effective at violating our liberty, but it is ineffective at protecting our security. Last year, the TSA’s parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), conducted undercover tests of the TSA’s ability to detect security threats at airports across the country. The results showed the TSA staff and equipment failed to uncover threats 80% of the time. This is not the first time the TSA has been revealed to be incompetent. An earlier DHS study found TSA screenings and even the invasive pat-downs were utterly ineffective at finding hidden weapons.

The TSA’s “security theater” of treating every passenger as a criminal suspect while doing nothing to stop real threats is a rational response to the incentives the TSA faces as a government agency. If the TSA puts up an appearance of diligently working to prevent another 9/11 by inconveniencing and even assaulting as many travelers as possible, Congress will assume the agency is doing its job and keep increasing the TSA’s budget. Because the TSA gets its revenue from Congress, not from airline passengers, the agency has no reason to concern itself with customer satisfaction and feels free to harass and assault people, as well as to make lists of people who stand up for their rights.

Congress should end the TSA’s monopoly on security by abolishing the agency and returning responsibility for security to the airlines. The airline companies can contract with private firms that provide real security without treating every passenger as a criminal suspect. A private security firm that assaults its customers while failing to detect real dangers would soon go out of business, whereas the TSA would likely have its budget and power increased if there was another attack on the U.S.

If shutting down the TSA is too “radical” a step, Congress should at least allow individuals to sue TSA agents for assault. Anyone who has suffered unfair treatment by the TSA as a result of being put on the “troublesome passengers” list should also be able to seek redress in court.

Making TSA agents subject to the rule of law is an important step toward protecting our liberty and security.

Ron Paul, a former U.S. representative from Texas and medical doctor, continues to write his weekly column for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, online at www.ronpaulinstitute.org.

 




Iraq War About Oil or Israel?

A new book by oil consultant Gary Vogler proves the U.S. waged war on Iraq to save Israel’s failing economy. “Neocons pushed so hard for war in large part because they intended to loot Iraqi oil on behalf of Israel.”

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

My 2008 book Questioning the War on Terror asked whether the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a resource war or a Zionist war.

At that time, liberals and leftists regularly accused President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney of going to war for oil. “No blood for oil” was their protest chant.

It was obvious from day one that Iraq’s immense energy wealth had something to do with “Operation Iraqi Liberation,” but as sociologist James Petras has pointed out, the big oil companies were actually against the war. They would have preferred peace and stability—and Saddam Hussein was willing to give away the store if America would only take yes for an answer, as Susan Lindauer explains in her book Extreme Prejudice.

Petras, Stephen Sniegoski, and many others—including ex-CIA analysts Bill and Kathleen Christison in their 2003 article “Too Many Smoking Guns to Ignore: Israel, American Jews, and the War on Iraq”—have marshalled strong evidence that the Iraq invasion was about Israel, not oil.

The architects of the Iraq war were all Zionist neoconservatives. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman explained in April 2003 that the war on Iraq was “the war the neoconservatives wanted. . . . I could give you the names of 25 people who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.”

Iraq was one of the “seven countries in five years” targeted for destruction after 9/11, according to Gen. Wesley Clark. All seven were enemies of Israel. None posed any threat to the United States.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose first reaction to the 9/11 attacks was “it’s very good,” still felt that way in 2008: “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” Netanyahu insisted, according to a report in the April 16, 2008 edition of Israeli daily Ha’aretz.

9/11 and the subsequent American war against Muslim countries helped Israel in numerous ways. Besides “taking out” Israel’s enemies and balkanizing the Middle East in accordance with the Oded Yinon plan, the 9/11 wars also saved the Israeli economy, which in 2001 was on the brink of total collapse. As Naomi Klein writes in The Shock Doctrine (pp. 434-441), Israel was crushed by the dot-com crash, with 300 Israeli tech firms going bankrupt. During the run-up to 9/11, the Israeli government slashed social services to the bone and transferred all of its resources into “a slew of start-ups . . . specializing in everything from ‘search and nail’ data mining, to surveillance cameras, to terrorist profiling. When the market for these services and devices exploded in the years after Sept. 11, the Israeli state openly embraced a new national economic vision: The growth provided by the dot-com bubble would be replaced with a homeland security boom.”

Iraq & Politics of Oil, Vogler
Now available from the AFP Online Store!

Another way 9/11 and the 9/11 wars were designed to save Israel’s failing economy was recently revealed by oil consultant Gary Vogler. In his book Iraq and the Politics of Oil: An Insider’s Perspective. Vogler explains that the neocons pushed so hard for war in large part because they intended to loot Iraqi oil on behalf of Israel. As Douglas Feith’s former law partner Mark Zell explained, the neocons believed the boastful promises of wannabe puppet dictator Ahmed Chalabi:

“He said he would end Iraq’s boycott of trade with Israel and would allow Israeli companies to do business there. He said the new Iraqi government would agree to rebuild the pipeline from Mosul in the northern Iraqi oil fields to Haifa.”

As it turned out, the Mosul to Haifa pipeline was a non-starter. But Chalabi did succeed in stealing Iraqi oil and passing it to Israel at bargain basement rates, by forcing Iraq, against the wishes of almost all Iraqis, to sell oil to convicted swindler Marc Rich’s company Glencore, which has provided almost all of Israel’s oil since 1973.

And though Vogler doesn’t discuss ISIS and Kurdish black market oil sales to Israel, it appears that these and other methods have been used to leverage Iraqi oil to pump up Israel’s failing economy, which only survives thanks to trillions of dollars of tribute coughed up by American taxpayers.

Vogler ends his book with a warning: “The costs to the United States for invading Iraq were huge” (4,489 U.S. troops killed and 32,223 injured, over 134,000 Iraqi civilians and 150 reporters killed, 2.8 million refugees, $2 trillion wasted) “We cannot allow another group, such as the neocons, to push our country into a costly and unnecessary Middle Eastern war as they did in Iraq.”

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.




If This Woman Still Has a Job by the End of Today…

By AFP Staff

Why is it that radical liberal activists only believe free speech and the First Amendment apply to them? Take the case of Allison Hrabar. According to conservative news and commentary website “The Daily Caller,” Ms. Hrabar was one of the activists who chased Homeland Security chief Kirstjen Nielsen out of a Mexican restaurant in Washington, D.C. on the evening of June 12 over the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

A Trump staffer outed Ms. Hrabar to “The Daily Caller,” saying she was part of the group that walked into the restaurant and then proceeded to harass Ms. Nielsen until she left the establishment.

In video that was posted to the Internet documenting the demonstration, activists can be heard chanting, “Kirstjen Nielsen, you’re a villain, locking up immigrant children.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Well, it turns out that Ms. Hrabar gets her paycheck from the Department of Justice working as a paralegal.

Over the past few years, dozens of conservatives have lost their jobs because of extracurricular activity that someone somewhere found to be offensive. AFP’s own reporter John Friend was one such victim when a radical keyboard activist tracked Friend down at his job with a local California government agency. Friend operates his own website where he writes about politics and history and occasionally dabbles in contentious issues.

This individual in question ended up harassing Friend’s boss, threatening to “expose” them for having Friend as an employee. Even though Friend was an exemplary employee who didn’t bring his politics to work, he was still unceremoniously fired.

Now, with her job apparently on the line, Ms. Hrabar is crying that she has a First Amendment right to protest after work hours.

This is how another conservative news website reported it: “The Washington Examiner spoke with Hrabar Wednesday and she defended her behavior as off government time and a use of her First Amendment rights.”

The problem is, apparently, Ms. Hrabar reportedly uses company time to tweet about politics.

According to “The Daily Caller,” Ms. Hrabar tweeted June 13 at 1:56 p.m., “Keeping families together in jail is not an acceptable solution.”

We at American Free Press actually support Ms. Hrabar’s First Amendment right to protest on her own time. However, you can’t have it both ways. If conservatives can be fired for their political views outside of work, then extreme liberals should not expect to be safe in their jobs, either.

You can watch the protest video here:




Gina Haspel’s New Vision for CIA?

Intel expert Philip Giraldi hopes new CIA Director Gina Haspel will reduce “questionable activities.” In spite of her pro-torture responses during her recent confirmation hearings, she did put her foot down once opposing expansion of the assassination-by-drone program. 

By Philip Giraldi

After a bruising confirmation fight, one wonders if newly approved Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Gina Haspel will have the political support to put her own stamp on how the agency is structured and operates. Insiders note that, though she was acting director for only two months, she did little more than continue the changes made by her predecessor Mike Pompeo, who had been in charge of the agency for 15 months.

The past 17 years have seen a major change in how the CIA is organized. The Cold War agency was basically divided into two major intelligence components and included an administrative structure as well as a scientific and technical division that had their own independent functions but also worked to support intelligence operations and analysis. To put it simply, the agency consisted of one half that collected information and another half that analyzed the information collected. The operations component, itself divided into geographical regions, was a producer of intelligence, which was then processed by the analysts before going on to the consumers, which consisted of the White House, Congress, and other agencies within the government with a “need to know” that gave them access to the finished intelligence reports. The principal consumer of intelligence and the CIA’s “boss” was and is the president of the United States.

Within the system of producer-consumer there were a number of staffs and centers that dealt with issues like terrorism, drug trafficking, and nuclear proliferation that were regarded as global threats that defied neat compartmentation into geographic areas. The Counter Terrorism Center (CTC), which included representatives from the Secret Service, FBI, DIA, NSA, and Pentagon, also incorporated analysts into the process, which was a major break from the principle that analysts and case officers should never mix lest the final product be contaminated by operational or political considerations.

Post 9/11, the allegations that clues to the hijackers had been missed due to excessive compartmentation within the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies meant that the idea of fusion centers like CTC became more popular. It also meant that there was a great demand for officers with paramilitary training to send to places like Afghanistan and eventually Iraq. Spies who had been trained to slowly and carefully develop Russian diplomats for recruitment became less relevant.

Kingdom Identity

Operations in places like Pakistan became brutal, with low-level agents working for money treated like disposable garbage. When CIA contract officer Raymond Davis was arrested by Pakistani police in 2011 after he shot dead two motorcyclists, who may or may not have been Pakistani intelligence officers, it emerged that he was part of an armed team providing security for meetings with Pakistani agents. Agents would be picked up off the street, stuffed behind the car seat with a blindfold on so they would not know where they were going, taken to a second car where they would be interrogated before they would be paid and again stuffed behind the seat blindfolded to be taken to a spot where they could be dropped off. As a model of CIA agent handling it was not exactly old school.

Inevitably the methodology of CIA operations involving the recruitment and debriefing of agents, referred to as tradecraft, began to be forgotten as older officers retired and the training of new officers emphasized new skills. The agency pretty much began to forget how to spy and how to deal with an untested agent, leading to catastrophes like the 2009 suicide bombing deaths of seven CIA officers at Camp Chapman near Khost in Afghanistan, where an agency base was run by an officer who lacked the relevant experience and made a major security mistake.

And meanwhile more and more of the annual budget was going to the paramilitaries, who provided the physical protection of the burgeoning number of CIA sites and also protection for meetings. The transition to a different agency structure accelerated under President Barack Obama and his director, John Brennan. Brennan favored replacing the former geographic structure with more fusion teams that would include analysts and representatives from other government agencies. Many at CIA believed that Brennan had a particular animus against agency operations, as he had entered CIA hoping to become a case officer but had washed out of the training course. Brennan pushed ahead with his fusion program and also promoted Greg Vogel to be head of Clandestine Services, once described as operations. Vogel was a paramilitary, not a case officer, and inside the CIA it was widely regarded as the final insult to the agency’s spies.

Haspel, who briefly held the position of acting director of the clandestine service, was an integral part of the Brennan regime and generally went along with his preferences, though a source reports that she did dig in her heels at one point when there was a proposal to greatly expand the assassination by drone program. If she did that, it is to her credit and perhaps an indication that she does have limits in terms of what she would do in support of the White House.

Let Trump Be Trump
Available at the AFP Online Store.

As a result of the 2016 election, there was inevitably a change at the top of the agency. Coming into a CIA that no longer knew how to spy, President Donald Trump’s new director, Mike Pompeo, moved quickly to reverse many of the decisions made by Brennan, but he also brought his own set of likes and dislikes. Officers who worked directly with Pompeo reported that he was controlling, insisting on support among senior officers for whatever policies the White House was promoting. This did not go down well at CIA, where officers prided themselves on being politically neutral with their only guideline being to report developments honestly and analyze objectively. Pompeo also institutionalized greater emphasis on Iran as a prime enemy, creating a task force to address it.

And now there is Ms. Haspel. Insiders believe she will move slowly and cautiously but will continue in the direction set by Pompeo. That means somewhat of a reversion to the traditional agency model, which prevailed when she was being trained and during her first assignments. And given her grilling by the Senate, she will be presumably very cautious about engaging in questionable activities. As a former case officer, I would have to think that is a good thing—traditional spying hopefully without the renditions, the black sites, and the torture.

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer and a columnist and television commentator. He is also the executive director of the Council for the National Interest. Other articles by Giraldi can be found on the website of the Unz Review.




Border Patrol Spokesman Sets Media Straight on Horrors of Illegal Immigration

By AFP Staff

Chris Cabrera, a spokesperson for the National Border Patrol Council, was on CNN yesterday not just to defend law enforcement efforts on the border but also to call out Congress for failing in its constitutional duty to solve the immigration crisis.

In the shocking interview, Cabrera recounted horror stories that Border Patrol agents experience on a daily basis while policing the U.S. border with Mexico.

“We’ve had this situation going on for four years now,” he said. “I don’t think you can necessarily blame it on one administration or another. It started under one and is continuing under another. It hasn’t been fixed and it needs to be fixed.”

MidEast Chess Board

Cabrera went on to cite some of the worst examples officers have faced as a result of the lax U.S. border enforcement.

“When you see a 12-year-old girl with a plan B [birth control] pill—her parents put her on birth control because they know getting violated is part of the journey—that’s a terrible way to live,” he told CNN. “When you see a 4-year-old girl traveling alone with just her parents’ phone number written across her shirt. . . . We had a 9-year-old boy have heat stroke in front of us and die with no family around. That’s because we’re allowing people to take advantage of this system.”

The spokesman excoriated the mainstream media for focusing solely on the kids being separated from their families and missing the larger picture, which is continuing to send the message that if illegal immigrants will make the terrible journey to the U.S. border, they will be allowed entry. The onus is on Congress to make that stop, he added. The message has to be zero tolerance for illegal border crossings.

And for those likening U.S. Border Patrol officers to Nazis, he had this to say: “Most of our agents are parents. I’ve seen guys and I’ve done it myself—you give your last bottle of water to a kid, you’ll take a toy out of your car to give to one of these kids because you know the situation they’re in. Agents are very sympathetic. We’re human, we’re fathers, we have families. We do a lot for the communities here, whether or not a camera is involved. Our agents are very involved. And nobody saves more lives along the southwestern border than the U.S. Border patrol.”

You can watch the entire interview here:




Trump and the Invasion of the West

Pat Buchanan points out that “with 11,000 kids of illegal immigrants in custody and 250 more arriving every day, we could have 30,000 in custody by summer’s end.” While the current policy of separating detained children from their illegal migrant parents is being widely condemned, he asks what policy will prevent the suicide of America.
By Patrick J. Buchanan

“It is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart,” says former first lady Laura Bush of the Trump administration policy of “zero tolerance,” under which the children of illegal migrants are being detained apart from their parents.

“Disgraceful,” adds Dr. Franklin Graham.

“We need to be . . . a country that governs with a heart,” says first lady Melania Trump. “No one likes this policy,” says White House aide Kellyanne Conway, even “the president wants this to end.”

And so it shall—given the universal denunciations and photos of sobbing children being pulled from parents. Yet striking down the policy will leave America’s immigration crisis still unresolved.

Consider. Since 2016, some 110,000 children have entered the U.S. illegally and been released, along with 200,000 Central American families caught sneaking across the border.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

Reflecting its frustration, the White House press office declared:

“We can’t deport them, we can’t separate them, we can’t detain them, we can’t prosecute them. What (the Democrats) want is a radical open-border policy that lets everyone out into the interior of this country with virtually no documentation whatsoever.”

Where many Americans see illegal intruders, Democrats see future voters.

And with 11,000 kids of illegal immigrants in custody and 250 more arriving every day, we could have 30,000 in custody by summer’s end.

The existential question, however, thus remains: How does the West, America included, stop the flood tide of migrants before it alters forever the political and demographic character of our nations and our civilization?

The U.S. Hispanic population, already estimated at nearly 60 million, is predicted to exceed 100 million by 2050, just 32 years away.

And Europe’s southern border is more imperiled than ours.

A week ago, the new populist regime in Rome refused to allow a boat full of migrants from Libya to land in Sicily. Malta also turned them away. After a voyage of almost a week and 1,000 miles, 630 migrants were landed in Valencia, Spain.

Why did Italy reject them? Under EU law, migrants apply for asylum in the country where they first enter Europe. This burdens Italy and Greece where the asylum-seekers have been arriving for years.

Of the landing in Spain, Italy’s interior minister Matteo Salvini, a leader of the populist League party, chortled:

“I thank the Spanish government. I hope they take in the other 66,629 refugees (inside Italy). We will not be offended if the French follow the Spanish, the Portuguese, and Maltese, we will be the happiest people on Earth.”

If the migrants boats of the Med are redirected to Spanish ports, one suspects that the Spanish people will soon become as unwelcoming as many other peoples in Europe.

And Trump is not backing down. Monday he tweeted:

“The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition. Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!”

Whatever European leaders may think of him, many Europeans are moving in Trump’s direction, toward more restrictions on immigration.

In Germany, a political crisis is percolating. The Bavarian-based CSU, longtime coalition partner of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU, is now talking divorce if Merkel does not toughen German policy.

Merkel has never fully recovered from the nationalist backlash against the million migrants she allowed in from Syria’s civil war. A New Year’s Eve rampage in Cologne, featuring wilding attacks on German girls by Arabs and Muslims, cost her dearly.

Among the reasons Bavarians are pulling away from Berlin is that, being in the south of Germany, Bavaria is a primary point of entry.

Virtually every one of the populist parties of Europe, especially of the right, have arisen to contest or to seize power by riding the issue of mass migration from Africa and the Middle East.

Yet the progressives adamantly refuse to act, apparently paralyzed by a belief that restricting the free movement of peoples from foreign lands violates one of the great commandments of liberal democracy.

Buchanan - Suicide of a Superpower book - AFP Online Store
“Will America Survive to 2025?” On sale now at the AFP Online Store

We are truly dealing here with an ideology of Western suicide.

If Europe does not act, its future is predictable.

The population of Africa, right across the Med, is anticipated to climb to 2.5 billion by midcentury. And by 2100, Africa will be home to half of all the people of the planet.

If but a tiny fraction of the African and Middle Eastern population decides to cross the Mediterranean to occupy the emptying towns and villages of an aging and dying continent, who and what will stop them?

Trump may be on the wrong side politically and emotionally of this issue of separating migrant kids from their parents.

But on the mega-issue—the Third World invasion of the West—he is riding the great wave of the future, if the West is to have a future.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Both are available from the AFP Online Store.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM



What’s the Truth Behind Iconic Image of Crying Immigrant Toddler?

By AFP Staff

By now most people have seen the photographs of the crying toddler whose mother is being detained on the U.S. border. It’s been sent around the world and has sent social media into a tailspin. The Holocaust and Vietnam have been invoked. Headlines on the front pages of liberal newspapers and magazines have gone so far as to accuse President Donald Trump of being “soulless” and “craven” and even “ghoulish,” but, as with all things on the Internet, when one really looks at the context behind these photographs, while still heartbreaking, there is much more to the story than we are being told.

crying toddler
Credit: Getty Images

Earlier in June, Getty photographer John Moore had been documenting illegal border crossings as he travelled with U.S. Border Patrol agents on patrol in Texas along the Rio Grande on the U.S. side of the border with Mexico.

On June 12, Moore struck media gold when he was able to capture a few shots of a woman and her two-year-old daughter, who had been traveling for over a month from their native Honduras through Mexico and up to the U.S. border. One image shows the toddler crying as U.S. agents pat down her mother. In another, the mother is bent over and is removing the child’s shoelaces as the toddler looks on.

Credit: Getty Images

In the week since those photographs were taken, the image of a crying toddler staring at her mother has been used by Internet warriors against U.S. immigration policies and stoked fiery outrage on social media with some posters accusing law enforcement officials of being Nazi soldiers carrying out orders to gas Jews in the Holocaust during World War II.

As with many things on the Internet, however, the truth is far from what many rabid, anti-Trump fanatics want you believe.

In an interview yesterday with The Washington Post, Moore explained to a reporter that, while the photographs are heartbreaking, the Border Patrol officers were thoughtful and professional and tried to make the best out of a difficult situation.

The fact is, the woman and her child, who were detained along with dozens of others, broke U.S. law by entering the United States illegally.

Coming from countries where people are regularly executed on the spot by paramilitary forces and police for minor infractions, it is understandable that the detainees would be frightened. In the United States, however, this doesn’t happen. On the U.S. border, the illegal aliens, including the mother and her young daughter, were taken to an immigration processing facility where they were fed, given shelter, and provided with legal representation that is either paid for by charities or U.S. taxpayers.

Kingdom IdentityThe question of splitting up families remains a hotly debated issue. As part of a new policy enacted under Trump, children and their parents are sent to different sites. In some cases, this is for the good. For example, in refugee camps in Europe, entire families are allowed to stay together. In some of these camps sexual assaults and violence have even become rampant. Up until the current administration, only children traveling alone would be sent to special facilities. The so-called “zero tolerance” for illegal immigration has prompted officials to now break up families, sending mothers and fathers off to be prosecuted while their children are kept in special care sites that are solely for kids.

The truth is, the solution to all of this controversy is simple, and it is something that Trump has repeatedly asked for. Congress has to get involved and enact commonsense laws for processing illegal immigrants. Men and women can be segregated, but mothers should be allowed to remain with small children while they await either deportation or an asylum hearing.

Freedom Caucus chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) announced this morning that Republicans intend to introduce a bill in the House today narrowly focused on asylum issues and ending family separation at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Washington needs to stop playing politics with immigration. While most Republicans want to secure the borders, most Democrats have fought this, as they see immigrants—especially ones who are angry at Republicans—as future voters.

Obviously, the priority should be to protect the American people by securing the border, but that doesn’t mean we have to give up our humanity in the process.




‘Jonestown’ 40 Years Later: Was Peoples Temple an Intel Op Gone Bad?

With the 40th anniversary of “The Jonestown Massacre” approaching, on November 18th, AFP offers a three-part series on the Rev. Jim Jones, the Peoples Temple, and the massacre/mass suicide that took over 900 lives in the jungles of Guyana.  

By S.T. Patrick

I: Jim Jones, the CIA & the FBI

Researcher Jim Hougan says the origins of famed cult leader Jim Jones are shrouded in intelligence activities. This is part one of three, originally published in American Free Press Issue 15 & 16, April 9 & 16, 2018.

Tragedy is often complex. In the mainstream media’s haste to explain the Nov. 18, 1978 massacre at Jonestown, Guyana, a quick resolution emerged. It was the oft-repeated, cautionary tale of a madman pushed beyond the brink of sanity. Moreover, it was a theme popularized in the “decade of decadence,” the 1970s.

Communal living had reached a peak of countercultural dissatisfaction, so much so that the media had turned its raging eye on these communities, which it now disparagingly called “cults.” Jonestown was portrayed as the failure of this anti-establishment movement. Its climax took the lives of over 900 men, women, and children, and was furthermore a glaring example of the imminent debacle incurred when following a fanatic “off the grid.”

Independent researchers and authors have disagreed with the mainstream mass media and have done so since the massacre occurred. What if Jonestown was not simply the inevitable result of a sociological experiment? What if anti-establishment movements are not doomed to fail on their own? And what if the rise of the Rev. Jim Jones was much more complicated than we had been told by Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor, and Frank Reynolds in 1978?

Jim Hougan’s breakthrough as an author and researcher came with his alternative take on Richard Nixon’s downfall, Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat, and the CIA. He established himself as an authority on the 1970s with Decadence: Radical Nostalgia, Narcissism, and Decline in the Seventies, and examined the sordid relationship between the CIA and private industry in Spooks: The Private Use of Secret Agents.

His multi-part article “Jim Jones, Dan Mitrione, and the Peoples Temple”—available at “JimHougan.com”—is the culmination of decades of Jonestown research. Hougan combines Jones’s biography, FBI and CIA infiltration, and governmental shenanigans to uncover what really occurred in northwest Guyana, and how the parishioners of the Peoples Temple found themselves over 5,000 miles from the Bay Area of California.

James Warren Jones was born in Depression-era Indiana. A friend of his mother took Jones to church, where he found his religious zeal. He was soon taken under the wing of a female evangelist who led faith-healing revivals at the Gospel Tabernacle Church, a Pentecostal offshoot of the Holy Rollers. While no hard evidence of an inappropriate sexual relationship exists, Hougan reports that the beginning of Jones’s reptilian nightmares coincided with his association with the woman. His later tendency to sexually humiliate those who had angered him was lamented by those who remained loyal and may also have been a sign of sexual abuse experienced as a youth.

As a 15-year-old giving sidewalk sermons in economically depressed Richmond, Indiana, Jones met Dan Mitrione, the anti-communist police chief, whose path would repeatedly and not-so-coincidentally mimic that of Jones.

Drowning in IRS debt? The MacPherson Group could be a lifesaver!

Hougan infers that Mitrione may have recruited Jones as an informant within the black community. The Peoples Temple would include a predominantly black congregation, and Jones’s influence in the community was rising. Starting in 1956, the FBI’s Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) had observed, infiltrated, discredited, and disrupted subversive political and racial groups throughout the country. Mitrione’s ties to the FBI, the CIA, and Jones would continue throughout the remainder of his life. It was at this time that family members also report Jones engaging in private meetings with men they believed were government agents.

Indiana was quite a surprising hotbed of intelligence activity. The CIA’s Richard Helms and William Harvey were born in Indianapolis, and the University of Indiana, which Jones attended, was also the alma mater of the Symbionese Liberation Army’s Angela Atwood, William Harris, and Emily Harris. Hougan also ties the ownership of the Indianapolis-based Saturday Evening Post to CIA activity.

Jones purchased a former synagogue from Rabbi Maurice Davis in 1956. From the church’s history, Jones created the Peoples Temple name. Researchers are unsure how Jones may have raised the $50,000 used for the purchase, and Davis’s intentions in giving Jones a “little or no money down” deal are unknown. What is known is that Rabbi Davis was an anti-cult activist and “deprogrammer” associated with Dr. Hordat Sukhdeo, whom the State Department would later pay to travel to Guyana and bury Jones publicly as a cult leader.

Father Divine was the well-known “black messiah” of Philadelphia. His tens of thousands of Peace Mission followers earned him a seven-figure income, monitoring by the FBI, and Jones’s admiration. Jones visited Divine often and once, after Divine’s death, claimed he was the white reincarnation of Divine. Hougan speculates that Jones’s ultimate goal could have been integrating Divine’s followers into the Peoples Temple, but he also suggests that Jones could have been gathering “racial intelligence” under Mitrione’s guidance.

A biography of Divine was found in Jones’s effects in the aftermath of Jonestown. Within the biography, author Sara Harris alluded to mass suicide.

“If Father Divine were to die,” Harris wrote, “mass suicides among Negroes in his movement

could certainly result.”

This would not be the final time that the subject of mass suicide would interest Jones.

As the Peoples Temple continued to expand to over 2,000 parishioners, the reverend would make a curious decision to travel to Cuba and South America. He would not be alone. His experiences, his contacts, and his research would change the direction of the Peoples Temple and would lead them first to California and then to Guyana, where their end would be near.

II: Was Jim Jones an American Spy?

Biographers say the cult leader’s travels to Cuba and Brazil in the 1960s weren’t evangelism at all. They were actually intelligence missions. This is part two of three, originally published in American Free Press Issue 19 & 20, May 7 & 14, 2018.

By the end of the 1950s, the Reverend Jim Jones had grown his Peoples Temple to over 2,000 members. Considering this was the Cold War-era Midwest in a period long before the rise of mega-churches, Jones’s openly socialistic congregation was a surprising yet phenomenal success.

Jones was riding a meteoric rise as a pastor. Therefore, his actions in February 1960 become all the more curious and suspicious.

Fidel Castro, Raul Castro, Che Guevara, and their 26th of July Movement had overthrown the CIA-Mafia puppet Fulgencio Batista in Cuba. In their first year, they were already countering incursions and bombings from U.S.-supported exiles working out of Miami. Vice President Richard Nixon was lobbying for and overseeing the formulation of a plan that would end with the Kennedy-era Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961. From 1959-1963, Cuba was arguably the hottest epicenter of the Cold War.

In the midst of this political whirlwind, Jones inexplicably decided to travel to Havana. According to witness Carlos Foster, who met with Jones in Cuba, Jones was attempting to locate families willing to relocate to Indianapolis as part of a Peoples Temple recruitment project. Foster also claims Jones was scouting Latin American locations for potential extension centers.

Jones biographers, such as Tim Reiterman, disagree that the main purpose of the Cuban excursion was evangelism.

Reiterman reported that Jones later showed off photos from his Cuban trip. One such picture

featured a mangled pilot lying lifeless in the wreckage of a plane crash. Jones had also

claimed that he had met some Cuban leaders, and he showed a picture of himself with a fatigue-clad man that looked similar to Fidel Castro.

Jim Hougan, the author of the three-part “Jim Jones, Dan Mitrione, and the Peoples Temple,” which can be read on “JimHougan.com,” was more pointed when assessing Jones’s photographic travelogue.

“Pictures of that sort could only have been of interest to Castro’s enemies and the CIA,” Hougan wrote.

Under the guise of scouting safe places in case of a nuclear apocalypse, Jones then traveled to Brazil in 1962. En route, Jones stopped in Guyana, which was still a British colony. Jones learned of another mass suicide story that had long been a part of Guyanese history.

While in Belo Horizonte and Rio de Janeiro, Jones socialized with American expatriates and Brazilians who were rabid anti-communists. Hougan compares Jones’s time in Brazil to Lee Harvey Oswald’s time in New Orleans in 1963.

Jones was not alone in Brazil. Dan Mitrione was serving at a post within the U.S. consulate. Many, including Hougan, believe Mitrione was an intelligence handler for Jones dating back to their time in Richmond, Ind.

According to Jones, the emotional effects of the John F. Kennedy assassination led him back to Indiana in late 1963. What he returned to was a congregation whose attendance had dissipated to less than a hundred parishioners. Mainstream chroniclers of Jonestown have posited that Jones was sightseeing and gallivanting through Latin America, taking in the culture as an uber-tourist. Meanwhile, the church he had worked so hard to build—and the church so tied to what he professed as his true ideology—was all but dismantling without him. This has led revisionists to further contend that there was some covert mission that guided the travels of both Jones and Mitrione.

New World Order Assassins, ThornAgain using nuclear war as a reason for mobility, Jones returned to Indiana briefly, only to move the Peoples Temple to northern California, outside of Ukiah. Unlike the anti-communism he had professed in Brazil, he again turned to “apostolic socialism” in his sermons. Jones’s dogma becomes quite confusing at this point, as he begins publicly preaching against Christianity, the King James Version of the Bible, and God.

Within five years, Jones’s popularity had grown, and he had opened Peoples Temple branches in the center of the FBI’s COINTELPRO heartland—San Francisco, San Fernando, and Los Angeles. Templars also became more active in California politics. Their support was vital to San Francisco Mayor George Moscone’s win in 1975. In turn, Moscone appointed Jones as the head of San Francisco’s Housing Authority Commission.

The Peoples Temple had found a large following in the Golden State. They had also found allies in assemblyman Willie Brown, Gov. Jerry Brown, Lt. Gov. Mervyn Dymally, Harvey Milk, Walter Mondale, and Rosalynn Carter.

While California brought Jones and the Peoples Temple more notoriety, it also attracted more scrutiny. When an exposé in New West magazine criticized Jones and the Temple, the reverend could see that his house of cards was about to crumble. Journalist Marshall Kilduff would allege physical, emotional, and sexual abuse inside the Peoples Temple. It was time to flee California and the United States, altogether.

In the summer of 1977, Jones and his most influential members decided the time had come for what would be a final pilgrimage to the place where they believed they would be most free—Guyana.

III: No Mass Suicide at Jonestown?

Very few of the official “Kool-Aid” theories have proven to be conclusive, and research indicates that most Peoples Temple followers tragically died by injection—not ingestion. This is the conclusion of our three-part series, originally published in American Free Press Issue 23 & 24, June 4 & 11, 2018.

Rep. Leo Ryan (D-Calif.) had just been elected to a fourth term when he traveled to the Jonestown settlement of Rev. Jim Jones in northwest Guyana. Acting on the pleas of family members whose loved ones had joined the Peoples Temple, Ryan was investigating the charge that his constituents were being held in the South American country against their will.

Ryan was a crusading congressman. As an assemblyman, he had taken a substitute teacher position in south central Los Angeles so that he could document the conditions after the Watts riots of 1965. He later used a pseudonym to enter Folsom Prison as an inmate, just to investigate firsthand the conditions behind the bars of California prisons. Whether societal or penal, Ryan was a keen observer of what it was to be or feel trapped. On Nov. 1, 1978, he announced that he was going to Jonestown. In what would later prove an interesting turn of history, he asked friend and fellow congressman Dan Quayle (R-Ind.) to travel to Guyana with him. Quayle declined.

While at Jonestown, Ryan’s entourage was privately approached by a handful of members who desired to leave Guyana. He was nearly stabbed in one domestic dispute. On Nov. 18, 1978, Ryan, his aides, a team of journalists, and the defectors were scheduled to return to America from the Port Kaituma airstrip. An ambush by Jones loyalists prevented their return. Ryan, a defecting Peoples Temple member, and three journalists were killed. Nine others were injured, including aide Jackie Speier, now a Democratic congresswoman from California.

As tragic as the scene at the airstrip was, no one could have imagined what was happening simultaneously at Jonestown. News reports leaked quickly. Something had gone drastically wrong at Jonestown and had resulted in over 200 deaths. In succeeding days, the number of reported deaths increased until it finally rested at over 900. The news media reported it as a mass suicide, but questions persisted regarding how massive the numbers of suicides actually were.

It was said that one-by-one, the Templars came forward to drink the cyanide-laced Kool-Aid (it was actually Flavor Aid) concocted for such a moment. The cause was the effective brainwashing of a religious fanatic.

Very few of the official theories proved to be conclusive, however.

Only seven autopsies were performed, and all seven were conducted after the bodies had been embalmed. “Probable cyanide poisoning” was listed as the cause of death in five of the seven bodies, yet only one showed any traces of cyanide. No cyanide could be detected in the Flavor Aid vat upon examination.

The body of Jones was one of the autopsied corpses. The cause of death was a gunshot wound to the head. Temple member Ann Moore had two causes of death, though it is unclear which occurred first. The autopsy listed a gunshot wound to her head, along with a massive amount of cyanide in her body tissues.

Guyanese physician Dr. Leslie Mootoo conducted cursory examinations of 100 bodies. Mootoo found that 83 of the 100 bodies had needle puncture wounds on the backs of their shoulders, suggesting that a majority of the victims were held down and injected against their will. Because they could not have legally chosen to die, all 260 children were considered murdered. In all, Mootoo estimated that over 700 of the bodies were victims of murder.

The idea of Jonestown as a “mass suicide” was perpetuated by Dr. Hardat Sukhdeo, a psychiatrist who was summoned to Guyana at the expense of the U.S. State Department. Sukhdeo was also an anti-cult deprogrammer. Dr. Stephen P. Hersh, then assistant director of the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH), disagreed with Sukhdeo’s findings.

“The charges of brainwashing are clearly exaggerated,” Hersh told the Associated Press in 1978. “The concept of ‘thought control’ by cult leaders is elusive, difficult to define and even more difficult to prove. Because cult converts adopt beliefs that seem bizarre to their families and friends, it does not follow that their choices are being dictated by cult leaders.”

When Jones’s CIA case officer Dan Mitrione was murdered in Montevideo, Uruguay in 1970, the military personnel, or 201, file on Jones was purged, thus erasing any pre-1970 information the CIA may have gathered on Jones.

Author Jim Hougan of “JimHougan.com” offered his assessment of the fear that Ryan’s investigation struck in the establishment.

“Specifically, Jones was afraid that Ryan and the press would uncover evidence that the leftist founder of the Peoples Temple was for many years an asset of the FBI and the CIA,” Hougan wrote. “This fear was, I believe, mirrored in various precincts of the U.S. intelligence community, which worried that Ryan’s investigation would embarrass the CIA by linking Jones to some of the agency’s most volatile programs—including ‘mind-control’ studies and operations such as MK-ULTRA.”

New World Order Exposed, ThornJust as the horrific Charles Manson case figuratively ended the free-spirited 1960s, Jonestown ended the 1970s ideal that communal living was the backbone of a utopian existence. It also ended the rise of the super-preacher whose goal was the creation of an isolated group of parishioners. The 1980s ushered in a media that would chase evangelical superstars for their sexual and financial misdeeds, but even the televangelists’ most loyal followers would not have given their lives at the behest of their leader. The most devout Christians reflexively feared “another Jonestown.”

There is a mainstream version of the Jonestown story that is easy to understand. Its mythology reviles new religions and turns Jones’s church members into weak-minded devotees. To believe that Jonestown is understood only within these confining terms is a mistake.

There was a reason the edicts of Jones of Indiana were appealing. Jones’s own spook-filled, covert story is integral to Jonestown’s real history. To understand those complexities within the era in which they occurred is to understand the story in full. Jonestown, like the Patty Hearst kidnapping, is the effect of a COINTELPRO operation gone awry much more than it is a religious abyss.

S.T. Patrick holds degrees in both journalism and social studies education. He spent 10 years as an educator and now hosts the “Midnight Writer News Show.” His email is STPatrickAFP@gmail.com.

 




Deep Truth Conference

The nation’s major annual forum of progressive, anti-war activists continues to reject speakers addressing topics of the deep state and 9/11, so Dr. Kevin Barrett and other intrepid truth-tellers organized a “Left Out Forum.” The Deep Truth conference panel discussions and presentations are now available online. 

By John Friend

A recently concluded conference that was live-streamed to countless viewers over the Internet wrapped up last weekend to much fanfare. Deep Truth: Visionaries Speak Out began Friday, June 8 and concluded Sunday, June 10, and featured a number of prominent political dissidents, independent researchers and journalists, peace activists, and others concerned with countering and exposing the lies and insidious agenda of the deep state manipulating our government and society.

The conference was organized and produced in part by No Lies Radio, “a controversial, hard-hitting, truth-telling nonprofit Internet radio station broadcasting 24/7 at noliesradio.org,” according to the conference’s About Us page. No Lies Radio is an affiliate of the Pacifica Radio Network and has a history of live-streaming conferences and events dealing with 9/11 and the deep state, including the 9/11 Truth Film Festival held annually in the San Francisco Bay area and the Justice in Focus event organized by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth in New York City in 2016. No Lies Radio also hosts False Flag Weekly News, a weekly radio broadcast hosted by Dr. Kevin Barrett, a leading 9/11 truth advocate and contributor to this newspaper, and Professor Tony Hall, a Canadian academic that has focused on 9/11 and other controversial events, that is live-streamed to viewers around the world. Dr. Barrett was a leading organizer of the Deep Truth Conference this year and hosted and participated in panel discussions over the course of the weekend.

The Deep Truth Conference originated as a direct response to the hostility and censorship its organizers experienced when attempting to participate in the Left Forum, one of the largest progressive and anti-war networks in the country.

“The Deep Truth Conference is part of a continuing response to censorship by the Left Forum, the USA’s biggest leftist conference, held each year in New York City,” Dr. Kevin Barrett explained to this reporter recently. “In 2016, several pro-9/11 truth and anti-Zionist presenters made their debut at the Left Forum. I harshly criticized Noam Chomsky, even though going to the Left Forum to criticize Chomsky is like going to the Vatican to criticize the Pope. The next year, 2017, Zionist pressure groups, led by Spencer Sunshine’s Political Research Associates, forced the Left Forum to ban us. I called Sunshine to ask why he was afraid of our message, and we ultimately rented a room down the hall from the Left Forum and held the Left Out Forum. Like the previous year’s presentations, it was very well attended and well-received. This year, 2018, we were once again banned from the Left Forum, so the organizers protested and leafleted at the Left Forum to publicize the Deep Truth cyber-conference one week later.”

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

This year’s conference featured six separate panel discussions comprising some of the most important figures in the alternative media and 9/11 truth community, including: former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, a long-time peace activist and journalist; Alison Weir, an author who serves as executive director of If Americans Knew, a non-profit organization that focuses on the nefarious influence Israel and the pro-Israel lobby has on American politics; former congresswoman, peace activist and 9/11 skeptic Cynthia McKinney; Philip Giraldi, a former counter-terrorism specialist with the CIA and a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy; and Gilad Atzmon, the internationally renowned jazz musician, author, and critic of Zionism and the subversive influence of the pro-Israel lobby in the West; and other important speakers.

The panel discussions focused on a number of inter-related themes, including: the mass media, propaganda, and censorship; the oligarchic nature of Western political systems; false-flag and other deep state events; Zionism and Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine; and issues relating to geoengineering, smart meters, and 5G technology.

A major theme throughout the conference was, of course, 9/11, a topic Barbara Honegger, a well-known 9/11 researcher and former associate at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, focused on during her panel discussion.

9/11 Evil
This and many other 9/11 books are at the AFP Online Store.

“The Great Lie of who attacked America on 9/11 was used to railroad through the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) which, to this day, is still the legal rationale for all of the 9/11 wars,” Honegger recently explained to this reporter. “9/11 killed nearly 3,000 innocent civilians, but the 9/11 lie has killed millions, displaced untold millions more, cost our nation and its allies thousands of lives and trillions in treasure, and has been used as the pretext for an invasive mass-surveillance police state. Only a critical mass of public awareness will make it possible to bring the real perpetrators of this heinous act to justice. The online live-streamed Deep Truth: Visionaries Speak Out conference has enabled those of us dedicated and courageous enough to know and speak the truth to reach that critical mass.”

Dr. Barrett echoed Honegger’s sentiment, correctly arguing that 9/11 is still a bleeding wound that impacts the lives and perceptions of Americans to this day.

“The truth about the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, JFK, RFK, and the USS Liberty is important, but the general public doesn’t have a direct emotional connection to those events,” Dr. Barrett noted. “But much of the American public is still traumatized by 9/11, so the truth about 9/11 still has tremendous potential to affect hearts and minds, and thereby change policies.”

The video archives of the entire conference, including all panel discussions and speeches, may be accessed at noliesradio.org/deeptruth.

John Friend is a freelance writer based in California.

 




Trump’s Bold Historic Gamble

The Singapore Summit has been a historical success, despite the naysayers who tried to prevent it from happening. Now Pat Buchanan asks whether Kim Jong Un will agree to what he’s being asked to do. 

By Patrick J. Buchanan

President Donald Trump appears to belong to what might be called the Benjamin Disraeli school of diplomacy.

The British prime minister once counseled, “Everyone likes flattery; and when you come to Royalty you should lay it on with a trowel.”

At his Singapore summit, Trump smartly saluted a North Korean general and then lavished praise on Kim Jong Un as a “strong guy” with a “good personality” and a “great negotiator.” “He’s funny, and . . . very, very smart . . . and a very strategic kind of a guy. . . . His country does love him.”

Predictably, Trump is being scourged for this.

Yet, during his trip to Peking in 1972, Richard Nixon did not confront Chairman Mao on his history of massacres and murder, though Nixon’s visit came in the midst of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, a nationwide pogrom.

MidEast Chess Board

Nor did Churchill or FDR at their wartime summits confront their ally Stalin for his legendary crimes against humanity. Both gushed over “Uncle Joe.”

Still, if the Trump-Kim camaraderie goes south and the crisis of 2017, when war seemed possible, returns, Trump, as he concedes, will be charged with naivety for having placed his trust in such a tyrant.

Yet, to Trump’s credit, we are surely at a better place than we were a year ago when Kim was testing hydrogen bombs and ICBMs, and he and Trump were trading threats and insults in what seemed the prelude to a new Korean War.

Whatever one may think of his diplomacy, Trump has, for now, lifted the specter of nuclear war from the Korean peninsula and begun a negotiating process that could lead to tolerable coexistence.

The central questions to emerge from the summit are these: What does Kim want, and what is he willing to pay for it?

Transparently, he does not want a war with the United States. That black cloud has passed over.

Second, Kim and North Korea have emerged from their isolation in as dramatic a fashion as did Mao’s China in 1972.

In 2018, the North was invited to the Seoul Olympics. Kim met twice with South Korea’s president and twice with China’s Xi Jinping. Vladimir Putin’s foreign minister stopped by. And Kim had a face-to-face summit with a U.S. president, something his grandfather and father never came close to achieving.

It is unlikely Kim will be retreating back into the cloisters of the Hermit Kingdom after being courted by the world’s foremost powers.

 

 

Let Trump Be Trump
Available from the AFP Online Store.

What does Trump have on offer to induce Kim to end the lifetime of hostility? It is a long menu of what Kim can expect if he will surrender his nuclear weapons and dismantle the factories and facilities that produce them.

Among the benefits proffered: recognition of his dynasty and U.S. security guarantees, an end of sanctions, foreign investment, a peace treaty signed by the United States to replace the 65-year-old armistice and the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Korean peninsula.

Trump has already attended to one of Kim’s complaints. The joint military exercises we have conducted annually with South Korea for decades have been declared by Trump to be “war games” and “very provocative” and have been suspended.

What is being asked of Kim in return?

He must provide an inventory of all nuclear weapons and where they are hidden, surrender them all, dismantle his plutonium and uranium production plants, and shut down his testing sites, all under the watch of U.S.-approved inspectors.

He must renounce any and all nuclear weapons forever, and accept a regime of international inspections that would guarantee he never cheats on that commitment.

Here is where the crunch comes. Kim is being told that he must give up the weapons whose very possession by him are the reason why the world powers are paying him heed.

As leader of a country with a per capita income smaller than Haiti’s, Kim is being told he must surrender the weapons that placed him and North Korea in the world’s most exclusive club, to which only eight other nations belong: the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, and Israel.

Will Kim, whose nuclear weapons have enabled him to strut on the world stage and trade insults with the president of the United States, give them up to become the leader of a poor backward nation, with half the population of South Korea and not even 4% of the economy of the South?

Will he give up his most reliable deterrent against an attack by the United States or China?

In the Kim-Trump relationship, this is where the rubber meets the road. Kim has seen how Americans treat nations—like Gadhafi’s Libya, Saddam’s Iraq, and Iran — that decline to develop or surrender the kind of weapons his country took decades to plan, test, produce and deploy.

Should Kim give up his nukes, what U.S. president would fly halfway around the world to meet him one-to-one?

Hence the crucial question: Will he ever really give them up?

 


On June 12, President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un signed an agreement at the conclusion of their historic summit in Singapore. Here’s what it says, according to a photo of Trump’s signed document:

Joint Statement of President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea at the Singapore Summit

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) held a first, historic summit in Singapore on June 12, 2018.

President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un conducted a comprehensive, in-depth, and sincere exchange of opinions on the issues related to the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations and the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Convinced that the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations will contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and of the world, and recognizing that mutual confidence building can promote the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un state the following:

The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new U.S.-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.

The United States and the DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.

Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

Having acknowledged that the U.S.-DPRK summit—the first in history—was an epochal event of great significance in overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening up of a new future, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un commit to implement the stipulations in this joint statement fully and expeditiously. The United States and the DPRK commit to hold follow-on negotiations, led by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level

DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the U.S.-DPRK summit.

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have committed to cooperate for the development of new U.S.-DPRK relations and for the promotion of peace, prosperity, and security of the Korean Peninsula and of the world.




Antifa Hounded Him to His Grave

Fired from his job and suffering from severe emotional and psychological trauma, a brilliant engineer-mathematician has committed suicide after harassment, intimidation, and threats by the neo-Bolshevik antifa activists.

By John Friend

A young, educated, and successful 34-year-old man who participated in the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va. last summer committed suicide after being harassed, intimidated, and threatened by members of the radical leftist antifa (neo-Bolshevik) group for his participation in the controversial and violent rally that garnered international attention.

According to his obituary, Andrew Dodson, originally from Greenville, S.C., took his own life at his home on March 9. Dodson graduated from Clemson University in 2007 with degrees in electrical engineering and mathematics, and began working for DuPont in Louisiana shortly thereafter. He soon decided to continue his education, and enrolled at the University of Arkansas to pursue a masters in electrical engineering, which he never actually completed. Dodson eventually moved to Boston to work for a number of companies specializing in advanced nuclear reactor design. He began working for Elysium Industries Ltd. and was associated with over two-thirds of the provisional patents developed by the company in just 18 months. He later worked for Zora Energy Renewables Ltd. and played a major role in the direction of the company, as he was critical to developing virtually all of the company’s intellectual property.

Kingdom Identity

Following the Unite the Right rally and the publicity his presence and participation generated, he quickly became a target of antifa activists and mainstream journalists, who exposed his identity and harassed him online. He was fired from his job and suffered from severe emotional and psychological trauma.

Photos emerged of Dodson wearing an “Arkansas Engineering” t-shirt at the rally. Multiple individuals associated with the university, including a professor, were misidentified as Dodson after the photo was shared on social media and in local newspapers, and many of them were harassed online. Dodson ultimately took credit as the man in the photo and spoke with local media outlets in Arkansas to set the record straight.

“There’s a couple of guys in Fayetteville that have been misidentified as me. It’s not those guys, it’s not them; it’s me,” Dodson explained to the Arkansas Times. “I’m so sorry, I would never want to hurt you and your family. If they want my t-shirt back, I’ll send it to them.”

Although Dodson did not graduate from the University of Arkansas, he appeared to have enjoyed his time spent there and “learned so much” from fellow engineering students and faculty at the university.

“It breaks my heart that they’re going to think I’m a Nazi, or a KKK, or a white supremacist,” Dodson told the Arkansas Times. “I did not put on that University of Arkansas shirt in order to represent them. It’s really like one of my favorite shirts and I was wearing it when I got on the plane. I just didn’t put two and two together. It was dumb.”

All Out War on Trump
“…A major threat from a radical leftwing group to our national security … Evidence of collusion comes directly from the FBI, which discovered that Antifa—the leftwing terrorist group that has thrown M-80 explosives at pro-Trump demonstrators and helped make college campuses virtually no-go zones for conservatives—has connections with foreign terrorists.” See AFP Online Store for more.

Dodson had prior experience with political activism and campaigned for Ron Paul in 2008. He later participated in both the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Tea Party, and ultimately decided to go to Charlottesville to attend the Unite the Right rally because he wanted to “see who these alt-right people were,” despite the hostile media coverage of the burgeoning political movement.

Dodson encountered the right-wing activist group Identity Evropa during a torch-lit rally on the evening of Aug. 11, the day before the actual Unite the Right rally. Identity Evropa, Dodson discovered, was an “identitarian group” that denounced white supremacy and neo-Nazism, which Dodson appreciated. He explained to local media outlets at the time that he did not “see any Nazi flags, just a bunch of guys in khakis and polos,” referring to the Identity Evropa activists. He thought the rally and many of the individuals participating in it were legitimate activists rather than white supremacists and neo-Nazis. He did eventually encounter members of the KKK and neo-Nazi groups at the rally, but he told reporters he thought that they were bused in along with the more radical counter-protesters, who initiated the violence during the rally.

“I wonder if the same people that bused in the Black Lives Matter [protesters] and the [anti-fascists] and the communists—are the same people busing them in and . . . busing in the Nazis and the KKK,” Dodson asked the Arkansas Times.

He explained that the main problem with the rally was that there were provocateurs and radicals “trying to instigate racial violence—people on both sides—as an excuse to stop us from having our free speech,” which is ultimately what happened at the rally. “I want to talk about the money that is corrupting our systems. I am not going to say that there wasn’t racism there. There was. And I also think it was on both sides. God bless Trump. He’s telling the truth. I condemn racism on both sides.”

“Contrary to ‘official’ reports, Andrew Dodson was a real victim of the events in Charlottesville,” Dr. Jim Fetzer, a retired professor and prolific researcher and author who has written extensively about the Unite the Right rally, explained to this reporter in a recent interview. “He was a sincere participant who was profoundly troubled by ongoing attacks upon him for participating in [what he took to be] a just and peaceful protest.”

John Friend is a writer based in California.




U.S. Christian Conservatives Should Be Supporting Iran

The morals, manners, and devotion of the Iranian people are a model for the U.S., says leading American Catholic intellectual E. Michael Jones. “Islamic Iran is succeeding as a godly society, while the Christian West is failing.” 

By Dr. Kevin Barrett

I recently returned from Mashhad, the biggest city in eastern Iran. Mashhad is a holy city for Shia Muslims. It hosts the shrine of Imam Reza, the eighth Shia imam, visited by millions of pilgrims from all over Iran as well as Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, and other countries including the United States.

This year, for the first time ever, Mashhad hosted a conference on international politics, not religion. The sixth New Horizon Conference, entitled “Jerusalem al Quds: Eternal Capital of Palestine,” brought together 51 notable intellectuals and activists from North America, Europe, Australia, and the Middle East.

This year’s conference transpired at a moment of crisis for Palestine.

On May 8, President Donald Trump torpedoed the Iran nuclear deal. Six days later, Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, presided over the opening of the new U.S. embassy in Occupied Jerusalem—on the same day that Zionist snipers murdered 60 unarmed Palestinian demonstrators and injured 2,771.

It is worth noting that Ivanka, who was raised Presbyterian, is married to Jared Kushner, who is Orthodox Jewish. In 2009, Ivanka herself converted to Orthodox Judaism.

American Freedom Party Conference in Tennessee

This all happened on the eve of Nakba Day, the annual commemoration of the Palestinian Holocaust of 1948, when Zionists murdered thousands of Palestinians and terrorized the survivors into fleeing their country, with more than 700,000 ousted from their ancestral lands.

The death total for the Great March of Return was at least 110 Palestinians. More than 12,000 were injured, thousands by live gunfire, including those permanently crippled by exploding bullets banned by the Geneva Conventions. The Israeli snipers who carried out this month-long massacre were never in any danger from the unarmed demonstrators.

The Jerusalem conference in Mashhad featured a smattering of left-leaning “progressive” Palestine activists, which included: anti-Zionist Israeli Miko Peled, son of Gen. Matti Peled, the hero (from Israel’s perspective) of the 1967 war; Greta Berlin, organizer of the Flotilla to Gaza; and Sander Hicks, a candidate for Congress from New York City. But a larger number of conference attendees represented more traditionalist, conservative, often religious viewpoints. The world’s most influential traditionalist thinker, Alexander Dugin—an Eastern Orthodox Christian and advisor to Russia’s leadership—is perhaps the best known.

Among the many Christians present in Mashhad were E. Michael Jones, one of America’s leading Catholic intellectuals, and Scott Bennett, a Protestant and whistleblowing ex-U.S. Army psyops officer. Interestingly, these two fervently conservative American Christians absolutely love the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I introduced Jones to the organizers of the New Horizon conferences in 2013. After visiting Iran and participating in the February 2013 conference, which featured lively discussion of topics that are taboo in the West, Jones called the Islamic Republic “the capital of the free world.” Since then, Jones has been a regular visitor to Iran for New Horizon conferences. He finds the religiously based social order of the Islamic Republic extremely refreshing and suggests it could in some ways be a model for any Western countries that might someday return to Christianity.

Of course, Jones obviously is not suggesting that Shia Islam, the majority religion of Iran, ought to take over America. His point is that Islamic Iran is succeeding as a godly society, while the Christian West is failing. As he writes in Culture Jihad in Tehran, “Islam has an uncanny ability to arrive on the scene when Christianity is failing in its mission.”

Scott Bennett agrees with Jones that America has strayed from its Christian roots and that Iran’s Islamic Republic could be an exemplar for Christians. The Iranian people’s manners and morals, he observes, compare favorably to those of Americans and Europeans. And the Islamic Republic’s political behavior on the international stage, Bennett agrees, has generally been reasonable, consistent, and principled—while Western and especially Israeli behavior has been anything but.

So why do neoconservative “Christians” like John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Mike Pence hate Iran so much? One possible answer: Bolton, Pompeo, and Pence are owned and operated by Zionists. Iran’s principled support for Palestine puts it in the crosshairs of the Zionist-hijacked U.S. war machine.

Truth Jihad, Kevin Barrett
Now available ($12) from the AFP Online Store.

Another reason why Bolton, Pompeo, and Pence hate Iran is that the Islamic Republic does not have a Rothschild-owned central bank. Worse, it is leading the movement to end the reign of the Rothschild petrodollar as global reserve currency. On April 18, Bloomberg reported: “Iran Dumps Dollar in Favor of Euro Amid Deepening Standoff With U.S.” It is worth noting that other countries that challenged the reign of the petrodollar, including Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya, were subsequently destroyed by the U.S. military.

If Bolton, Pompeo, and Pence were faithful Christians and loyal Americans, they would join Iran’s war on the Rothschild petrodollar. Rothschild funny-money is un-Christian because it is based on usury. And it is un-American because our Constitution demands that the U.S. Treasury Department, not a private cabal of bankers, issue our currency.

Maybe we need a new group: “American Christians for Islamic Iran.”

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.




Bilderberg 2018 Wraps Up – 2020 US President Anointed?

As in years past, the Bilderberg Group meeting was attended by a U.S. presidential hopeful looking for the coveted “Bilderberg Boost.” Given President Trump’s anti-globalist, America-first actions when it comes to trade and funding of NATO, the elite controllers are clearly not interested in seeing him win a second term in office. 

By Mark Anderson

The secretive globalist group Bilderberg held its annual gathering at the five-star Torino Lingotto Congress resort in Turin, Italy, June 7-10. This writer and several activists from groups like We Are Change were actively covering the weekend confab, though anti-Bilderberg protests were nearly nonexistent and mainstream media coverage appears to have been the leanest it’s been in several years.

“I never heard any kind of demonstration group,” Swiss photographic correspondent Thomas Gasser, who reported from Turin. He added that the alternative media on hand, including We Are Change groups, Press for Truth, AFP, and a few others, constituted the only “resistance” outside the hotel where the Bilderbergers huddled.

Think the IRS Never Loses Cases? Think again!

The meeting was heavily attended by national security and military personnel, including former CIA chief David Petraeus. According to the independent “Truthstream Media” news website, their presence suggests that more aggressive policies toward Russia are being considered, running an ever-greater risk of a military standoff, provoked largely by NATO’s increasing movement of military assets toward the Russian border.

In terms of the American domestic connection, the attendance of Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) is of particular interest. While about 6,000 acres of Colorado forest land was being swallowed up by wildfires, threatening about 2,000 homes as Bilderberg 2018 began, the two-term Democrat opted to remain in Turin with the Bilderbergers.

Hickenlooper’s media representative, Shelby Wieman, responded to an inquiry from this AFP writer, stating: “Gov. Hickenlooper took personal time to travel to Bilderberg (at his own expense). The governor has shown leadership and interest throughout his years in public service on many of the topics the conference addressed, including workforce development and the future of international trade.”

True Story of the Bilderberg Group
Big Sale at the AFP Store. 15% off books with coupon “Bilderberg2018” – THIS WEEK ONLY!

What she didn’t mention was that Hickenlooper, a former Denver mayor, has considered running for president, which The Denver Post on March 12 announced with the headline, “Behind the scenes . . . Hickenlooper inches toward 2020 presidential race.”

Given the pervasive concern among the Bilderberg-affiliated intelligentsia that President Donald Trump is kicking the New World Order to the curb piece by piece—as evidenced by Trump thumbing his nose at the snooty G-7 and enacting certain tariffs to offset the massive trade deficits the U.S. has with Germany ($64 billion) and Italy ($32 billion)—the world managers who inhabit Bilderberg and its sibling groups should be expected to scan the horizon for a candidate to push against Trump in 2020.

The reason is simple: Trump has hampered NAFTA’s overhaul and firmly protested the U.S. paying way too much for NATO while member nations that run huge trade surpluses with the U.S. don’t even cover the benchmark 2%-of-GDP membership fee to be in the military alliance. He has also backed out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Paris climate accord. It’s clear the one-worlders don’t want to put up with Trump for two terms.

Big Sale at the AFP Store. Coupon “Bilderberg2018” for 15% off books – THIS WEEK ONLY!

Therefore, all eyes should be on Hickenlooper and whether he will receive the coveted “Bilderberg boost” and suddenly become a shooting political star “destined” to stop populist Trump from serving until 2024.

More evidence of this comes from vaguely worded topics such as “the U.S. before the midterms” and “the U.S. world leadership,” which are on the official 2018 Bilderberg “discussion” list, allude to a focus on presidential politics.

It’s worth noting that Bilderberg’s official topics list has never been all-inclusive and the make-up of the meetings kicks the door wide open for individual discussions, planning, and deal-making, apart from group activities.

After all, sizing up top-tier “presidential material,” going back to Bill Clinton’s debut at the 1991 Bilderberg meeting in Germany just before he began occupying the White House, is sometimes part of Bilderberg’s function.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor.